Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy's replacement to loom large in 2012 presidential election

kennedy obama.jpg

I don't recall another Supreme Court justice announcing that the timing of her or his retirement hinged on who was president, even though we all know this is the undercurrent, barring mitigating circumstances.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy has said it out loud, telling his inner circle he doesn't want President Barack Obama to be The One....

Continue reading "Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy's replacement to loom large in 2012 presidential election"

Randall Terry serenades Elena Kagan

This from Christina Bellantoni at TalkingPointsMemo yesterday:

randall terry darth.png

The lone protester from Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings was back at it this morning, tormenting Hill staffers on their way to Senate office buildings with a mock "serenade" to Kagan.

Randall Terry, dressed as he often is in a "death" robe, sang a rendition of Only You, to Kagan through a bullhorn. Presumably this was to suggest that she's death's favorite person since she's pro-choice. Or something.

Terry's frequent antics on Capitol Hill have been well documented. He told TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro that other protesters are wimpy for not showing up to the confirmation hearings....

Continue reading "Randall Terry serenades Elena Kagan"

Pro-life group calls for investigation of Kagan for descrepancies in testimony while MSM ignores

Human Events reported this morning:

kagan day 2 reuters.jpg

It must have taken a Herculean effort for editors and reporters to ignore the most genuinely newsworthy development yesterday: Evidence that, as a White House staffer in 1996, [U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena] Kagan lobbied two medical associations to produce "scientific" support for the Clinton administration's position on partial-birth abortion....

Continue reading "Pro-life group calls for investigation of Kagan for descrepancies in testimony while MSM ignores"

Important federal court decision: Allows lawsuit to move forward to stop NIH funding of human embryo experimentation

obama escr funding exec order.jpgBackdrop: On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order lifting President Bush's August 9, 2001, statement banning federal funding of new human embryo stem cell lines.

As an important aside, Obama's last action in his EO was (click to enlarge)...

Continue reading "Important federal court decision: Allows lawsuit to move forward to stop NIH funding of human embryo experimentation"

Prominent NARAL, Planned Parenthood speaker and former Clinton administration legal eagle predicts overturn of Roe v. Wade

naral dellinger 2.png

NARAL will likely be scratching Walter Dellinger off its speakers list, as will Planned Parenthood....

Continue reading "Prominent NARAL, Planned Parenthood speaker and former Clinton administration legal eagle predicts overturn of Roe v. Wade"

Judge rules neighbors can proceed with lawsuit against Aurora Planned Parenthood

In 2007 the Thomas More Society, on behalf of neighbors, sued Planned Parenthood of Chicago and the City of Aurora, the former for violating multiple zoning ordinances when building its Aurora abortion mill under false pretenses and the latter for saying "that's ok" when PP's subterfuge was discovered.

planned parenthood aurora now open.jpgTMS added a claim that to this day the City of Aurora continues to refuse to apply the correct zoning ordinance to PP, even after the City admitted its attorneys applied the wrong ordinance to PP in September 2008.

Since 2007 PP/Aurora have filed 3 separate motions to dismiss.

Today there was a huge victory for our side....

Continue reading "Judge rules neighbors can proceed with lawsuit against Aurora Planned Parenthood"

Obama nominates Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

UPDATE, 11:29a: Yet another red flag. While pro-life groups are coming out against Kagan's nomination en masse, the pro-abortion group NARAL is amenable to Kagan, as indicated in the statement below.

Shock: I happen to agree with NARAL on one of its points - that abortion and Roe v. Wade should be discussed in Kagan's confirmation hearings.

Also note the ironic use of the term "vacuum," which as Susie Allen pointed out to me immediately draws pro-lifers (like she and I anyway) to think of vacuum aspiration abortions. Click to enlarge...

naral kagan 2.png

UPDATE, 11:17a: Interesting statement on Kagan's nomination from Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference. Miranda's perspective is one of a Senate Republican leadership dissident...

Continue reading "Obama nominates Elena Kagan to Supreme Court"

Obama: No litmus test for Supreme Court nominee... but abortion support mandatory?

This is one of those times when I'm stymied that so many people could be blind to the fact that Obama is an emperor with no clothes.

Yesterday when asked by a reporter whether he would demand that his Supreme Court nominee support Roe v. Wade, Obama responded, "I don't have a litmus test... but..." and proceeded to outline his abortion litmus test.

This is one of those times when Obama showed himself to be an intellectual idiot whose primary speaking ability is making his nonsense sound lofty, thereby taking in the idiotic masses....

Continue reading "Obama: No litmus test for Supreme Court nominee... but abortion support mandatory?"

Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Stevens to retire

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgFrom the Associated Press, moments ago:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest member and leader of its liberal bloc, says he is retiring. President Barack Obama now has his second high court opening to fill....

Continue reading "Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Stevens to retire"

Mom who starved baby to death gets new trial; jury "prejudiced" because she considered abortion

Keeping abortion legal is harder than people think. The courts must always be on guard since legalized abortion is an aberrancy in the law, defying logic, common sense, and morality, and running contrary to all other laws protecting innocent human life.

amy stephenson.jpgKilling innocent preborns, either intentionally or unintentionally, is increasingly illegal in almost all circumstances except abortion. Of course, killing innocent postborns of any age is always illegal.

The following story about Amy Stephenson, pictured right, demonstrates the hoops courts will jump to keep abortion separate from all other murders, particularly of newborns. To even suggest the desire to kill one's preborn baby may translate to killing the same postborn baby is anathema....

Continue reading "Mom who starved baby to death gets new trial; jury "prejudiced" because she considered abortion"

National Right to Life hopes fetal pain bill will trigger US Supreme Court ruling

I wrote this in my January 27 column about a new bill introduced in NE:

tiny feet, abortion, fetal pain, nebraska, national right to life, pain awareness act.jpg

The Abortion Pain Prevention Act takes us into a whole new world of abortion law, banning all abortions after 20 gestational weeks on the basis of a preborn baby's capacity to feel the pain of it all. At this age a baby anatomically "has the physical structures necessary to experience pain," states the bill, based on scientific evidence....

Continue reading "National Right to Life hopes fetal pain bill will trigger US Supreme Court ruling"

Roeder's lawyers request new trial, and I hope he gets it

scott roeder, abortion, george tiller, jezebel 1.jpgBefore researching Scott Roeder's trial for the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, I thought pro-aborts were paying such close attention to proceedings simply to try to magnify the event as a PR stunt to implicate all pro-lifers.

After researching, I realized much of the reason pro-aborts were watching the trial so closely was to guard their interests....

Continue reading "Roeder's lawyers request new trial, and I hope he gets it"

WaPo columnist after attending March for Life: "Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous"

Interesting observations from pro-abort Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney on January 24:

March for Life, Washington Post, abortion 1.jpg

I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn't it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What's more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.

How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it's gaining strength, even if it's not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous....

Continue reading "WaPo columnist after attending March for Life: "Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous""

Last week's Supreme Court decision rattles pro-aborts

8:45p: Here's what Jezebel thinks:

roberts scalia, roe v. wade, abortion.jpg

Pro-choice advocates are worried about 2 things when it comes to the Supreme Court's ruling in this case: the court's willingness to abandon decades of established legal precedent (stare decisis); and the court's decision to pick a legal question not explicitly presented to them by the case to overturn a law they'd apparently already made up their minds about. These very things are, when it comes down to it, exactly what anti-abortion advocates are cheering.

jezebel if judges think.png

7:50p: Pro-aborts have become increasingly reliant on the principle of stare decisis, or settled law, to prop Roe v. Wade....

Continue reading "Last week's Supreme Court decision rattles pro-aborts"

Why a US appeals court struck Pittsburgh's abortion clinic bubble-buffer zone

Basically pro-aborts overreached. A bubble zone would have been fine. A buffer zone would have been fine. But not a bubble-buffer zone. From the Associated Press, November 2:

Pittsburgh, abortion, buffer zone, pro-life, protest.jpg

In a ruling issued Friday, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals found the 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance unduly restricted protesters from passing out leaflets and participating in other forms of free speech. The Pittsburgh law bans protesters from standing within 15 feet of entrances but also makes them stand 8 feet from clients in a 100-foot buffer around entrances....

Continue reading "Why a US appeals court struck Pittsburgh's abortion clinic bubble-buffer zone"

Supremes decline IL Choose Life license plate lawsuit

illinois choose life.jpgI am a plaintiff in the IL Choose Life specialty plate lawsuit against the State of IL (specifically Secretary of State Jesse White), which, btw, implicated former state Sen. Barack Obama.

Reported The Washington Times this morning...

Continue reading "Supremes decline IL Choose Life license plate lawsuit"

Judge Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court

sotomayor waving.jpgUPDATE, 6:20p: Thoughts on the Sotomayor nomination and confirmation process by Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice:

Although the numbers in the Senate ensured that the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor was never in doubt, those of us committed to restoring the rule of law to the federal judiciary have many things to be happy about in how Sotomayor's confirmation battle played out. Those include Republican senators' courage in mounting a strong opposition; the repudiation of the living Constitution philosophy that has been so fashionable in recent decades; the multi-edged defeat of identity politics; the strong signals sent to the White House about future Supreme Court picks; and the profound change in the politics of judicial confirmations wrought by the explosion of the Second Amendment issue....

Continue reading "Judge Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court"

Federal judge: Oakland City's abortion mill bubble ordinance constitutional

walter hoye contra costa times.JPGI've written several times about Pastor Walter Hoye, who violated Oakland City, CA's, ordinance creating an 8-foot bubble around mothers entering abortion mills (at present only 1, Family Planning Specialists Medical Group) that pro-lifers couldn't pop when distributing literature.

For his crime Hoye chose in March to spend 19 days in jail over a judge's offer of community service. Hoye went on to challenge the bubble ordinance in federal court. On August 4 came work Hoye lost his first round. According to the Contra Costa Times:

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld an Oakland city law that bars people from approaching within 8 feet of women entering abortion clinics, dismissing a constitutional challenge brought last year by anti-abortion activist Walter Hoye....

Continue reading "Federal judge: Oakland City's abortion mill bubble ordinance constitutional"

Underplaying abortion involvement, did Sotomayor perjure herself?

UPDATE, 9:35a: The Americans United for Life blog has a new post entitled, "Sotomayor contradicted herself on what she knew about PRLDEF abortion advocacy." This includes a statement made by Sotomayor only yesterday morning during the Senate hearings on her Supreme Court confirmation explaining her involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund that directly contradicted with her testimony in the afternoon expressing ignorance about 6 radical pro-abortion briefs PRLDEF filed.

yoest testifying.jpgIn her testimony yesterday, Americans United for Life's Charmaine Yoest made the case that Sonia Sotomayor would be a pro-abortion radical on the Supreme Court.

Yoest detailed radical pro-abortion briefs submitted by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, of which Sotomayor was a board member...

Continue reading "Underplaying abortion involvement, did Sotomayor perjure herself?"

Charmaine Yoest's testimony at Sotomayor hearings

UPDATE, 7/17, 7:15a:

Here is video of Charmaine's testimony yesterday:


aul_logo.jpgYou read it here first. Below is the text of the testimony that AUL's President Charmaine Yoest will give any moment now at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor in both pdf and Word formats:

Yoest Testimony.pdf

Yoest Testimony.doc

It can also be read in full online here.

Yoest to testify this afternoon at Sotomayor confirmation hearing

UPDATE, 9:12a: The Washington Post blog has thoughts about the minority's pick of Charmaine to testify on the pro-life issue today:

Yoest is a calm, articulate, smart abortion opponent -- the kind who gives abortion-rights supporters nightmares.

[HT: Colleen O'B]

charmaine head shot.jpgI previously wrote that Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, would be the sole pro-lifer testifying at Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotmayor's Senate confirmation hearings.

Charmaine has posted on AUL's blog that today's the day. Here are details:

My testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take place tomorrow (Thursday) afternoon - please tune in and then let us know what you think. If you're not able to view the hearings on TV, you can view the hearings online at We've heard that some of the Senators want to do some aggressive questioning, so we appreciate your support....

Continue reading "Yoest to testify this afternoon at Sotomayor confirmation hearing"

GOP senators get A for Abortion on Sotomayor grilling

Bravo, bravo. Click on first few words in each piece for link to entire article...

soto 1.JPG

On the abortion front, I'm struck by two dynamics at work in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. One: Republicans are attacking the idea of a constitutional right to abortion with a unity and forthrightness not seen in years, grilling Sotomayor on how the Constitution could be construed to contain such a right.

Two: As Republicans lift their voices on the issue, Sotomayor is evading all questions about her personal views on abortion. While recognizing that she considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law, Sotomayor has gone out of her way to obscure her personal position, disavowing signs that abortion rights supporters and opponents have taken as evidence of her pro-abortion rights views....

(Read excerpts from 4 more articles on page 2.)

Continue reading "GOP senators get A for Abortion on Sotomayor grilling"

Pro-life shout outs at Sotomayor hearing: good or bad?

prolife protester sotomayor.jpgAltogether, 5 protesters - all pro-life - have disrupted Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, 4 yesterday and 1 today. On page 2 were yesterday's. Two came during Franken's statement (last clip), 1 of those being Norma McCorvey, aka Roe in Roe v. Wade...

Continue reading "Pro-life shout outs at Sotomayor hearing: good or bad?"

Sotomayor: Roe v. Wade is "settled law"

Today Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor questions on the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade:

Read the transcript of the exchange on page 2.

I previously wrote that Americans United for Life's president Charmaine Yoest will be the sole pro-lifer testifying at the Sotomayor hearings. She responded today...

Continue reading "Sotomayor: Roe v. Wade is "settled law""

Sotomayor opening features shout-out from pro-lifer

UPDATE, 11:50a: Great post by Wendy Long at National Review Online, "Partial-Birth Abortion questions for Sotomayor," since Sotomayor played a part in the 2004 case during the federal appeal sprocess.

[HT: moderator Carder]

UPDATE 11:33a: If Sotomayor's confirmation is almost guaranteed, why debate?

Well, first there is this possibility, a quote by the Third Branch Conference's Manny Miranda in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, July 11...

That's right, she could Bork herself....

bork arguing.jpg

Because her personality is different than (Samuel) Alito's, (Chief Justice John) Roberts', Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter. Her personality could be more similar to Robert Bork, who basically Borked himself because of his demeanor and the way he approached the intellectual feast that was his hearing.

And so she might have that same problem. ... She has what I recognize as the Hispanic gene, which is the desire in an argument to get the last word.

But that's not likely. So this becomes as important. From the National Journal, July 11...

Continue reading "Sotomayor opening features shout-out from pro-lifer"

AUL's Charmaine Yoest sole pro-lifer to testify at Sotomayor hearing

UPDATE, 5:18p: AUL's legal team has assembled a "Top 10 questions to ask Judge Sotomayor" and is giving us the opportunity to vote for the 1 we'd most like to see asked.

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee released its list of witnesses to testify at the confirmation hearings beginning Monday of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

charmaine 2.jpgI'm excited and proud that Americans United For Life's President Charmaine Yoest made the list of 14 for the minority party.

But I'm not excited she's the lone pro-lifer. Noted David Weigel of The Washington Independent, "The presence of only one pro-life activist on the list is striking." Indeed. It's as if Republicans can't read the polls, as if they have a (pro-)death wish.

Other witnesses on the Republican side: 3 will testify on the gun issue, 5 on affirmative action, 2 on constitutional law, 2 on presidential power (1 unknown: Peter Jeffries of P7 Enterprises).

And again, only 1 pro-lifer - on the issue of biggest concern to both sides re: Supreme Court nominees.

Ginsburg on Roe and eugenic abortions

UPDATE, 7/12, 7:15a: Here's more insight on Ginsburg's comments by Wesley Smith at First Things, including the fact some of her comments were views on abortion policy, which as a Supreme Court justice she shouldn't express.

I've been reading and rereading Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's interview in The New York Times Magazine, upcoming in hard copy this Sunday but published online July 7. This part I understood:

ginsburg nyt.jpg

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

Ginsburg: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.

Ginsburg was saying that with or without Roe, women "of means" did and will have access to abortion due to the financial ability to get themselves to states where it was and will be legal. (And even if illegal they have had and would have access.) Roe is about making abortion available to "poor women."

This part I had trouble with...

Continue reading "Ginsburg on Roe and eugenic abortions"

Pro-abort skepticism of Sotomayor a con game?

Yesterday I wrote, then deleted for this post my conspiracy theory, that pro-aborts were expressing concern about Sonia Sotomayor's Roe v. Wade bonafides for the express purpose of deflating pro-life concerns about same.

Last night a DC conservative insider confirmed them.

sotomayor applause.jpg"I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory," she said. "It's strategy. We employed the same strategy during the Roberts and Alito confirmations, particularly Alito."

She said Alito was a stealth candidate similar to Sotomayor. "We knew Alito opposed Roe," she said, "just as with so many pro-abort leaders on the inside of the White House now they know without a doubt that Sotomayor supports Roe."...

Continue reading "Pro-abort skepticism of Sotomayor a con game?"

The fight over Sotomayor: both sides of abortion issue engaged

If I were watching only t.v. news, including Fox, I'd think the fight over Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, was over before it started.

All I hear are warnings for Republicans to back away for fear of losing the Latino vote. (Where were warnings for Dems to back away when they viciously maligned judicial nominees Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada?)

But then I read the blogs, and the fight is growing huge, not just among conservatives but surprisingly among liberals, as I noted yesterday. Read the latest from Daily Kos (click to enlarge):

Daily kos sotomayor 3.jpg

On our side Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice blog left me questioning Sotomayor's infallibility. The piece he wrote yesterday should be read in full. Here's a snip...

Continue reading "The fight over Sotomayor: both sides of abortion issue engaged"

Plot thickens re: Sotomayor's abortion stance

UPDATE, 10:40a: And at least 1 Daily Kos blogger is accusing Obama of "throwing women and pro-choicers" under the bus by his Sotomayor pick:

daily kos sotomayor slide 1.jpg

(The statement by Sotomayor came in her favorable ruling of President Bush's reenactment of the Mexico City policy.)

[HT: commenter Joanne]

UPDATE, 10:20a: The Center for Reproductive Rights, which Sotomayor ruled against in her 2002 Mexico City policy decision, has also issued a "wait and see" statement on Sotomayor, agreeing with NARAL she needs to say plainly whether or not she supports Roe v. Wade (click to enlarge)...

Continue reading "Plot thickens re: Sotomayor's abortion stance"

Breaking news: Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

UPDATE, 5/27, 10a: From the Washington Times, today:

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60% reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

3 of the 5 majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents....


sotomayor with pres.jpg

UPDATE, 5/26, 10:50a: CBN's David Brody itemizes Sotomayor's track record on abortion.

  • Quoting, "Sotomayor... has not directly issued any rulings on abortion but she has been involved in abortion cases."

  • One of those was Sotomayor's opinion in 2002 against pro-aborts challenging President George W. Bush's signing of the Mexico City policy, although her ruling coincided with a 2nd Circuit's prior decision on a "virtually identical claim," according to the SCOTUS blog.

