Justice Alito - A Promise Kept

By 

Jay Sekulow

|
June 21, 2011

5 min read

Supreme Court

A

A

 

As analysis continues of the recently concluded Supreme Court term, its important to take a moment to examine the first full term of the newest member of the high courtJustice Samuel Alito, Jr., who was confirmed by the Senate in January 2006 to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day OConnor.  A closer look at three cases reveals not only important victories for Christian conservatives, but a new Justice who understands and embraces a judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.

 

Justice Alito played a key role ultimately the swing vote in the outcome of three vital decisions last term. And, importantly, he kept a promise a promise he made during his confirmation hearings a promise to uphold the rule of law.

 

First, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the national ban on partial-birth abortion.  The majority with Justice Alito providing the deciding vote concluded that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act expresses respect for the dignity of human life.  Backing the actions of Congress, the high court said the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.

 

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically held that the government may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures . . . in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including the life of the unborn.

 

In  barring the use of partial-birth abortion, the majority focused on the medical profession itself.  There can be no doubt the government has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession, Justice Kennedy wrote.  It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion . . . undermines the publics perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into this world.

 

Then, later in the term, two key decisions once again underscored the importance of Justice Alitos presence on the bench.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court determined that a pro-life group should have been permitted to air advertising in the final months leading up to a 2004 election.  In the consolidated cases of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970), the high court made it very clear that the pro-life speech in a specific case was wrongfully censored.  In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited the ACLJ amicus brief filed in the case in determining that the ads by the pro-life group should have been permitted to air.  (ACLJ reference on pages 16 & 17 of the majority opinion).  While the Justices stopped short of overturning a disturbing provision in the McCain-Feingold law that puts limits on issue advertising in the weeks and months leading up to elections, the decision opened the door to further challenges of these free speech restrictions and clearly represented a First Amendment victory for those who want to express their views on issues that matter most prior to an election. 

 

The decision with Justice Alito again providing the swing vote represents a severe blow to the campaign finance reform provision that can only be characterized as nothing more than blatant censorship.

 

Further, Justice Alito provided the margin of victory when the Supreme Court turned away a federal lawsuit by church-state separationists who challenged the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a program of President Bushs faith-based initiative.  In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the separationists had no legal standing to bring the suit in the first place.

 

In the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (U.S. No. 06-157), the Supreme Court got it right in determining that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to file the challenge.  The decision represents an important victory for the judicial system and for the Presidents faith-based initiative.  It will now be more difficult for separationists to claim special privileges to sue as taxpayers without showing that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way.  By rejecting a claim to special treatment for atheists and other separationists, the high court took an important step toward restoring equity to the legal system with respect to federal challenges in the Establishment Clause arena.

 

In his first full term on the high court, Justice Alito exercised a judicial philosophy that he explained in detail to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during his bruising confirmation battle. A judge cant have any agenda, Alito told the committee.  The judges only obligation -- and its a solemn obligation -- is to the rule of law.  And what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.  He added:  There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law.  No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law; and no person in this country is beneath the law.

 

The newest Justice of the Supreme Court concluded his remarks before the Congressional panel with this promise:  I simply pledge that I will do everything in my power to live up to the trust that has been placed in me.

 

Its clear that the nations 110th Associate Justice is fulfilling his pledge and adhering to a judicial philosophy that is not only proper and sound, but embraced by most Americansa philosophy that upholds the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.