Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Bush's Potential Supreme Court Picks are Pro-Life on Abortion
LifeNews.com ^ | November 24, 2004 | Steven Ertelt

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Texas; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: agenda; appointments; bush; bust; court; edithjones; emiliogarza; janicebrown; janicerogersbrown; jharviewilkinsoniii; judge; larrythompson; michaelluttig; nominees; presidentbush; samuelalitojr; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: Huck
It ought to be overturned not because it authorizes killing babies, but because it's clearly bad law not based in reality.

I see it as a two-fer. I don't approve of killing kids and I don't approve of Judges who try legislate from the bench.

41 posted on 11/25/2004 4:00:31 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (I shall follow your advise to the letter...the day I replace my brain with a cauliflower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
And just how will overturning Roe make abortion illegal?

It is an admission on their part that once Roe v. Wade is gone that there is enough public sentiment against abortion that laws will be passed at the State level making it illegal at least in some states.

As technology advances more and more people are coming to reject the abortion argument that it is not a baby. You see a blob on the screen it is one thing, you see a little face, that is quite something else. The child can no longer be de-humanized. Once that happens you can no longer say that killing them is not murder.

42 posted on 11/25/2004 4:08:06 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (I shall follow your advise to the letter...the day I replace my brain with a cauliflower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

For me, it's definitely a one-fer. For one thing, overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal. It will allow some states to make it illegal, and will allow for common sense laws like parental notification, but you'll still have legal abortions and pills. So it's not pro-life. It's simply correcting a bad decision.


43 posted on 11/25/2004 4:34:01 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Huck

As I understand it, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life.

Therefore, abortion is clearly unconstitutional. Enough said. Bring these new Justices on!


44 posted on 11/25/2004 4:56:28 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (Stop Hillary - PEGGY NOONAN '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Huck

It ought to be overturned because it authorizes killing babies. Period.


45 posted on 11/25/2004 5:12:10 PM PST by skr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The prerequisite for the incoming Supreme Court Justices need NOT be based upon complexion, race or creed, but whether they are strict Constitutionalists who value the sanctity of life in the womb.

Why should this be so hard?

46 posted on 11/25/2004 5:17:08 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I know it will not make it illegal. But it will make it no longer mandatory for it to be legal as it is now.

That to me is pro-life.

Small steps.

47 posted on 11/25/2004 6:47:08 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (I shall follow your advise to the letter...the day I replace my brain with a cauliflower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...

Thanksgiving day prayers for life!


48 posted on 11/25/2004 6:48:22 PM PST by narses (Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
As I understand it, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life.

Not in so many words. That is part of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. However it does state that no one may be deprived of life or property without due process.

If we acknowledge that children in the womb have the same rights as children out of the womb then before the child can be killed there must be due process. The child must be accused of a crime, there must be a trial and the child must have legal representation. The jury of his peers is going to be a bit tricky also to even stand trial a person must be able to assist in his own defense. Even if you manage that I have yet to hear of a single case where a pre-born child comitted a capital crime so that should pretty much end it.

49 posted on 11/25/2004 6:57:02 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (I shall follow your advise to the letter...the day I replace my brain with a cauliflower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
As I understand it, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life.

Apparantly not to the Founders who wrote and ratified the document. They had their own state laws on the subject. Scalia points that out in demonstrating the absurdity of a constitutional protection of abortion, when the plain facts show the federals are not supposed to be involved in this matter at all. You may still believe that the unborn ought to enjoy Constitutional protection, just know that that would respresent a departure from the actual meaning and force of the document.

50 posted on 11/25/2004 10:11:09 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
but whether they are strict Constitutionalists who value the sanctity of life in the womb. Why should this be so hard?

As long as they have the first part, the second part is irrelevant.

51 posted on 11/25/2004 10:11:57 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: skr
It ought to be overturned because it authorizes killing babies. Period.

The overturning of Roe merely returns the regulation of baby killing to the states. I presume Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, California and several other states will continue the practice post-Roe. In fact, the overturning of Roe will show that much of the democrat scare mongering is nothing more than hype. Most women will still have access to abortions post-Roe.

To me, baby killing is just one more policy question. The issue is how policy questions get resolved. Judicial fiat of any kind is wrong and must be stopped. Congress, a beast in its own right, is more easily contained than unaccountable judges. I want the people to take back the process of government. Then we will be in a position to address all the important issues.

52 posted on 11/25/2004 10:16:24 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
As I understand it, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life.

Point it out to me. I don't recall. In fact, the Constitution infers the right to deprive life in the 5th amendment. At that time, states had their own laws on abortion and the national government had nothing to do with it.

53 posted on 11/25/2004 10:20:06 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Huck
"As long as they have the first part, the second part is irrelevant."

In theory...

Remember "David Souter."

54 posted on 11/25/2004 10:25:38 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Remember "David Souter."

I don't get your point. Souter is not a strict constructionist.

55 posted on 11/25/2004 10:30:16 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter

I'm most impressed with Janice Rogers Brown, based on this article. I like where she says "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."


56 posted on 11/25/2004 10:32:10 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I think the Court could legitimately go beyond just overturning Roe v. Wade and move to outlaw abortion, being that the right to life is the most clear constitutional principle. No one has a right to deny the right to life to another without due process of law, even the states.

I wouldn't expect that to happen though. For one thing, NOW would suicide-bomb the Judges' chambers.


57 posted on 11/25/2004 10:32:26 PM PST by streetpreacher (There will be no Trolls in heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck
" Souter is not a strict constructionist."

George H. Bush & Co. were a bit sloppy with their "research," and discovered that fact much too late.

58 posted on 11/25/2004 10:34:57 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
George H. Bush & Co. were a bit sloppy with their "research," and discovered that fact much too late.

That's true. He was truly a disaster. I don't think GWB's team will make that mistake. GWB has promised Scalias. I'm hoping he delivers precisely that. Janice Rogers Brown seems to fit the bill. I'll have to read more on her.

59 posted on 11/25/2004 10:37:00 PM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; Huck

As I understand it, many states passed laws that restrict or outlaw abortion and they will have the force of law should Roe be overturned.

So, yes, that is a pro-life move on the part of the Court.


60 posted on 11/25/2004 10:37:26 PM PST by streetpreacher (There will be no Trolls in heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson