Viguerie Right About Sandra Day O'Connor

Newsmax.com ^ | 7-16-03 | Carl Limbacher

[ovrtaxt]

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

	For the story behind the story...

Click Here Click Here

Wednesday, July 16, 2003 Viguerie Right About Sandra Day O’Connor Conservative direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie is crowing about a prediction he made back in 1981. At the time he warned that President Ronald Reagan's first Supreme Court nominee, Sandra Day O'Connor, would turn out to be a liberal vote. Others including the elderly Barry Goldwater proclaimed O'Connor to be a conservative stalwart. Another Republican who has a history of using his conservative credentials to help liberals was Kenneth Starr, who as independent counsel let the Clintons off the hook. Back to Viguerie. In the August 1981 edition of his Conservative Digest magazine, he ran a series of articles showing that O’Connor was not the conservative she was alleged to be, but more of a flaming pro-abortion liberal. He and his editorial staff made a persuasive case showing O’Connor to be a staunch liberal who voted pro-abortion when she served in the Arizona state senate. The magazine exposed her pro-abortion record, her opposition to tuition tax credits, her support for the ERA and host of other leftist causes. Scores of top leftists such as Sen. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio were quoted as praising her appointment to the high court, and conservative and pro-life leaders were unanimous in condemning her nomination. Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak asked, "Why Did He Choose Her?" Pat Buchanan called her appointment a "cracking apart of Ronald Reagan’s Great Coalition." Starr, however, took the lead in pushing for O'Connor's confirmation. In 1981 as counselor to Attorney General Smith, Starr played a role in selecting Day O’Connor as Reagan’s nominee. To help her pass muster with anti-abortion stalwarts in the White House and Senate, Starr wrote a memo endorsing her and assuring Republican insiders that O’Connor would be a solid conservative vote on the bench. He implied that she would take an anti-abortion stance. At the time, Starr's memo was leaked to the Washington Post and helped push the nomination forward, even though White House conservatives were hearing from Republicans in Arizona, O’Connor’s home state, that she had a record as a liberal. Omitted from Starr’s memo was the critical fact that as a state legislator O’Connor had supported a pro-abortion law. The Post reported that anti-abortion groups were calling Starr’s memo "a cover-up.” All in all, Viguerie’s magazine proved to be right, and reading that issue explains why nobody should have been surprised by her vote against the Texas sodomy law, a ruling that has opened a slew of possibilities. Widely regarded as a "swing vote" on the court, she has swung far left on many occasions, giving the court's four leftist justices a vote needed to impose their agenda. "The GOP establishment and the media came down hard on us, but we were right even though the White House tried to reassure us she was a conservative," Viguerie recalls in a letter to conservative leaders. "And we will have no one to blame but ourselves if we fail to let the President and his advisors know that we will not stand for his nominating another O’Connor or David Souter." Gonzalez Another Souter? Now Viguerie is sounding a new alarm conservatives need to heed. He puts it this way: How do you say "David Souter" in Spanish? Answer: "Albert Gonzalez." Gonzalez is widely rumored to be President Bush’s first choice to fill the Supreme Court's next vacancy.

[ovrtaxt]

Considering our conversation the other day, I thought this might be pertinent. Now Jim, I said I agree with your logic about the importance of Court nominations, and the willingness to take a big government price tag to gut the liberal judiciary. Stopping abortion is worth it.

I also said I was skeptical of Bush's willingness to nominate true conservatives or libertarians, based on his track record of spending so far.

Of course, who is Viguerie? Maybe he's correct and maybe not. I certainly hope not.

[Support Free Republic]

Is Someone Else Carrying Your Water?
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[ovrtaxt]

"In the August 1992 Libertarian Party News the results of a study by Don Ernsberger were published. Don evaluated the voting records on 18 key cases of each member of the Supreme Court during the 1991-1992 term. The results, interestingly, were three liberals, two centrists, two conservatives, and two authoritarians."

I found this on friesian.com. I wish it were updated, as Souter has turned out to be a leftist after all. And Ginsberg, of course, is an extreme leftist.

[raybbr]

Interesting to be sure. Where was this guy on the all the RINO's we are now faced with in federal offices?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Omitted from Starr’s memo was the critical fact that as a state legislator O’Connor had supported a pro-abortion law. The Post reported that anti-abortion groups were calling Starr’s memo "a cover-up.”...

[Noachian]

O'Conner's appointment is a perfect example of the hole left in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

An appointed justice added to the Supreme Court by elected politicians, given a lifetime appointment without any accountability to The People, and turning out to be an activist justice who helps to alter our society by unconstitutional means was not the intent of the Founders.

Was her appointment in keeping with the Constitution? Yes.

Was her appointment to the High Court a danger to our society? Yes.

Is there a "practical" way to ger rid of her if The People so wish? No.

Once she is gone from the bench is there any guarantee that the justice who replaces her will not do damage to our society? No.

