Posted on 11/25/2004 10:01:13 AM PST by nickcarraway
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- With the potential to nominate as many as three or four Supreme Court justices, there is little doubt that one legacy President Bush will have is how he shaped the views of the nation's top judicial panel.
When Bush begins nominating new justices to replace the aging members of the court, one of the key battles will revolve around abortion.
A recentCBS-New York Times poll found that 64 percent of those polled said they thought Bush would appoint pro-life judges who favor making abortion illegal.
They may be right.
A survey of the most often discussed possibilities for Supreme Court appointments indicates many are either pro-life or have issued decisions on legislation favorable to the pro-life community.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
As a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito upheld a Pennsylvania pro-life law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He wrote an opinion in that case arguing for a standard that would permit virtually any restriction on abortion. From New Jersey, Alito is known in legal circles as "Scalia lite" in reference to pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Janice Rogers Brown
Judge Janice Rogers Brown is the first black woman to serve on California's Supreme Court. Her nomination to a federal appeals court has been blocked by Senate Democrats.
In 1997, she issued a well-researched dissent in a case where the California Supreme Court overturned a pro-life law requiring abortion facilities to obtain parental consent before performing an abortion on a teenage girl.
Brown accused the court's plurality of abrogating the constitutional rights of parents, described the court's thinking as circular, and called the case "an excellent example of the folly of courts in the role of philosopher kings."
"When fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable," Brown wrote, "the judgment call belongs to the Legislature. They represent the will of the people."
he also dissented in a decision requiring Catholic Charities to pay for contraception coverage in employee health insurance plans. The decision concerns pro-life groups because it could lead to a requirement that abortion be covered as well.
Brown has also garnered the support of the California voters. In 1998, 76% of voters decided to keep Brown on the bench in their state, the highest percentage of supporting votes in that election.
Emilio Garza
Emilio Garza is a federal appeals court judge on the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Garza's opposition to abortion is beyond question. He wrote two separate opinions explicitly criticizing Roe v. Wade and suggesting it be overturned.
Edith Jones
Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is frequently mentioned as a contender for the high court. She was considered for the Supreme Court seat that eventually went to Clarence Thomas.
If pro-life advocates are looking for a justice who strongly opposes Roe v. Wade, Jones should be a favorite.
When the 5th Circuit denied a request in October by Norma McCorvey to approve her motion to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, Judge Jones issued an opinion blasting the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe and saying it needs to be re-examined.
She called Roe an "exercise of raw judicial power," and cited evidence McCorvey presented showing abortions hurt women.
Jones, a Reagan nominee, wrote that the "[Supreme] Court's rulings have rendered basic abortion policy beyond the power of our legislative bodies."
"The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter," Jones added.
Jones chided the nation's high court for being "so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year," but failing to grasp the fact that abortions destroys the lives of unborn children.
"One may fervently hope that the court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly," Jones said of the 5000 pages of evidence with affidavits from over 1000 woman who have been harmed by abortion.
Michael Luttig
Judge Michael Luttig is a member of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Luttig was a clerk for pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when Scalia was an appeals-court judge.
Later, Luttig worked for the first Bush administration and helped the former president win the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the nation's high court.
Luttig is widely considered one of Bush's top judicial prospects, especially given his young age, 50, and his ability to shape the direction of the court for years to come. He is considered the most conservative judge on one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation.
He is regarded as a threat by abortion advocacy groups because he opposes abortion.
In 1998, Luttig issued an emergency stay of a lower-court order that blocked a new Virginia law banning partial-birth abortions. Eventually, Luttig and the 4th Circuit allowed the pro-life law to remain in place, but were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court and the state's law was struck down.
However, should Luttig be selected for the Supreme Court, he would side with the four judges who comprised the minority in a 2000 case striking a Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban. The legal battle over the federal ban on partial-birth abortions is headed to federal appeals courts and will likely reach the Supreme Court.
John Roberts
Judge John Roberts, a former clerk of pro-life Chief Justice William Rehnquist, recently won confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court. He is a former legal counsel to President Reagan.
As Principal Deputy Solicitor General during the first Bush administration, Roberts played an active role in efforts to limit abortion. Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. [T]he Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court considered whether the Department of Health and Human Services could counsel women to have abortions. Roberts said regulations prohibiting that were constitutional.
Larry Thompson
Larry Thompson was deputy attorney general and the Bush administration's highest-ranking black law-enforcement official until he quit in 2003 to join a think tank, the Brookings Institution. A longtime friend of Justice Clarence Thomas, Thompson now serves as the general counsel for PepsiCo.
Harvie Wilkinson
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, also a member of the Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court, is considered a top prospect for the first Supreme Court seat that opens up.
Wilkinson opposes abortion and is considered someone who may be palatable to Democrats in the Senate because of his more moderate views on other political issues, such as environmental policy.
He voted to uphold a state law allowing parents to know when their teenage daughters were considering an abortion.
(I still believe that anyone strictly interpreting the Constitution would be essentially pro-life, in that they would affirm that Roe is UNconstitutional. Whether or not the authority goes to the states wouldn't change that fundamental interpretation of how laws are supposed to be made, would it?)
What do you think "The RIGHT to LIFE, Liberty..." actually means?????? Sheeesh...
That is a proper question for a supreme court judge to answer, and I am simply saying I want a judge who will answer that question based on a strict and plain examination of the law, not on their own personal feelings on the subject.
To me, this one is obvious. Roe is a hideous, laughable decision, and ought to be overturned.
It ought to be overturned not because it authorizes killing babies, but because it's clearly bad law not based in reality.
It would be nice to know the ages of these judges.
I'm with you on strict Constitutional constructionism, but anyone who has taken time to examine the subject of abortion must come away with a passionate opinion, either for or against. For those truly informed on the matter, there is no gray area.
Abortion, like theft, rape, murder and larceny, are all issues that a state legislature should decide upon, with the exception of acts while on Federal property. While personally against it, I'd rather see California be pro-abort (and anti-death penalty) while I live in a no-abort state than have some black-robed oligarch make the decision all by himself.
For me, abortion itself isn't the critical issue. Roe v. Wade was an abomination that took the decision out of the hands of more local government. It's a step on the path that leads to a complete authoritarian central government.
As long as Roe stands, the ability of the federal judiciary to move into any area it wants to hangs over our heads. Roe must be defeated before we get other, similiar sweeping decisions from the courts on other issues that should be kept at the state level.
If strict constitutionists are appointed to the USSC, we are likely to get decisions that roll back scores of laws on gun control, religion, environmental policy and other issues.
Like you, I'm with the pro-lifers on this issue, up to a point. I don't want the USSC to find abortion illegal. That's no better than what we have now. Another court in a few years could just switch it back, perhaps on a narrow, technical issue.
What I want is a court that sets precedents based around the 9th and 10th Amendments, pushing back the roll of the Federal government and returning the power to the states.
A good model for federal abortion policy by the USSC would be the death penalty statues. States all have different policies on the death penalty. All of them were nullified by one Supreme Court decision due to technical reasons, but the decision only required that the states write better laws. Most of them did and the death penalty is back in operation in most states.
Likewise, a defeat of Roe would return abortion policy to the states. Some of those laws will be poorly written and could be overturned at the Federal level. That's ok, since the state legistlature can just write a new law that fixes the problem.
That's the proper function of the USSC, to ensure that state laws do not violate the legitimate civil right of its citizens. When they do, they get thrown out and the state gets to try again. That's federalism and it works for most other policies. Current abortion policy isn't federalism and it's got to go.
This is the typical subtle lie we've grown to expect from the new york slimes: "A recentCBS-New York Times poll found that 64 percent of those polled said they thought Bush would appoint pro-life judges who favor making abortion illegal." And just how will overturning Roe make abortion illegal? Sick bastards will write any lie to defend the horrific holocaust they want to continue. Liberal pukes want it to be a debate of 'all or nothings' in order to keep it open season on alive unborn children!
Perhaps the second reason first, but both for sure. No U.S. law, especially a bogus law, should authorize the slaughter of millions of pre-born babies.
Hi newbie. Don't you run your life on assumed 'litmus tests'? If not, you're exposing your butt.
Isn't murder up to the States?
One can be pro-life and think the states should determine whether abortion is legal, or pro-life and think that the federal government should determine it, but in either case, one who is pro-life understands that Roe v. Wade is bad law, unconstitutionally made by the SC, and should never have happened.
I agree.
bump
If a judge cannot even understand that killing some child is wrong, do you want him deciding your fate? Any Pro Abortion Judge is brain dead to start with.
What kind of person signs up for Free Republic to snip about abortion on Thanksgiving Day???
What is your problem, idjit?
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.