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****
Buncha d@mn radicals, wanting the law interpreted as it was written. / bitter sarc
Leftist hype, as usual. The SCOTUS should not have legislated anything about marriage or abortion in the first place, so a Constitutionalist SCOTUS should turn all such matters back to the states where the Tenth Amendment says they belong. State LEGISLATURES then make those laws. The lazy state politicians are happy to have federal courts make the laws,especially on hot button issues, but it is unconstitutional.
You know, just like the 10th Amendment says.
Oh but wait, no one has ever been able to do that...
Let them go ahead and try it in Oklahoma or Massachusetts or anywhere in between and see how it works out for them.
It sure seems that way. They are fanatical about their "right" to murder unborn children. That is not normal behavior. That's downright evil.
The conservatives on the SCOTUS are master strategists. They know of several ways to win or lose an argument, and are also aware of the short term, middle term, and long term consequences of everything they decide.
While I could go on at length about this, let me boil it down to just two choices.
Is it more important to win a long term fight, but in such a way that there is no cheering, celebration, or feeling of victory?, or,
Is it more important to break even, or only win a little, on a short term basis, where you get to rub the other side’s face in the mud and claim moral superiority, with much cheering and applause?
Oddly enough, most people are happier with a moral victory and cheering, than a complete victory and silence.
There are a large number of birth control pills & devices. Either use those or keep your legs together.
I am tired of these ‘women who want it all’ who cannot see that it is THEIR personal choices that are causing this problem.
CBS pimps new hype Russia Russia Russia scam flamed out what low life’s.
Put William Pryor on the Supreme Court and Roe vs. Wade will be doomed.
It is interesting when some women claim that men get to have it all.
The life of each genetically human baby indisputably begins at their conception.
That is the point at which they first have a father as well as a mother and are a member of a family.
I’m a man and no woman has any right to kill any baby of mine between conception and birth,
According to the crisis mongering MSM, virtually every Republican appointed SCJ beginning with Justice Kennedy was supposed to be the end of R v. W. 45 years later, R v. W is still the law of the land........
What would the MSM do if they didn't have a crisis to blame on President Trump?
More ginned up fake controversy by the MSM............
Yeah, and the rats have had several opportunities since 1973 to establish Roe through statute or Constitutional amendment. They didn’t do either because they knew they couldn’t pass.
Sixty million and counting death sentences by a majority of nine lawyers must stop. They will.
said those exact words....
my tagline is from Proverbs 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death
explains a lot
They are obsessed with death. It’s disturbing.
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.