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.
Run along?
Your presumption on the abortion question extends to personal relations I see.
A little exaggeration to make the point. I think you follow what I am saying, and I understand your position as well. You pragmatically seek a remedy on abortion, while I idealistically seek good government.
"Nice strawman argument", tossed in when the question wasn't even posed to you, does not merit a polite response. It was an obnoxious post which you are following up, not surprisingly, with more obnoxious posts. I wasn't speaking to you. Do you butt into conversations in real life, or just on the internet?
Allowing the butcher of 42 million babies hardly qualifies as 'good government'.
The first duty of government is to protect the weak and the helpless.
I don't get your point. Any overturning of Roe would send the issue to the states.
FReepmail is the place for private conversations.
This is an open thread, for the purpose of the debate of issues.
What do you supppose Scalia meant when he wrote:
by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
Seems to me he thinks the popular will should decide abortion. That seems to be taking his personal opinion out of things to me.
Personally, I don't think the Court should 'send it back to the states'.
I think they should rule that abortion in any form anywhere is a blatant denial of the most fundamental God-given liberty of the pre-born American.
And I think there is plenty of grounds for such a ruling in the Bill of Rights.
My point is that Roe would be overturned not on the basis of an unborn child's right to life. Once overturned, states would have the "right to choose," as democrats put it. A right of the unborn to life will not be asserted by the court. If the people wish to assert such a right, they can amend the Constitution. Otherwise, Scalia-minded justices intend to leave it to the popular will. That's the right to choose, not the right to life.
Every time the American people have expressed their political will on abortion, the abortionists have overwhelmingly lost...only to be rescued by judicial fiat.
So you think Scalia is totally dispassionate on this issue?
Which I might say reaffirms the wisdom of a free people. I'd rather have a free people deciding these issues than an unelected unaccountable court any day.
That's the whole point.
But even if a free people decided to disenfranchise a whole class of people, the unborn, from enjoying the most basic of rights, the right to live, it would still be a lawless act.
To expand: even if 100% of Americans voted to allow murder, murder would still be a violation of the most fundamental law of all: "Thou shall not commit murder."
Human beings are made in God's image, and are therefore of inestimable worth. No 'democratic' process can change that.
Such is the core reason we have a republican form of government and not a democracy.
Based on my readings, which include many of his dissents in key cases, as well as a book he published where he debates Lawrence Tribe and others, as well as transcripts of speeches and lectures he's given, I believe he is quite capable of doing his duty appropriately.
I think he is frequently passionate in his arguments. He brings quite a bit of passion to the job. But that passion is directed at judging law, interpreting law, being a steward of the Constitution, upholding our republican system, and most of all, resisting with all his force the tendency of the court to just go with what they think and feel, and to hell with the law, we'll come up with a fancy argument for the outcome we want.
Do I think he has a personal view on abortion? I think the odds are he is against abortion in most cases, maybe all. I don't believe he judges the way he does to accommodate his view on abortion. I think he rightly emphasizes and acknowledges the passion surrounding the issue.
But all of that is moot: What does he say professionally? He says the states should be free to decide for themselves.
It's nice to run into someone who 'gets it' once in a while.
Federalism ain't perfect, but it's the best thing we've got.
It would be nice to actually live under it.
Nice post. Thanks.
L
It's too late to start that discussion in earnest. You're point is arguable for sure. I sometimes equate in my mind the Scalia position on abortion with the Stephen Douglas position on slavery, known back then as "popular sovereignty." I'm sure you remember that. Let the states decide. The abolitionists of course hated it, and so did the slaveholding hotheads. They wanted either an absolute right for or against. In the end, the question was finally settled, after a bloody war, by constitutional amendment. I believe that will ultimately, and perhaps appropriately, close the issue. Or will it?
If he thinks that the states have the right to determine that innocent defenseless children can be killed in cold blood by ghouls, I think he is wrong.
The Fifth Amendment deals with this issue when it says that 'no person' may be deprived of life, liberty or property without a fair trial.
Such fundamental rights cannot be infringed by the states.
The idea that they can be was and is silly.
you're=your. it's late.
Indeed.
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.