  • Sotomayor also, according to, "wrote an opinion overturning, in part, a district court's grant of summary judgment against a group of pro-life protestors. Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates."

    UPDATE, 5/27, 7a: That statement was misleading. I've read more about the Sotomayor decision about those pro-life protestors, and she ruled in their favor. Read details on her decision at the Christianity Today blog.

    UPDATE, 5/26, 10:07a: Obama's angles on Sotomayor...

    Continue reading "Breaking news: Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court"

  • Conservatives gear up for Supreme Court fight

    sea legs.jpgRepublicans had difficulty getting sea legs when Supreme Court justice David Souter announced 3 weeks ago he was retiring. But they may - just may - be abandoning the frustrating cordiality not returned to them on SC nominees. Reported the Huffington Post May 18:

    The rationale is gradually being put in place for Republicans to mount a filibuster of Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

    On Sunday, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, suggested that the country had moved to a place "in which there is not as much deference"... given to the President's Supreme Court nominees as in the past. Earlier, he refused to "rule out" using a filibuster.

    Former Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie wrote in the Washington Post, May 20...

    Continue reading "Conservatives gear up for Supreme Court fight"

    New poll on Supreme Court: Americans think conservative

    Today Americans United for Life released fascinating poll data by Kellyanne Conway's group, the polling inc./WomanTrend. AUL detailed the findings in a letter to senators:

    justice is blind.jpg

    By overwhelming majorities, Democrats, Republicans and Independents agreed that judges should exercise restraint and check their own beliefs and predispositions at the courthouse door.

    They agreed on upholding common sense abortion regulations already in place in the states, including parental consent laws, and objecting to late-term abortions and taxpayer-funded abortions in the US and overseas....

    Continue reading "New poll on Supreme Court: Americans think conservative"

    Jennifer Granholm, Sebelius II?

    Americans United for Life has published what it considers the short list of Barack Obama's prospective Supreme Court nominees to replace retiring David Souter.

    Not on its short list but on its "other potential nominees" list is MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

    granholm obama.jpgThe Associated Press just reported:

    ... Granholm... will be at the White House on Tuesday.

    An administration official says the Democratic governor is coming... for an event unrelated to the Supreme Court. It is not clear whether Granholm will be meeting with Obama about the upcoming vacancy on the court....

    Continue reading "Jennifer Granholm, Sebelius II?"

    Looks like no rubber stamp of Obama's Supreme Court pick

    Yesterday Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he didn't have the votes to confirm Dawn "pregnancy is slavery" Johnsen head the Dept. of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. Seems her liberal ways have lost her not only GOP votes but more crucially, votes from his own side. According to Roll Call:

    dawn johnsen 2.jpg

    "Right now we're finding out when to do that," Reid said.... "We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60."...

    But Reid indicated... at least a few Democrats would also oppose Johnsen, making the task of reaching 60 votes to avert a Republican filibuster even more difficult.

    Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) "is very concerned" about Johnsen's nomination... pointing to her tenure as the legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America as a point of concern....

    Continue reading "Looks like no rubber stamp of Obama's Supreme Court pick"

    When Biden wept for joy; his history with David Souter

    Dr. Paul Kengor wrote a disturbing column yesterday for The Center for Vision and Values. Makes me sick, actually. What disgusting, pathetic people.

    Here are excerpts:

    souter sober.jpg

    Is he pro-life or pro-choice? That was the giant unknown hanging in the balance one day in 1990 as President George H. W. Bush nominated a mystery man named David Souter for a Supreme Court seat....

    America got its answer in 1992 in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.... Souter was the decisive swing vote in the narrow 5-4 majority, enshrining Roe v. Wade as law of the land.

    Among those most euphoric over Souter's vote were 2 liberal Senators from opposing parties... Joe Biden (D-DE) and... Warren Rudman (R-NH)....

    Continue reading "When Biden wept for joy; his history with David Souter"

    Talking smart about Obama's Supreme Court pick

    aul logo.jpgCharmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, sent a letter to Senate Democrat Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy yesterday that was pretty brilliant....

    Continue reading "Talking smart about Obama's Supreme Court pick"

    Names being floated to replace Souter; Specter may be fly in replacement ointment

    anita hill.jpgUPDATE, 1:40p: Vanity Fair is suggesting Obama pick Anita Hill to replace Souter. Funny, I think.

    [HT: Matt Lewis]

    These have been gathered from Chattah Box, the Chicago Tribune, Fox News, the New York Times. The list includes men, although most think the new pick will be a woman. I've filled in bios where I've learned them:

  • Ruben Castillo, US District Court judge for the Northern District of IL...
  • Continue reading "Names being floated to replace Souter; Specter may be fly in replacement ointment"

    Supreme Court Justice David Souter to retire

    david souter cnn.jpgUPDATE, 9:30a: Souter's abortion history on the SC, according to Americans United for Life press release:

    ... Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe stated, "Justice David Souter is one of the most pro-abortion members of the US Supreme Court. During his tenure, Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand and to strike down common sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support. He voted in 2000 and again in 2007 to strike down prohibitions on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. As many votes on abortion have been 5-4 decisions, his presence on the Court has extended the tragedy of abortion by restricting the right of states to make their own decisions on abortion law."

    And from

    Continue reading "Supreme Court Justice David Souter to retire"

    Epilogue: Tiller found not guilty

    UPDATE, 3/28, 10:15a: Although written a few hours before the Tiller verdict, this post by National Review Online's Denis Boyles in The Corner, which should be read in its entirety, sums up what happened:

    I've spoken to several people who are very close to this case, and the expectation is that Tiller will be acquitted.


    The state's lackadaisal case, one knowledgeable observer said, was "embarrassing." The state assigned a single prosecutor to the case. Tiller has a 5-member team, including a former US Attorney. The state called one witness - Kristin Neuhaus, the doctor who signed off on Tiller's near-birth abortions. She was given immunity by [pro-abortion Attorney General Steve] Six and, not surprisingly, was an extremely hostile witness....

    Continue reading "Epilogue: Tiller found not guilty"

    Second look at Palin's Planned Parenthood pick

    christen.jpgAK Gov. Sarah Palin's Supreme Court pick of former Planned Parenthood member Morgan Christen (right) was complicated.

    According to several news reports but synopsized on conservatives4palin.

    Gov. Palin's power to appoint judges is very limited in this process....
    [S]he can only choose names from a short list supplied to her by the Judicial Council. And in this instance, they sent her 2 names that she would never choose on her own, but she had no recourse to demand more names. No, this Alaskan system is not ideal.

    We're told 6 candidates applied and the AK Judicial Council (stacked 4 lawyers against 3 Palin picks) forwarded only those 2 for Palin to pick between. According to

    Continue reading "Second look at Palin's Planned Parenthood pick"

    Pro-life pastor faces sentenced to 30 days in jail

    by Carder and Jill

    hoye 2.jpgUPDATE, 2/20, 7a: San Francisco Chronicle, today:

    A pastor at a Berkeley church was sentenced Thursday to three years' probation and fined $1,000 after becoming the first person convicted under an Oakland ordinance barring protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic.

    Walter Hoye could have faced up to 2 years in jail after a jury convicted him last month of 2 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully approaching patients at the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group....

    The case was an emotional one, and pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates jammed the Oakland courtroom for the sentencing hearing. Dozens of people unable to find seats filled the hallway outside....

    Continue reading "Pro-life pastor faces sentenced to 30 days in jail"

    Obama, the first filibusterer

    From the Committee for Justice blog today:

    [T]he Deseret News reports on a February 13 speech by Ken Starr. The article summarizes Starr's message:


    If President Barack Obama is hoping for bi-partisan support of his future U.S. Supreme Court nominees, he may have painted himself into a political corner ... because he actively opposed nominees from former President George W. Bush... supported a filibuster against Justice Samuel Alito and voted against John Roberts.

    As Starr notes, Obama finds himself in the awkward position of being "the first president of the United States ever in our history to have participated in a Senate filibuster of a judicial nominee."

    Multiple filibusters in fact (Obama also supported a filibuster against Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick in 2007). Quoting the Washington Times, Starr concludes that Obama's Senate record on judges leaves him "hard-pressed to call for bipartisan help confirming judges or even an up-or-down vote."

    [Graphic courtesy of]

    Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg undergoes surgery

    ginsburg cancer.jpgUPDATE, 12:25p: From the Associated Press:

    She will remain in the hospital for seven to 10 days, said her surgeon....

    The court said a CAT scan revealed a tumor measuring about 1 centimeter across the center of the pancreas.


    UPDATE, 12:22p: From NPR...

    Continue reading "Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg undergoes surgery"

    Bishops: No more Mr. Nice Guys

    In a follow-up to my post yesterday comes this from the Associated Press, November 11:

    The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

    bishops meeting 2.jpg

    In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

    And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching....

    Continue reading "Bishops: No more Mr. Nice Guys"

    Ginsburg: Roe decision "bit off more than it could chew"

    Former ACLU attorney and current US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at Princeton over a week ago, on October 21, and I'm not surprised pro-abort bloggers have steered clear of discussing it. Read The Daily Princetonian's account to know why:

    When asked about the discrepancy between her support of a woman's right to choose and her disapproval of Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to legalized abortion in 1973, Ginsburg said that she was surprised by "how far the court had gone [in this decision]."

    ginsburg at princeton.jpg

    "It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to say that the extreme cases are unconstitutional" without broadening the decision to the 50 states.

    Ginsburg said that the abruptness of the decision, which declared many state statutes unconstitutional, created a "perfect rallying point" for people who disagreed with the notion that abortion should be a woman's choice. She added that the decision may have also stifled dialogue with state legislatures....

    Continue reading "Ginsburg: Roe decision "bit off more than it could chew""

    Supremes awaiting Dem prez to overturn Roe?

    Pro-aborts are bantering a new theory: that the U.S. Supreme Court is awaiting the election of a Democrat president to "throw a wrench into the plans of a new administration" by overturning Roe v. Wade.

    kennedy photo.jpgThat theory relies on another theory that Justice Anthony Kennedy has converted from being "tepidly pro-choice" to pro-life over the course of time. Roe was decided in 1973. Kennedy came onto the Supreme Court in 1988 and was initially considered an anti-Roe vote. Then came 1992, as CNN reported in 2004:

    As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way....
    Continue reading "Supremes awaiting Dem prez to overturn Roe?"

    5 (or 374) reasons to vote for McCain

    supremes ages.jpg

    I checked the ages, and they're accurate. It should also be noted that Antonin Scalia at age 72 is no spring chicken either. We stand to lose even more ground under an Obama presidency.

    [HT: Illinois Review]

    McCain's right answer on Supreme Court picks

    CBS News' Bob Schieffer asked this during last night's presidential debate:


    Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn't. Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?

    McCain began with the Republicans' wimpy, worn response. Democrats have no problem saying one's position on Roe v. Wade is a deal maker or breaker; why don't we?...

    Continue reading "McCain's right answer on Supreme Court picks"

    SD to enforce law that abortion "ends a human life"

    From today's Rapid City Journal:

    South Dakota will begin as early as Friday to enforce a 2005 law that requires doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life....

    12 week old embryo.jpg

    An order issued by a federal judge means that as of Friday, there will no longer be any court order preventing the state from enforcing the law....

    Planned Parenthood, which operates SD's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, will comply with the law....

    "We will do what the law says, but clearly the law is extreme and flawed and wrong,"
    [spokesperson Kathi] Di Nicola said.

    PP believes the courts will eventually strike down the SD law....

    Continue reading "SD to enforce law that abortion "ends a human life""

    Senate judges battle: Obstruction meets obstruction

    I reported earlier in the week that 8 Republican senators held a forum to spotlight the Democrat obstruction of judicial confirmations. This Congress has only confirmed 10 of President Bush's Circuit Court nominees (one step below the US Supreme Court), an unprecedented small number.

    Today, Majority Leader Reid allowed the confirmation of 2 District Court judges (2 steps below the Supremes), trying to obfuscate his stonewall on more important confirmations. This after stating on the Senate floor the issue of judge confirmations is not important:

    Housing is a difficult problem. Energy, a difficult problem with gas prices. Global warming. Education. But I'm telling you, Madam President, I can't ever remember going home and somebody telling me and saying, could you guys do some more judges?

    fighting dems gop.gifBut Minority Leader McConnell wasn't placated and stepped up his own blockage of business to keep up the pressue:

    To that end, several events occurred today to underscore - again the Democrats' refusal to confirm Circuit Court nominees.

    First, Judiciary Committee Republicans boycotted today's hearing, thereby preventing it from occurring....

    Continue reading "Senate judges battle: Obstruction meets obstruction"

    Weyrich: "Conservatives are unwittingly aiding in the destruction of America"

    Paul Weyrich is considered the founder of the modern conservative movement. In a July 11 National Ledger op ed he wrote (entire piece reposted on page 2):

    ... The grand formalities of American election rituals hide a glaring fact: Americans can no longer claim that we are our own rulers....

    empty seat in court.jpg

    We gave judges their robes and gavels so that they might resolve specific disputes between specific plaintiffs and defendants. We never gave them authority to issue commands to our elected lawmakers, forcing us down roads which we have not chosen to travel. Judges have no constitutional authority to make laws or to amend our national and state constitutions. They have no authority to redefine words and concepts in our laws to mean what they and their ideological partisans wish for them to mean....

    [HT: reader John H.; photo courtesy of the National Ledger]

    Continue reading "Weyrich: "Conservatives are unwittingly aiding in the destruction of America""

    Senate forum on Bush's judicial nominees

    judicial hearing.jpgI just attended a US Senate forum on the status of President Bush's judicial nominees, held by 8 Republican senators: Alexander (TN), Allard (CO), Cornyn (TX), Dole (NC), Grassley (IA), Kyl (AZ), McConnell (KY, Senate minority leader), and Specter (PA, ranking member of Judiciary Committee). That's a lot of senators.

    C-SPAN3 covered the hearing, of which I was unaware until I arrived, or I would have given you the heads up.

    The purpose of the hearing was to dispel the so-called "Thurman Rule" excuse Democrats have lately been touting to halt the confirmation process, reiterate the emergency situation in many district courts, and underscore the erosion of the rule of law when there is such a critical shortage of judges....

    Continue reading "Senate forum on Bush's judicial nominees"

    Update on Senate shutdown over Dem broken promises on judges

    I've written for a long time about Senate Democrats obstructing confirmation of President Bush's circuit court nominees.

    In fact, one would have to go back to 1848 to match their pace. During the last 2 years of Clinton's reign, 15 nominees were confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate. During Bush's last 2 years, 8 nominees have so far been confirmed. The typical average is 17.

    I've written for months that Republicans were becoming increasingly exasperated with Democrat stall tactics, obviously to keep as many spots open as possible pending the hopeful election of a Democrat president, despite the fact some are now considered "emergency vacancies."

    reid mcconnell 5.jpgOn May 22, as the Memorial Day deadline approached when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had promised 3 confirmations and only produced 1, Republicans rattled their sabres louder.

    So it should have come as no surprise when on June 4, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell used a parliamentary procedure to shut down the Senate to force movement from the Dems on judges. He demanded a 491-page bill be read in full, his prerogative....

    Continue reading "Update on Senate shutdown over Dem broken promises on judges"

    Breaking news: Republicans shut down Senate

    Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgI wrote May 23 that Senate Republicans were threatening to do something if Senate Democrats didn't fulfill promises to confirm more judges.

    When I emailed a source asking what that was, the source responded, "As [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell] told the Senators, 'You will recognize it when you see it.'"

    Well, this afternoon we're seeing it....

    Continue reading "Breaking news: Republicans shut down Senate"

    Reid lied, judges denied

    On April 15, Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid promised Senate Republicans the body would confirm at least 3 judicial nominees by the Memorial Day recess.

    reid woah.jpgWell, recess officially began a few minutes ago, and Reid has officially lied. Since April only 1 nominee has been voted on, G. Steven Agee to the 4th Circuit, 96-0.

    Yesterday came news that may be it for the year. According to CQ Politics:

    The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled Thursday that the window for action this year on appellate court nominees is beginning to close....
    Continue reading "Reid lied, judges denied"

    KS Attorney General blinks

    blink.jpgThe investigation into illegal activity by a Planned Parenthood clinic in KS may be on the verge of breaking open. The other side is starting to blink.

    The first blink came earlier this month when the KS Supreme Court unsealed a lawsuit Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri filed against Johnson Co. District Attorney Phill Kline for criminally investigating it. Light of day, yes.

    Then yesterday saw a big blink, with KS Attorney General Steve Six retreating from a previous demand he had made of District Court Judge Richard Anderson to return potentially incriminating patient records to the AG so he could return them to the potential crook, PP....

    Continue reading "KS Attorney General blinks"

    Supreme Court upholds death penalty

    supreme court justices.jpg

    Yesterday in a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld KY's death penalty protocol as not cruel and unusual punishment, effectively lifting a 7-month nationwide moratorium on capital punishment while states awaited the verdict....

    Continue reading "Supreme Court upholds death penalty"

    Big day yesterday on judge issue

    I've been tracking the Senate Democrat obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees, including the Republicans' recent threat to shut the Senate down if Dems continue to block confirmations.

    The clock is ticking. When whoever the new president is assumes duties, all of President Bush's good nominees will be erased from the docket. The Dems are stalling for that day.

    Well, the Committee for Justice blog is today reporting big news:

    reid mcconnell 2.jpg

    Tuesday was a big news day for the judges issue - perhaps the biggest since the confirmation of Justice Alito. Senate Leaders Reid and McConnell [pictured right together] made a deal to confirm three appeals court nominees by Memorial Day; Sen. Levin and the White House reached an agreement to fill two long-standing vacancies on the 6th Circuit; and Sen. Specter asked Sens. Obama, Clinton, and McCain to declare their position on a possible motion to discharge three circuit nominees - Peter Keisler (DC Cir.), Bob Conrad (4th Cir.), and Steve Matthews (4th Cir.) - bottled up in the Judiciary Committee by Sen. Leahy.

    Here's our take on the day's news, followed by excerpts from news reports....

    Continue reading "Big day yesterday on judge issue"

    Senate Republican strike looms

    count2.jpgI wrote a month ago that Senate Republicans, led by Arlen Specter, were threatening a work slowdown if Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy didn't pick up the hearing pace of President Bush's judicial nominees.

    According to the Committee for Justice blog, there was a "dramatic showdown" in yesterday's JC hearing:

    This morning's dust-up over judges raged for more than 30 minutes and clearly got under Sen. Leahy's skin. The Chairman lurched from being defensive to trying to change the subject, but Specter, the ranking Republican, insisted that all 8 of the GOP senators present be allowed to address the obstruction of Bush's judicial nominees....
    Continue reading "Senate Republican strike looms"

    Republicans to raise ruckus re: Democrat obstruction of Bush judicial nominees

    leahy.jpgJust received a welcome press release from the Committee for Justice.

    Senate Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy, pictured left, have hamstrung the nation's federal courts by obstucting the confirmation of Bush nominees. The critical shortage of judges only grows more critical.

    Confirmations are headed for a "historic low for a two-term President in modern times," stated GOP Senator Arlen Specter, pictured below right, the ranking Republican on that committee.

    Specter has been holding Increasingly frustrated Republicans at bay, trying to appeal to Leahy.

    Time is apparently up....

    Continue reading "Republicans to raise ruckus re: Democrat obstruction of Bush judicial nominees"

    Reagan and O'Connor

    candidates.jpgAnderson Cooper divulged some interesting information while asking an interesting question during the CNN debate last night with the remaining Republican nominees for president:

    On July 6, 1981... Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And the Reagan Library has graciously allowed us to actually have the original Reagan diary right here on the desk....

    And in it, he wrote by his hand, he said, "Called Judge O'Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting, and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she's pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she'll make a good justice."...

    [W]as she the right choice?...

    Continue reading "Reagan and O'Connor"

    Supremes decline forced contraceptive coverage case

    supreme%20court.jpgOn Monday the Supreme Court declined to consider the appeal of a lower court ruling uphodling a 2002 New York state law forcing some religious employers to cover contraceptives in their health insurance drug plans, which violated their religious beliefs.

    Four points on this....

    Continue reading "Supremes decline forced contraceptive coverage case"

    Clarence Thomas: Confirmation "lynching" was all about abortion

    clarence.jpgFrom the Baltimore Sun, this afternoon:

    You'll have two chances to see Clarence Thomas in the next few days, likely two more than you've had in a very long time.

    The notoriously private justice will be on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday and then on ABC throughout the day on Monday, culminating in an extended interview on Nightline. Monday is the first day of the new Supreme Court term.

    Thomas is availing himself for interviews in advance of the release of his new book, "My Grandfather's Son."

    Rush will also play a 1-1/2 hour interview Monday he taped with Thomas yesterday.

    According to a CBS advance story yesterday:

    In his first television interview, in which he discusses his childhood, his race, his rise to Supreme Court Justice and his job on the nation's highest court, Clarence Thomas says the real issue at his controversial confirmation hearings 16 years ago was abortion....
    Continue reading "Clarence Thomas: Confirmation "lynching" was all about abortion"

    Job posting: AUL extern

    Here's an opportunity to learn the basics while furthering the work of the premier pro-life bioethics law firm in the country:


    Legal Extern

    Americans United for Life, a national public-interest bioethics law firm defending human life through vigorous legislative, judicial, and educational efforts, is seeking two highly-qualified and motivated law students to serve as legal externs during the fall semester. The externships are unpaid and may be undertaken for credit (as approved by their law school) or to fulfill other graduation requirements.

    Start date is September 2007.

    See page 2 for qualifications and contact info.

    (Recall Dan McConchie is VP and Exec. Dir.)

    Continue reading "Job posting: AUL extern"

    Crass overture

    roberts 5.jpgBiblically, one definition of a fool is a person who doesn't know when to shut up.

    The blogger who on the Wonkette site won the award for crassest comment about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' July 30 seizure, ("Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.") is at it again.

    Today, after listing my blog "among some self-righteous conservative folks" who thought the comment was asinine, Culture Warrior quipped, "From all of this outrage, you would think I actually took a shot at the guy."

    Now, this is the same blogger who called Ann Coulter the c-word and accused her of an unspeakable act for "spew[ing] unparalleled hate" by her f-word (the other one) joke about John Edwards.


    Constitutionally protected hate speech against John Roberts

    roberts 4 portrait.jpgAs our commenter Laura first reported yesterday, according to the Associated Press this morning:

    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine yesterday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said. He was to remain in a Maine hospital overnight....

    Roberts, 52, underwent a "thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern," Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement. Roberts had a similar episode in 1993, she said. Doctors called yesterday's incident "a benign idiopathic seizure," she added.

    Left bloggers, given a stern talking to by their poobah Kos only last week to talk nice, are wishing for a death sentence or making other crass statements....

    Continue reading "Constitutionally protected hate speech against John Roberts"

    MSM's spun headline on the Supreme Court

    It goes without saying the engine propelling the abortion movement has been the courts, starting with Roe v. Wade.

    Protecting abortion was the biggest reason why the Left tried to stop President Bush's two Supreme Court nominees. But the Gang of 14 - which I detested at the time - stymied them.

    Now the Left is gearing up for the mother of all Supreme Court nomination battles, the one which could lead to the reversal of Roe.

    I drew your attention last week to liberal Justice Breyer's shocking betrayal of the separation of powers by whispering in liberal Republican Sen. Specter's ear that he might want to take a closer look at recent decisions following the addition of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. (Where are the journalists investigating Breyer's breach? Where are Congressional calls for an inquiry?)

    I also highlighted the speech at a recent Planned Parenthood fundraiser given by the grande dame of liberal journalists, Helen Thomas, in which she warned, "It seems the present conservative [U.S. Supreme] Court is targeting Roe v. Wade and there's not much you can do about it unless Congress is willing to deal with these touchy subjects. Without pressure, I doubt they will."

    alito.jpgMSM's attempt to arouse Americans' suspicions of an increasingly sound Supreme Court, obviuosly to tamper with the next nomination should it be on Bush's watch, has now begun. Yesterday's Washington Post headline:

    Fewer See Balance in Court's Decisions;
    Bush Nominees Have Made Panel 'Too Conservative' for Many, Poll Indicates

    The Indianapolis Star's headline...

    Continue reading "MSM's spun headline on the Supreme Court"

    Breyer undermining Roberts

    specter4.jpgFrom The Politico, yesterday:

    Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation....

    The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado....

    Continue reading "Breyer undermining Roberts"

    Two major pro-life First Amendment court wins

    first amendment.bmpIn the past few days, pro-lifers were handed two major First Amendment court victories of significant impact.

    1. On June 22 an Ohio federal district court judge ruled that a state branch of the powerful pro-abortion National Education Association cannot force teachers to become union members who have religious objections to abortion. (It's incredibly stupid that a profession would seek to kill off its clientele in the first place .)

    This ruling has broader implications, as the AP explained: "An employee whose religious beliefs conflict with the political positions of their labor union cannot be forced to pay dues...."

    2. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life, striking down a portion of McCain-Feingold. I gave the backdrop to this decision April 26.

    Explained National Review Online....

    Continue reading "Two major pro-life First Amendment court wins"

    LA Times: TX embryo case to overturn Roe v. Wade?


    I blogged almost six weeks ago on the court battle between now-divorced TX couple Augusta and Randy Roman [pictured above] over the fate of their three frozen embryos. On May 30, the LA Times synopsized the dispute:

    Augusta wanted to take possession and have them implanted, agreeing to release Randy from any financial or parental obligation. Randy wanted the embryos destroyed, or at least frozen indefinitely.

    The dispute has now taken an interesting turn. Reported the LAT:

    Roman vs. Roman now rests with the Supreme Court of Texas, one of a number of divorce cases nationwide in which the custody dispute has revolved around microscopic clumps of cells that are considered - by most states, at least - to be property and not human life....

    As the cases proliferate, the odds grow that the issue may eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Augusta and Randy Roman said in recent interviews that they intended to appeal to the higher court if they lost in Texas.

    Their lawyers believe such a case could provide the court with one of several means to undermine another Texas reproductive rights case, Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed a right to abortion. In that case, the justices explicitly avoided speculating on when life begins, but asserted that the unborn are not "persons" as encompassed by the 14th Amendment. Absolved of the need to balance the rights of the unborn against those of a pregnant woman, the court found that a woman's right to privacy allowed her to terminate a pregnancy.

    However, the Roe decision came five years before the birth of the first test-tube baby. Socially conservative legal theorists, buoyed by the court's recent decision to uphold [the partial-birth abortion] ban... believe a case involving frozen embryos could give an increasingly conservative court one vehicle for reconsidering the rights of the unborn, and to do so apart from the issue of a woman's right to control her own body....

    Two points: The LAT reported the Supremes were "absolved of the need to balance the rights of the unborn" in their Roe decision.

    Actually, they absolved themselves, which is the reason why experts on both sides of the abortion debate agree the Roe decision was shaky. About that, then-Chief Justice Harry Blackmun stated in the Roe decision:

    The appellee ... argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment ... If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

    Which brings me to point #2. If and when Roe is overturned, it will be not on the basis of whose rights trump, woman or embryo/fetus, but on the personhood of the embryo/fetus.

    Pro-abort columnist says Roe "legaliz[ed] abortion by judicial fiat"

    kraut2.jpgProi-abortion columnist Charles Krauthammer said this in his syndicated column on May 11:

    Legalizing abortion by judicial fiat ( Roe v. Wade) instead of by democratic means has its price. One is that the issue remains socially unsettled. People take to the streets when they have been deprived of resort to legislative action.

    The other effect is to render the very debate hopelessly muddled. Instead of discussing what a decent society owes women and what it owes soon-to-be-born infants, and trying to balance the two by politically hammering out regulations that a broad national consensus can support, we debate the constitutional niceties of a 35-year-old, appallingly crafted Supreme Court decision....

    I hope for the day when Roe is overturned, not because I want to see abortion criminalized - I once voted in a Maryland referendum to keep abortion legal if Roe is ever repealed - but to sweep away this ridiculous muddle.... Abortion is already so contaminated with legalisms, why not turn the issue into one of simple democracy? Let the people decide. Let them work it out the way everything else in this country is worked out -- by political argument and legislative accommodation.

    Scalia says he won't accept Roe precedent

    scalia 1.bmpJust got this from a friend. The news is almost two weeks old and should have been headline but wasn't. Not sure why. The other side could certainly use it for fundraising and fearmongering. From Kaiser Daily Reports, May 1:

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday in a speech at the University of Delaware said that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred state abortion bans, is not a precedent he is willing to accept, the Wilmington News Journal reports. "When you give the court the power to insert new rights, you also give it the power to take out old rights," he said, adding, "The right to abortion on the part of a woman is the end of the right to live on the part of the fetus"

    This was an important statement because pro-aborts of late, knowing Roe was a faulty decision, have been trying to say Roe v. Wade must stay simply because we're all so used to it.

    scalia 2.bmpThis is called the principal of stare decisis in legal terminology. Ruth Bader Ginsberg invoked it in her April 18 dissent against the pba ban decision. Liberal senators harped on this point when interrogating then-Supreme nominees Roberts and Alito.

    Scalia is saying that argument won't work with him in consideration of reversing Roe.

    [Hat tip: Arlene; photos courtesy of Wilmington News Journal]

    THE POWER OF ONE: One Young Woman's Courage Restores Academic Freedom at Missouri State University...

    By Hisman (as one totally sold out to Jesus Christ)

    Way to go Supreme Court. This is round 1, there's 14 more to go....eye of the tiger, eye of the tiger.

    I have been accused on this blog of being an abusive father and a woman hater because of my absolute and unwavering stand against the murder of children in the womb. Well, whoever you think I am, I would like to encourage any woman coming to this site to take heart from the story of the "Power of One". It's principles can be applied to any situation where standing firm is the only true choice. John 16:33, "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

    As an engineer and student of mathematics, applying a logarithmic scale to one abortion, not one beating heart is stilled, but countless beating hearts. Conversely, one person can make an exponential difference for the good as well, please choose life. God is counting on you, literally.

    You can be a history maker, you can change the world. Stand firm against any that are intimidating you into having an abortion. Abortion is murder and you do not have to stand alone. Have that beautiful baby now growing inside your bosom. Read on...........from the Allied Defense Fund


    Emily Brooker

    Several months ago, I shared the story of Emily Brooker, the social work student who underwent intense interrogation by hostile faculty members at Missouri State University for refusing to follow "orders" to send a letter to the Missouri state legislature supporting adoption by those who engage in homosexual behavior.

    This "letter" was not the first time that Emily had been subjected to the homosexual agenda at Missouri State. As a freshman, she was assigned to openly display "lesbian behavior" in public and then write about her experiences! Emily declined to engage in such behavior, but wrote a paper anyway in fear of academic intimidation.

    But last fall when a social work professor tried to force her to violate her beliefs again, Emily took a stand. She was slapped with a "Level 3 grievance" - the most serious charge possible - resulting in possible withholding of her degree and the two-and-one-half hour interrogation by the school's "ethics" committee.


    David French

    David French, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom filed a complaint on Emily's behalf in federal district court. The school settled - removing the grievance from Emily's record, agreeing to pay her tuition for two years of graduate school, and the professor who gave the assignment was removed from his administrative duties and placed on academic leave for the rest of the semester. And as blessed as all this was, it gets even better yet!

    Continue reading "THE POWER OF ONE: One Young Woman's Courage Restores Academic Freedom at Missouri State University..."

    Partial Birth Abortion: Candidates reactions

    By Valerie Jane:judge-ruling.jpg

    What is a candidate to do with this new ruling?

    Some have already reacted. Here are just a few quotes:

    Barack Obama:

    "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

    Rudy Giuliani :

    "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."

    John Edwards:

    "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women."

    Mitt Romney:

    "Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."

    Hillary Clinton:

    "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother."

    According to many of the pro-choicers who visit us, this ruling is "not a big deal".

    I think some people disagree.

    Take a Moment

    By Mary Kay Hastings
    Take a moment. Pour yourself a cup of tea. Have a cookie. Think about this.
    Life comes down to "moments". So much can happen, and change in just one "moment'.

    Take a sunrise. One moment it's dark, and the next moment it's morning.
    Or how about one moment your a single woman, then you stand at the altar, say I do, and in single moment, you are now a married women, bound to someone for life.
    Then there are the moments when a person takes their last breath. Alive one moment. Dead the next.
    How about the moment a baby take it's first step, or the moment of you first kiss...

    Well, you get the idea...Kodak even has a jingle about them "Celebrate the moments of your life...(musical notes?)

    Last night everyone was on here ganging up on HisMan and as a result got to bed very late (or early) and are probably now sleeping.

    While you were sleeping an odd thing happened. One of those aforementioned moments occurred.

    Last night, Partial Birth Abortion was a legal and viable option for killing the unborn..

    But this morning, in a matter of moments, a vote was taken by the supreme court, and now, just like that (what do you guys say? oh yes, SNAP)

    Hope none of you choked on your tea. Hope you all slept well. I know I did.
    One lump or two? Would you like a little crow with your cuppa?

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
    The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
    The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
    The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
    Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
    It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.
    Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.babymalachi-small.jpg

    The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
    More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling.
    Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
    The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.
    "Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
    Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

    You mean the way we tolerated and applauded the federal intervention of the ruling Roe vs Wade...hmmmm, very interesting, hypocritcal, but veeeerryyyy interesting.

    She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
    The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.
    Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.
    In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision.valeriebaby.jpg
    The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.
    But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.
    Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

    I think I'll skip the tea. Maybe break open a bottle of Champagne instead...

    [smiling baby photo courtesy: Valerie]

    Aftermath of GOP loss of Senate majority

    I received this note from an Albert Bryson on election day:

    Sorry, Jill. Santorum has to go. I will vote for Casey. Santorum backing of Spector in 2004 primary is a betrayal to us pro-life voters. I can not vote for him period. I know it may harm the pro-life cause. Principle is more important than political party. Besides the irresponsible Republicans in Washington have to go. Unfortunately Santorum is a big spending conservative senator.

    I sent Albert this response today:

    Albert, Well, actually you've given me relief. If and when a Supreme Court position opens within the next 14 months, it is now your responsibility to ensure a pro-lifer fills the spot, not mine. Thanks.

    I also wonder about principles that admit one's decision may harm the pro-life cause. What sort of principles are those?

    PBA ban hearing: outside the Supreme Court today





    The rumor about John Paul Stevens

    stevens.jpgFrom Human Events, November 4:

    For weeks, commentators have speculated that significant numbers of conservatives, alienated by over-spending, the Iraq War, and other perceived GOP disappointments, will stay home on Election Day, giving one or both Houses of Congress to Democrats. But for those who care about reforming the Supreme Court, sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions.

    For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”

    Normally, this news might be too ghoulish to repeat publicly. Nevertheless, with the election just days away, it is news that should be considered....

    Snubbing the snubbers

    There are unconfirmed reports that IL gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka indicated earlier this spring she didn't need conservatives to win.

    Whether or not that's true, we will likely find out, and this isn't just whiny saber-rattling by IL conservatives.

    Nationally, conservatives are showing their displeasure with an aberrant president and legislature by walking and threatening to walk.

    This week, in an unprecedented move, conservative leaders boycotted a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to discuss judicial nominees. These meetings are rare; this was the first in over a year. Typically, 60-70 attend. But this time WH and Senate staffers nearly outnumbered the 15-20 who showed.

    (See Page 2 for posting of articles detailing this from The Hill and Congress Daily AM not available online.)

    News watchers will not then wonder why the issue of judicial nominees suddenly rose in prominence the past few days on the GOP Senate and WH agendas.

    Peggy Noonan addressed this issue on a larger scale in her piece, "Baseless confidence," in today's Wall Street Journal:

    [T]he administration and the Congress are losing their base, and it isn't because of the media....

    The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they increase it--a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they're concerned about our borders, but they're not securing them. And they seem to think we're slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they're sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary....

    What's a voter to do? Maybe stay home, have the neighbors over for some barbecue....

    Party leaders say they're aware they're in trouble, aware of a sense of stasis in the country. They are going to solve the problem, they say, by passing legislation. They're going to pass a budget. And they're going to pass an immigration bill, too. People will like that.

    But no they won't. The American people are not going to say, "I am relieved and delighted our Congress passed a budget." They will be relieved and delighted if Congress cuts spending. They would be relieved and delighted if Congress finally took responsibility for the nation's borders. They won't be impressed if you just pass bills and call it progress.

    Party leaders are showing a belief in process as opposed to a belief in, say, belief. But belief drives politics. It certainly drives each party's base.

    One gets the impression party leaders, deep in their hearts, believe the base is... base. Unsophisticated. Primitive. Obsessed with its little issues. They're trying to educate the base. But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead.

    Certainly the ILGOP old guard goes so far as to taunt its base as base, unsophisticated, primitive, and obsessed with its little issues. How much more should it expect a boycott, at least in the governor's race.

    The marriage amendment will bring conservatives out, but expect Judy to be snubbed, be it formally or organically driven. Social conservatives around the state tell me they physically will not be able to vote for her. Principles drive social conservatives to politics... and away.

    Continue reading "Snubbing the snubbers"

    Joe and Pete

    "I might say, 'This is Pete; he juggles. Your son will never juggle because he won't have any arms. He'll be cut to pieces.'"
    ~ Pro-Life Action League founder Joe Scheidler, on what he says to mothers approaching abortion mills, while showing them photos of his grandchildren and aborted babies, as quoted by the Chicago Tribune, yesterday.

    Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Scheidler's favor for the third time in the landmark case, NOW vs. Scheidler. NOW sued in 1986 for conducting sit-ins at abortion mills.

