debate.jpg
A few pro-abort bloggers are complaining Democrat presidential candidates weren’t up front enough in last night’s Vegas debate about their intention to choose Supreme Court nominees based their belief that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.
Bloggers thought candidates coded this by saying they would pick nominees who believe 1) in the “right to privacy,” and 2) that Roe v. Wade is “settled law.”
This should indeed be a concern. Note no one is saying these days they believe abortion is constitutionally sound on The Point: preborn humans aren’t constitutionally protected persons….


The other side would lose the battle today on The Point. The exact moment of conception can now be viewed under microscope. Preborn humans are now filmed. Other laws are starting to stack up against Roe that consider preborns persons and killing them murder, like Laci and Connor’s Law.
So one’s “right to privacy” is nullified when one kills an innocent person.
And you can’t really find much more pathetic straw grasping than the “settled law” argument since the Supreme Court has overturned plenty of prior bad decisions. Dred Scott. Brown vs. Board of Education. Etc.
The lamenting bloggers apparently don’t get this. Their candidates cannot argue the constitutional merits of abortion on abortion itself.
The transcript of the pertinent section of last night’s Democrat debate below. Note something very telling John Edwards said:

But I want to go beyond what some others have said here, because it is so crucial, if you grew up like I did in the segregated South and you saw how important it was to have federal judges who had some backbone and were willing to stand up against popular opinion…. That’s the kind of courage and strength we need in a United States Supreme Court justice.

Did Edwards just admit abortion support is not predominant American opinion?
And Obama’s chatter that “the role of the court is… to protect people who may be vulnerable… those who don’t have a lot of clout” makes me want to become uncivil.
Here is a sampling of the liberal blog complaints:
From National Journal’s On Call:

Why can’t the frontrunners say pro-choice?
What qualities would you look for in choosing a Supreme Court nominee?
Respect for country’s privacy laws, Clinton said.
Obama: “Part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process …”
Edwards, too, with the privacy talk and discussion of protection for a judge who desegregated schools.
Where are Kate Michelman and Kim Gandy and the Emily’s Listers on this issue? Why aren’t they demanding more of their Democratic candidates on the choice issue? Especially with the SUPCO in flux …

debate%203.jpgFrom RH Reality Check:

At the end of an often tedious debate filled with canned responses tweaked, parsed and refined from the previous tedious debates, the Democratic candidates for President were asked how they would choose a Supreme Court Justice. The question came from an undecided Nevada Democrat, and CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux added her own addendum, “would you insist nominees support abortion rights?”
Each candidate affirmed in some way they would pick justices that would be fair, understand the experience of the everyday American, protect the marginalized and support the right to privacy enshrined in the United States Constitution.
At that point, right before the all important “diamonds or pearls” question, I threw a pillow at the TV screaming, “WHEN ARE YOU ROBOTS GOING TO WAKE UP?”
I’m thrilled that each candidate can offer a canned response reassuring voters what they already know, but I’m wondering when the candidates might move beyond the stump speech and help Americans understand what is really at stake with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One thing is certain, those opposed to rights Americans currently enjoy understand what’s at stake and they rally their base and campaign on it every where they go: “one, two, three more justices” is the Social-Con mantra.
But the Democrats can’t seem to break out of their programmed responses long enough to fire up their base, or educate independent voters on what really is at stake. Instead, like a quarter in a juke box they hear Supreme Court in the question and think “R-73 … play pro-choice privacy response.”

Reproductive Rights Prof:

[A]ll seemed to avoid addressing the issue of abortion directly and instead couched their answers in terms of “privacy” and Roe v. Wade as “settled precedent.”
Unlike some scholars who think equality is (re)emerging as a sounder foundation on which to base the right to abortion, the Democratic presidential candidates certainly don’t appear ready to stray from Roe’s doctrinal underpinnings.

[Photo credits: top, Los Angeles Times; bottom, Associated Press]
Read entire transcript here.
DODD: Obviously, as someone who’s pro-choice and have been their entire public life and career, I feel very strongly about Roe v. Wade. I would not want a justice to be appointed who would even think about overturning that….
But I’d want to be careful about making sure that I’d know the person… when they make the statement that they will uphold precedent and they raise their right hand before the Judiciary Committee and make that committee, and then violate that commitment. That I find highly offensive….
BLITZER: All right, let’s go through the whole panel. I want everybody to weigh in; this is an important question that was raised with Senator Biden.
Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?
BIDEN: … We have enough ideologues. We have enough professors on the bench.
I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone – literally, not a joke…. We wanted to get someone who, in fact, knew what it was to live life. Knew what it was – not as some intellectual feat….
And by the way, the next person that is appointed in a Biden administration is going to be a woman….
Number two… I would not appoint anyone who did not understand that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment provided a right to privacy. That is the question I would ask. If that is answered correctly, that that is the case, then it answers the question, which means they would support Roe v. Wade….
RICHARDSON: I would have diversity as a prime criteria, but I would also ask my nominee, this is what I would ask. Number one, do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law? Number two, do you support the right to privacy?…
If the answer is no to those questions, that basically say, is it settled law or not – you want to call it a litmus test, fine – those would be the judges that I would appoint to the Supreme Court….
KUCINICH: A Kucinich appointment to the Supreme Court would have a litmus test on abortion. It’s a question of a woman’s right to choose and a right to privacy. But a president has to do more than that. A president has to be a healer. And this has been one of the great divides in our country. And so I want to let the American people know that I’ll stand for prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, a living wage, universal health care, sex education, birth control… We can make abortions less necessary if we have a healer in the White House. And we can also protect a woman’s right to choose. We can do both….
CLINTON: Well, they’d have to share my view about privacy, and I think that goes hand-in-hand. Privacy, in my opinion, is embedded in our Constitution. What does it mean to have a right to free speech or the right to worship as you choose if you also don’t have the right to be left alone, to have that privacy that goes with being an American. So it would be absolutely critical. And I, like Senator Biden…
BLITZER: So the answer is yes.
CLINTON: Yes, the answer is yes….
BLITZER: Senator Obama, you used to be a professor of law.
OBAMA: I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy. But you’re right, Wolf. I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they ruled. But it’s their conception of the court.
And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout. And part of what I want to find in a Supreme Court justice – and Joe’s exactly right. Sometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the courts.
If we can find people who have life experience, and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court….
EDWARDS: I would insist that they recognize the right to privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law.
But I want to go beyond what some others have said here, because it is so crucial, if you grew up like I did in the segregated South and you saw how important it was to have federal judges who had some backbone and were willing to stand up against popular opinion…. That’s the kind of courage and strength we need in a United States Supreme Court justice.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...