Posted on 06/29/2018 8:38:05 PM PDT by Morgana
CBS This Morning hosts on Thursday were very worried about the impact of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court, fretting that abortion rights are “doomed” with the vacancy being the “final nail in the coffin.”
Co-host Gayle King forgot to use the pretense of “some say” and instead asked the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo: “But should we be worried about Roe v. Wade going away?” Speaking of Trump, she added: “He did say in a debate that he wanted to pick someone who would eliminate Roe v. Wade, which is why people are a little nervous. Some people are a little nervous about it.”
Fellow co-host Norah O’Donnell had to correct her, reminding: “And some conservatives are happy about it.” Leo shot back by explaining that conservatives care about more than just one issue:
For those who have been in the business a long time, it’s not about overturning particular cases. It’s really about making sure you get the Constitution right. You go wherefore the words take you.
Earlier in the show, O’Donnell talked to CBS Supreme Court analyst Jan Crawford and echoed the worry of journalists: “President Trump is going to have the conservative Supreme Court that Republicans have dreamed of for a lifetime. Does that mean that Roe vs. Wade, which grants abortion, is doomed?”
A transcript is below.
CBS This Morning 6/28/18 7:06:41
NORAH O’DONNELL: President Trump is going to have the conservative Supreme Court that Republicans have dreamed of for a lifetime. Does that mean that Roe vs. Wade, which grants abortion, is doomed?
8:03am
GAYLE KING: Leonard Leo is the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. That’s a group of conservative lawyers who want judges to interpret the law as it was written. He advises President Trump on judicial nominations and spoke to the President yesterday following the announcement of Justice Kennedy’s requirement. Hello, Leonard Leo. Good to see you.
LEONARD LEO: Good morning. Good morning.
KING: Do you want to share what you spoke with the President about yesterday? What did you talk about?
LEO: Well, the president mainly talked about the great meeting he had with Justice Kennedy and how gracious the justice was and how much the President respects the many years of service that Justice Kennedy had.
KING: Can you share with us how this list came about and how you decide who should make the list?
LEO: Well, the list was the President’s idea. He actually called and asked to meet and suggested the idea of doing a list. It was a novel idea. I told him no one had ever done it before, but it was an interesting idea because it would tell people where the president stood on the issue of judicial selection. So, he went ahead and decided to do the list.
KING: What did he say he was he looking for?
PRO-LIFE COLLEGE STUDENT? LifeNews is looking for interns interested in video creation. Contact us today.
LEO: Well, he was looking for three things. One, extraordinarily well qualified. Two, people who are, in his words, not weak and people who are going to interpret the Constitution the way the framers meant to it be, which is the way he put it. Which I thought was an interesting way to do it.
O’DONNELL: You’re being humble Leonard. But you have really been credited along with the Federal Society with being involved in the picks of the last three Supreme Court justices. Roberts, the chief, Alito and Gorsuch. Would you say that’s true?
LEO: Well, Presidents always make these choices. But there’s been no question there’s been a long standing movement in the United States to appoint judges to the court who are going to interpret the law as written and I’m a part on that certainly.
O’DONNELL: Three conservatives on the Court. Let me read this about you. This has been said about you. Quote: “No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo.” Do you believe with this pick, replacing Kennedy, could finally be the nail in the coffin of abortion rights?
LEO: Roe v. Wade has been a scare tactic that’s gone 36 years. All the way back to Sandra O’Connor’s nomination to the Court. And nothing has happened to Roe in that period of time. For me it’s not about Roe V. Wade. For constitutional conservatives, that’s not what it’s about. It’s about interpreting the Constitution as it’s written. And basically interpreting the limits on government power because that’s really the way to preserve human dignity in our country.
KING: I hear you. But should we be worried about Roe v. Wade going away?
LEO: I don’t think people should be worried about Roe v. Wade or any other particular case. I think they should be worried about having judges who are really going to interpret the law as written and understand the culture and political process and make decisions in our society.
O’DONNELL: But were you upset that Justice Kennedy, a Republican, had sided with liberal members when it came to abortion rights?
LEO: I was personally disappointed with that. But the fact of the matter is justice Kennedy has been a very important conservative member of the court on many key issues. ObamaCare, gun rights, Citizens United. In many of those instances I think he understood the Constitution needed to be interpreted as written. So, he parted company with conservatives on a few key areas. But he understand the importance of the Constitution and the way it’s written.
KING: But he did say in a debate that he wanted to pick someone who would eliminate Roe v. Wade, which is why people are a little nervous. Some people are a little nervous about it.
O’DONNELL: And some conservatives are happy about it.
LEO: For those of us. —
KING: Yes. Yes.
LEO: For those who have been in the business a long time, it’s not about overturning particular cases. It’s really about making sure you get the Constitution right. You go wherefore the words take you.
KING: Is there a leading contender for you?
LEO: No there’s not. There’s not.
KING: Really?
LEO: The list is really good.
KING: They’re not in order? You’re just saying anyone?
LEO: No, no, you can throw a dart at that list and in my view, you’d be fine.
O’DONNELL: Leonard, I hope you will come back. We appreciate you being here.
LifeNews.com Note: Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center and a contributing writer to NewsBusters, its blog where this item first appeared. Scott’s blogs have been featured in the “Inside Politics” section of the Washington Times and linked to on the Drudge Report. He is a graduate of George Mason University.
***VIDEO ON LINK****
Doomed? Coffin? …..
Look no further than CBS.
Network of the “Forever Lost”.
“No more abortions” being described by no more nails in coffins is appropriate.
Last week the media was filled with images of children crying because they were separated from there mothers. This week the media will be filled with Democrats weeping and wailing because women may lose the right to kill their children.
Since we should never underestimate the media’s ability to create hysteria on behalf of the Democrats, we should expect that by the time Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is announced, the media will have led the public to expect a monster dripping with blood to come forth to destroy civilization following a brief stop before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Since the nominee will undoubtedly be a mere human being with normal teeth instead of fangs and with outstanding academic and legal credentials, Americans will be so relieved they are likely to embrace the candidate, while the Democrats once again slink away to concoct another media campaign certain to bring down the president.
If abortion was so fundamental, why didn't the pro-abortion folks get some legislative basis or actually work for a Constitutional amendment?
Back when I was young, I was moderately "pro-choice." But even at age 15, I was able to see that Roe v. Wade was a fraud. The legal reasoning was crap. And if a bright 15 year old who had sympathy for the heart-tugging arguments of "pro-choice' folks could see it, why can't everyone else?
These leftist women spouting off about their abortion “rights” on social media are obviously a bunch of sluts. They assume that all women are slutty like them. WRONG.
“Back when I was young, I was moderately “pro-choice.” But even at age 15, I was able to see that Roe v. Wade was a fraud. The legal reasoning was crap. And if a bright 15 year old who had sympathy for the heart-tugging arguments of “pro-choice’ folks could see it, why can’t everyone else?”
When I was 15 I was pro choice. Even until I was a young woman. It started to change when I became Catholic. The more I got into my faith the more I became pro life. I have The Virgin Mary and some of my Catholic friends to thank for that.
Roe v Wade is an abomination against constitutional law. The Supreme Court made abortion the law of the land by an insane decision to the “Right to privacy.” This had not one damn thing to do with constitutional law. It was the Supreme Court acting as a legislative body which is most dangerous.
I myself find abortion evil. However, I also know that this is the individual states that must define it and has not one damn thing to do with the supreme court of activists. The abortion debate right or wrong belongs in the courts of the individual states and not the Federal Government.
As mentioned I find the act of abortion evil. I also recognize this evil or not must be defined by each and individual state. If the state does not have this authority, it becomes not a state but the servant of the insane Federal Judiciary activist system.
I hate abortion. I also know full well if it is a crime or non crime it must be defined by the state and not the Federal Judiciary.
Some states have already passed legislation which would guarantee almost unlimited abortion rights in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned.
This is about as ridiculous a thing to say as being distraught because “murder is doomed”.
Not holding my breath.
They always act like the world is over anytime stuff isnt going their way.
Thats just it. It goes back to being what it was, a states rights issue. Which it always was.
Since when have the people on the left ever told the truth.
If all they do to those babies born alive in an abortion, was printed for all to read, we’d find out how many has the stomach to do that to an innocent little baby. For those who have no problem with stabbing the throat of a baby so he/she could not scream when being aborted... for tearing limbs from that little baby... cutting parts of that little baby and selling them so the adults in charge can have their toys in life. For those who has no conscience left and all that matters is their “bodies”.... you are lower than low!
I don’t see this as a black and white or either/or issue. While many of us believe life starts at conception; others believe it isn’t quite so. There’s a development phase before the fetus becomes a true living baby. The scientist currently believe the ‘baby’ feels pain at or about the the 20 week mark that has developed a working nervous system and brain.
I don’t know if a compromise can be made to agree that’s when the scientific definition of life starts or not but it should be explored. Perhaps it can be agreed that is when the fetus becomes a baby. I don’t know. I do know having an abortion should not be a routine thing. If a woman has more than one; I believe there is a problem and lack of responsibility going on by that woman (and her partner(s)).
I don’t have a dog in this fight at all. I’m a guy and I have never been responsible for an abortion happening but do know women who have had abortions including the one my own mother had long ago. I’m simply an interested party trying to see all sides while respecting the beliefs of all as well.
Heres hoping CBS is right for change.
More than sixty million innocent unborn babies have been doomed by the Roe v. Wade decision, so far. It would be a good thing if that decision were now doomed, since it was completely outside the scope of Enumerated Powers in the Constitution of the United States. Even ignoring the moral implications of mass murder and just considering this from the legal perspective, Roe was a shockingly terrible decision.
We’ll probably need another two conservatives before it’s over turned. Roberts is shaky about it.
And supermajority are minority babies. Liberals are weird.
Of course it is nothing of the kind, but wouldn’t it be great?
The distorted Liberal mind goes nuts when an illegal immigrant child is separated from his or her parents for a few days but they love it when a child in the womb is separated from its family forever. (By the way, weren’t illegal immigrant children separated from their family when Clinton and Obama were president? Must have been okay with Liberal then as I don’t recall any major Liberal protests).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.