    NOW's filing under the RICO statute alarmed protestors of other venues and thus brought together strange bedfellows with Scheidler against NOW, including Martin Sheen and PETA.

    In 2003, the Supremes ruled 8-1 in Scheidler's favor, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals incredibly refused to implement the decision in 2004. Yesterday's unanimous ruling dealt a death blow to NOW's case... hopefully.

    "It's over now," Scheidler said, according to the Trib. "I think it's over."

    Anti-Roe opinions by pro-abort renowns

    As we begin public debate over Roe v. Wade via Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, reporter Timothy Carney has compiled a list of anti-Roe opinions by pro-choice renowns.

    In light of what's at stake, what they write is surprisingly - no, shockingly - honest and also provides strong validation. Here's one example:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

    "Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court.... Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."

    North Carolina Law Review, 1985

    One of the extraneous reasons pro-lifers wanted a pro-life Supreme nominee was to provoke public discussion about this indefensible and catastrophic decision. Let the games begin.

    Hat tip: Manuel Miranda

    Alito: "[T]the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion"

    From today's Washington Times:

    Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.

    "I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

    Read complete story on page 2.

    Continue reading "Alito: "[T]the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion""

    Alito and Roe

    A few of my pro-life friends are tentatively taking a position against President Bush's current Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, because three of four abortion rulings he has made during his tenure as a circuit court judge were anti-life.

    I'm not. I support Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

    Here are a couple columns to consider:

    "Why Alito's the man for the true conservative agenda," by John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff, November 6, 2005, Washington Post

    "How do we know Alito would overturn Roe?," by Joseph D'Agostino, November 7, 2005, Human Events

    Additionally, Judie Brown of American Life League has written in favor of Alito's nomination, and we all know she's tough. (Hat tip:

    All three pieces are reprinted in their entirety on page 2.

    Continue reading "Alito and Roe"

    New WND column: "Throwing babies out with the floodwater"

    wnd_logo.gif My column today on, "Throwing babies out with the floodwater," begins:

    The good news is that Hurricane Katrina destroyed five of nine Louisiana abortion mills, although their displaced vermin were scurrying around shelters within 72 hours handing out free morning-after pills and abortions. Here, have a little more death and destruction – no charge!

    I go on to wonder what looters might have spotted floating in abandoned mills, and to discuss the plight of pregnancy resource centers.

    Read this week's column on

    Crying Wolf bingo card for John Roberts nomination

    In preparation for the rhetoric we've heard and will hear re: President Bush's nomination of John Roberts (or any nomination he would make), please get your Crying Wolf bingo cards ready! This comes courtesy of Senator John Cornyn.

    See page 2 for a sample of the Groundhog's Day shenanigans, also courtesy of Cornyn:

    Continue reading "Crying Wolf bingo card for John Roberts nomination"

    Roberts' interrogation - er, testimony - length vs. other Supreme nominees

    Factoids on Judge John Roberts' hearing length and amount of questioning

    Judge John Roberts testified for approximately 22 hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 10 hours longer than William Rehnquist when he became Chief Justice, 5 hours longer than Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and 4 hours longer than Stephen Breyer.

    William Rehnquist:

    "In nearly 12 hours of answering Senate Judiciary Committee questions, a confident Rehnquist was praised by Republicans while he parried aggressive questioning from Democrats about his public and private life." (Richard Carelli, "Despite Democratic Questions, Rehnquist's Confirmation Prospects Look Strong," The Associated Press, 8/1/86)

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for approximately 17 hours. (C-SPAN Store Videos Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hearing,, Accessed 9/15/05)

    Stephen Breyer:

    Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): "Just for reference because people like statistics and records, Judge [Stephen] Breyer was 18 hours and he was through.” (C-SPAN 3’s "Judge Roberts Confirmation Hearings," 9/14/05, 6 p.m.)

    John Roberts:

    John Roberts testified for approximately 22 hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/13-9/15/05)

    Judge Roberts has answered many more questions than Justice Ginsburg:

    Throughout her Supreme Court nomination hearings, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg only answered 216 questions. (Transcript Of hearings on the nomination of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/20/93 – 7/22/93)

    Throughout his Supreme Court nomination hearings, Judge John G. Roberts answered at least 510 questions. (Transcript Of Fourth Day Of Hearings on the Nomination of Judge John Roberts, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/15/05)

    "Ready? Cue the sun..."

    Gotta read this column, in today's New York Times. Hysterical!

    The column is posted on page 2 if you can't get the NYT online.

    Continue reading ""Ready? Cue the sun...""

    Miranda observations on yesterday's Roberts hearings/Anti-Catholic bias

    Manuel Miranda is former counsel to GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. He writes a thrice-weekly column in the Wall Street Journal. He has three observations on yesterday's US Senate hearings on the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Read them on page 2.

    Also, Roberts is a Catholic. Following are transcripts of overt anti-Catholic questions by Senators Specter and Feinstein yesterday with Roberts' responses:


    SEN. SPECTER: And let me digress from Roe for just a moment because i think this touches on an issue with ought to be settled. When you talk about your personal views, and as they may relate to your own faith, would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by john kennedy when he was a candidate, and he spoke to the greater houston ministerial association on september of 1960, quote, i do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me, closed quote?

    ROBERTS: I agree with that, senator, yes.

    SPECTER: And did you have that in mind when you said there is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying the precedent as well as Casey.

    ROBERTS: Well, i think people's personal views on this issue derive from a number of sources. And there is nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from a fly -- applying the precedent of the court faithfully under principleses of starry decisus.

    FEINSTEIN: In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion. And he even said, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. My question is: Do you?

    ROBERTS: Senator, I think the reason we have the two clauses in the Constitution in the First Amendment reflects the framers' experience. Many of them or their immediate ancestors were fleeing religious persecution. They were fleeing established churches. And it makes perfect sense to put those two provisions together: no establishment of religion and guaranteeing free exercise. That reflected the framers' experience.

    FEINSTEIN: You can't answer my question yes or no?

    ROBERTS: Well, I don't know what you mean by absolute separation of church and state. For example, recently in the Ten Commandments case, the court upheld a monument on the Texas Capitol grounds that had the Ten Commandments in it. They struck down the posting of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse. Is it correct to call the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds with the Ten Commandments, is that an absolute separation or is that an accommodation of a particular monument along with others that five of the justices found was consistent with the First Amendment?

    So I don't know what that means when you say absolute separation. I do know this: that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other religious source.

    Continue reading "Miranda observations on yesterday's Roberts hearings/Anti-Catholic bias"

    NARAL's new attack ad against Supreme nominee Roberts

    naral photo (2).jpg
    NARAL has just released its new ad attacking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. View it here.

    In particular, I love all the video clips and photos of happy families... with kids.

    Who is the endangerment?

    People for the American Way not surprisingly announced yesterday it will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. PFAW says Roberts on the SC will "endanger much of the progress made by the nation in civil rights over the past half-century."

    But the Committee for Justice reminds us to consider recent amicus briefs filed by PFAW:

    People for the American Way opposes…

  • pornography filters on public library computers;
  • regulation of hardcore internet pornography;
  • restrictions on simulated child pornography;
  • school choice;
  • voluntary prayer in public places.

    People for the American Way supports…

  • deleting “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance;
  • redefinition of traditional marriage;
  • voting rights for felons;
  • forcing the Boy Scouts to permit openly gay scoutmasters;
  • partial birth abortion;
  • judicially imposed tax hikes;
  • removing the Ten Commandments from public settings;
  • racial quotas in college admissions.

    "Next time PFAW talks about the mainstream, consider the source," says CFJ.

  • Context of Roberts abortion "tragedy" statement

    Pro-lifers on the watch for evidence of John Roberts position on abortion may be interested in reading the context of his statement that abortion is a "tragedy," from yesterday's Washington Post:

    In 1985, Philip Dreisbach, an official of the California Pro-Life Medical Association, asked Reagan to send a telegram of support that could be read at a memorial service the group was holding for 16,500 aborted fetuses found in plastic barrels stored behind the home of a pathology-lab director.

    Roberts told Fielding on Oct. 4 that he had "no objections to the President sending a message to the memorial service. The President's position is that the fetuses were human beings, or (at) least cannot be proven not to have been, and accordingly a memorial service would seem an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy. My concern is sending another message to Dreisbach, who was prepared to misuse the previous Presidential message on a gruesome anti-abortion display. I recommend approving the telegram, but making certain the recipients understand it cannot be used in any future materials."

    My thought is that Roberts did not have to call abortion a "tragedy"... that this was potentially subjective opinion.

    Dem left/centrist split evident in CA senators

    From today's San Francisco Chronicle:

    Although their views on the core issue of preserving abortion rights are identical, their styles and strategies are wildly different. Judging from their statements so far, [California senators Barbara] Boxer and [Dianne] Feinstein appear likely to split on the nomination of Judge John Roberts.

    Their strikingly divergent approaches, analysts say, reflect a deeper divide within the Democratic Party over how to handle the Roberts nomination while trying to win back the White House and Congress.

    Boxer is an agitator from the left who threatened in a speech in San Francisco this month to "use all the parliamentary tools I've been given as a U.S. senator" to delay a vote on Roberts if necessary, stopping just short of threatening a filibuster.

    Feinstein is a moderate who, the day after he was nominated, declared Roberts safe from filibuster barring some shocking revelation....

    Feinstein left her first private meeting with Roberts last month singing his praises. "I don't think there's anybody on the court quite like he will be," she said, describing him as "very impressive" and exuding "humility and modesty."...

    Feinstein was notably absent -- as was Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, another moderate -- from a press conference last month where seven of the Senate's nine Democratic women announced a Web site -- democrats.senate. gov.askroberts -- for citizens to provide the senators questions to ask the nominee at his hearings.

