Replies

Q: If there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

A: I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the US. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. That's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion; that's not what the Constitution says. So I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. Judges interpret the Constitution. No litmus tests except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004

A "personal property rights" case. (MY body, MY body, MY body!) Interesting choice of cases to bring up on the heels of an abortion question.

For him to bring up Roe v Wade would've been political suicide in this context, and he knew it, which is why he brought up the slavery case in its stead. Because until more people are educated ON abortion and its ramifications... he cannot come out and state "Yes my goal in promoting a culture of life is to overturn Roe v Wade". He would lose those voters who are on that rickety fence with "Well I wouldn't have one, but I won't stop someone else from having one."

The only way that I see to change hearts and minds on abortion is to educate people on the Value of Life.