The present system of judicial appointments may have worked well in the 1700's, but the character of the people being appointed today have changed, the character of the people doing the appointing today have changed, and the character of today's society has changed.

The Founding Fathers knew situations would arise that would require changes, and they left us instructions as to how those changes should take place.

What the Founding Fathers never intended was for the Constitution to be a suicide pact.

The Founders made it plain that when our freedoms were at stake The People were to make any changes needed to secure those freedoms including amending the Constitution.

We now face a time when our free society is being alter, by the High Court, in a way that will eventually enslave us and our children. Making those nine black robed elitists accountable to The People via the voting booth is exactly what the Founders would have done had they known the of the havoc now being inflicted upon us.

[PGalt]

Interesting post, comments. Thanks

[ricpic]

What would be the wording of the amendment to the Constitution that I assume you are recommending to correct the situation we are in ( a SCOTUS over-riding constitutional restraints based on it's whims)?

[xzins]

I agree.

We must bring about the election of Judges. We can make it for a long term (9 years), and we can make it renewable.

First, we must bring the opportunity for CHANGE into the process. Next, we must bring accountability into the process.

[John O]

"Upon appointment by the president and confirmation by the senate, a judge shall serve a term of at least six years. Upon the first federal election after the six year anniversary of said judge's appointment, the judge shall face a retention vote. A vote not to retain by sixty percent of all voters voting in said election will result in said judge being removed from the bench."

(Rough draft)

[Noachian]

What would be the wording of the amendment to the Constitution that I assume you are recommending to correct the situation we are in ( a SCOTUS over-riding constitutional restraints based on it's whims)?

I'd mimic, to a great extent but with obvious changes, the simple language of the 17th Amendment subjecting Senators to elections by the people. The 17th Amendment serves as a precedent to elect government officials who were once appointed to office as does the 12th Amendment subjecting the President and Vice President to election.

The numbers of years and the amount of justices would be debateable.

DIRECT ELECTION OF JUSTICES

a. The Judiciary of the Supreme Court of the United States, and all inferior courts, shall be composed of nine Justices elected by the people for six years; and each Justice shall have one vote. The electors of each state shall have the the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislators.

b. When vacancies happen the legislature of each state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. Until the people fill the vacancies by election no temporary appointments may be made by any branch of government.

c. This amendment shall be effective immediately upon ratification, and elections shall commence six years from the date of ratification for sitting justices.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Making those nine black robed elitists accountable to The People via the voting booth is exactly what the Founders would have done had they known the of the havoc now being inflicted upon us.

No, they didn't have that faith in democracy. Instead they provided what they thought was permanent assurance that the state governments would forever be represented equally in the Senate.

In fact what the 17th Amendment does is to provide that no state governments, only the people of the several states, are represented in the Senate. And by complying with it if not indeed by actually ratifying it, all the state governments consented to it!!!

Because the Senate no longer represents the state governments, SCotUS has treated state laws are fair game, with no fear that the Senate would convict an impeachment as a majority of justices of SCothUS have since the 1930s so richly deserved! Absent a Constitutional Amendment to restore that linkage in some way, the trend is irreversable IMHO. Rather than a simple repeal of the 17th, one could propose a mechanism where senators were state governors, or runningmates thereof. Which might entail changing the senators' terms to 4 or 8 years . . .

The fact that justices read newspapers implies thatthey are subject to the flattery and derision of the perpetrators thereof; see Slander for a discussion of what that implies! Direct election of justices would if anything make that worse.

[ninenot]

There is no question that Viguerie is correct about the Ken STarr/O'Connor/Reagan deal. We have a FReeper who knows that entire story (and related it to me three weeks ago.)

God help the Republic if V's right on the next one...

[ninenot]

Ping

[ninenot]

Agreed. State's powers/rights have been eviscerated on an accelerating basis since 1917--although, to be fair, they took a nuclear-bomb hit in 1865...

And election of SCJustices? Becomes a popularity contest, even more politicized than currently.

[xzins]

I would begin the elections within 2 years and have 3 classes within each court with the 1st class elected at year 2, 2nd at year 4, and 3rd at year 6.....again, similar to the Senate.

The Supreme Court Justices will be based on a national election, the inferior courts will be elected based on the geographic extent of their own regions with all regions required to encompass whole states and not partial states.

Nominations can come from the President or the state legislatures.

[Theodore R.]

Viguerie published a magazine in the 1980s called the "Conservative Digest," shaped like the "Reader's Digest." It was a very interesting magazine. I suppose that it did not attract the subscribers or the advertisers.

Jerry Falwell and Howard Phillips also warned about O'Connor, but Republicans would NOT listen. And they won't listen about Alberto Gonzales (yes, it's with an "S," not a "Z" at the end) either.

[Consort]

Based on the Popular Vote in the last General Election, it appears that the majority of people are happy with what the Supreme Court is doing. Yes? No?

[Jim Robinson]

Maybe he is, and maybe he's not. The point is, at least we have a chance. There is NO chance at all if we leave it to the Democrats. Abortion is their official platform.