    See page 2 for another tidbit from this article indicating the left's agreeement (Carville) that its agenda isn't politically winnable, including it's radical position on abortion:

    Continue reading "Dem left/centrist split evident in CA senators"

    Chicago Sun-Times editorial against NARAL

    I observe several firsts in response to NARAL's outrageous ad against John Roberts, including chastisement by pro-abort legislators and other pro-abort organizations; public display of infighting within the NARAL, as demonstrated by its communications director quitting suddenly Friday; a retraction by NARAL; and now this, an editorial against NARAL from at least one nationwide newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times. See page 2 to read editorial.

    Hat tip: Reader Dan. G.

    9:55a CST update: Here's another anti-NARAL editorial, from yesterday's Kalamazoo Gazette.

    Continue reading "Chicago Sun-Times editorial against NARAL"

    "Government opposes swift rulings on abortion" has posted insightful information re: the pro-life battle in the courts. It begins:

    The Bush Administration has mounted a wide-ranging challenge in the Supreme Court to the power of federal judges to stop new anti-abortion laws before they go into effect. In a friend-of-court brief filed Monday in a pending case from New Hampshire, the U.S. Solicitor General has argued that abortion restrictions should be blocked from enforcement only if they are invalid in all possible circumstances -- an argument that lower courts have increasingly refused to accept. That is an issue the Supreme Court has never explicitly decided....

    Hat tip: Reader MQuinn

    NARAL can't abort fallout from ad

    NARAL thought it would stop the bleeding by pulling its false ad insinuating that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts condones abortion clinic violence. Au contraire. has just released an update to its original analysis of the NARAL ad to include an analysis of NARAL prez Nancy Keenan's nonretracting retraction of the ad. States, in part:

    ... But NARAL continued to defend the content of the ad. President Nancy Keenan sent a letter to calling the ad "completely accurate" and saying our conclusion that the ad is false "should be retracted"....

    Nancy Keenan herself said during the Aug. 8 news conference announcing the ad: "I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting that Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I know he said he finds bombing and murder abhorrent." Yet her ad conveys the opposite, showing pictures of a bombed clinic and a bombing victim while saying that Roberts supported a clinic bomber and violent fringe groups and that he excuses violence.

    After considering NARAL's arguments, we stand by our judgment that their ad is false. The message contained in the juxtaposition of words and powerful images is that Roberts condoned the mayhem being shown on screen, which even Ms. Keenan has stated is untrue. We are not retracting our article. Instead, it is NARAL that is withdrawing its ad.

    Red flags over Roberts

    Like Ann Coulter here, here, and here, Don Feder gives conservatives pause for thought in his latest column on Supreme nominee John Roberts:

    Everything we know about John Roberts says here is a man who's been polishing his resume since age six -- a go-to guy who wanted to be liked by his colleagues, a savvy lawyer who put his conscience in a blind trust to advance his career....

    Before last week's revelations, it was still possible to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt. Not any more....

    [Read rest of excerpt on page 2.]

    Continue reading "Red flags over Roberts"

    NARAL pulls ad

    Keith Olbermann of MSNBC just announced NARAL has pulled its deceptive ad insinuating Supreme Court nominee John Roberts supported abortion clinic violence.

    8:02p update: The Associated Press just confirmed it.

    NARAL's attack ad against Roberts is hurting... NARAL

    I love any trigger that provokes a conversation about abortion, be it favorable or not. The point is to keep the topic in the faces of the American people, so they can't avoid thinking about it.

    The new NARAL ad that slams Supreme Court nominee John Roberts appears to be a win-win-win for our side. Not only is NARAL paying to discuss abortion on tv, the ad itself is backfiring.

    Meant to portray Roberts as someone who condones abortion clinic violence - which most fair minded people would automatically question - the ad is calling NARAL's character into question in front page news stories. See, for example:

    Of greater magnitude, MSM is interrogating NARAL about the ad, as CNN reported yesterday. [See page 2 for excerpt.]

    In addition, the ad is causing infighting and a public spat among pro-aborts, as reported in the aforementioned NY Times. [See page 2 for excerpt.}

    Continue reading "NARAL's attack ad against Roberts is hurting... NARAL"

    NARAL's new anti-Roberts ad is "outrageously false, bordering on slanderous," says WH

    roberts_ad_3shots.jpgNARAL released an ad yesterday strongly insinuating that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts condones abortion clinic violence.
    details the ad's numerous falsehoods.
    NARAL admitted to the Associated Press:

    While NARAL officials agree that Roberts has condemned clinic violence, they hope the advertisement linking Roberts with people like Michael Bray, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry and consultant Patrick Mahoney will energize abortion rights supporters into calling senators and asking them to vote against Roberts.

    Release of the ad was also covered by the Washington Times, Washington Post, and USA Today.

    New insights on Roberts view of "right to privacy" alarms pro-aborts

    The Washington Times reports today that pro-abort organizations like Planned Parenthood are "gravely concerned" (pardon the pun?) about this writing by Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, from documents released this week by the National Archives:

    "All of us, for example, may heartily endorse a 'right to privacy,'" Judge Roberts wrote in reference to the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. "That does not, however, mean that courts should discern such an abstraction in the Constitution, arbitrarily elevate it over other constitutional rights and powers by attaching the label 'fundamental,' and then resort to it as, in the words of one of Justice [Hugo] Black's dissents, 'a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional.'"

    Pro-aborts are concerned about Roberts view on the "right to privacy" because, as the WT reports:

    The 1981 draft article about judicial restraint raises deeper concerns for abortion-rights advocates because it questions the validity not of Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court case that established abortion rights -- but of an earlier case that established a "right to privacy" and is the foundation for Roe.

    Buffet of columns on The Third Branch

    Manual Miranda writes that "Filibustering judges has only hurt Democrats" in today's Wall Street Journal.

    Opinion writers in the Boston Globe and Boston Herald agree that judge nominees' religious views matter.

    In today's Washington Times, John B. Roberts says liberal bloggers confused him with John G. Roberts when they thought they found "red meat" by which to chew him up.

    Hentoff in the Washington Times criticizes the New York Times for pushing Senators to question Roberts on gender, race, or religion, instead saying focus should be on judicial independence and 4th amendment

    Abortion/religious litmus test and judges

    On page 2 please find an abridged version of the March 15, 2002, "Ides of March" speech given by US Senator Orrin Hatch on the Senate floor, when Democrats controlled the US Senate. This was the first time a link was made between the judiciary nominees conflict, the abortion litmus test, and a religious test. IMPORTANT: Here is how the abortion litmus test is a surrogate for the religous litmus test, as excerpted from the speech:

    Some of my Democrat colleagues have openly sought to introduce ideology into the judicial confirmation process, something which I repudiate. I am now concerned that the abortion litmus test would have the same effect as a religious test.

    Indeed, most people who are pro-choice hold their position as a matter of ideology. Some even allow their chosen ideology to trump the tenets of their religion. They do so in good conscience no doubt, and I respect that.

    But the great majority of people who are pro-life come to their positions as a result of their religious convictions. We view unborn life as sacred. We believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" and that among these is "life." Many Americans hold this view as a religious tenet, but this view does not affect their ability to interpret the law and precedent, just as skin color does not.

    In effect, what is ideology to my Democrat friends is a matter of religious conviction to a large portion of the American people....

    Continue reading "Abortion/religious litmus test and judges"

    Roberts as 4th Supreme Catholic would make all-time high... So what?

    Reports today:

    If John Roberts is confirmed, he will be the fourth Roman Catholic on the Supreme Court, an all-time high that is focusing attention on how faith might influence law on the high court....

    Two of the Catholics on the current court - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - are abortion foes. Scalia, whose son Paul is a priest, and Thomas are sometimes seen walking together to the court after attending Mass on holy days of obligation.

    But the third Catholic - Anthony Kennedy - voted with the majority in a 5-4 ruling in 1992 reaffirming the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, despite some apparent inner turmoil. The late Justice Harry Blackmun said Kennedy worried "about the attention he would get as a Roman Catholic reaffirming Roe."

    The lone Catholic on the Supreme Court when Roe was decided in 1973, William Brennan, supported liberal access to abortion....

    AG Roberts: Roe v. Wade is not "settled law"

    From a July 26 Associated Press story:

    [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales also said that if [Judge John] Roberts were confirmed, he would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision legalizing abortion is settled law.

    Roberts testified before Congress in 2003 that he considers the Roe v. Wade decision "settled law." At the time, he had been nominated for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    But in his AP interview, Gonzales said circumstances had changed. "If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," he said. "If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong."

    Columns on Roberts

    Ann Coulter began her column yesterday by pulling quotes of praise and scorn on a recent Supreme Court nominee one wouldn't expect to underpin her point: Just who is John Roberts?

    David Limbaugh says to let John Roberts answer the questions: "I may be going against the conservative grain here, but I am not as bothered by the prospect of questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members seeking to determine how John Roberts' judicial philosophy might guide him in considering certain specific questions of constitutional law, including abortion...."

    Dick Morris thinks President Bush's pick of Roberts was a strategically "brilliant" move against the Democrats, even though "we won't know until after he takes his seat and casts his vote [whether] Roberts [will] be the reliable pro-life vote that the Christian right hopes."

    Republicans do the Pro-Life Dance

    I'm tired of Republicans dancing around the Roe v. Wade issue, these days as it relates to John Roberts and the Supreme Court. What are they afraid of? Can we get a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court only by being stealth about it? I don't like it. There's nothing to be ashamed of or secretive about.

    thompson.jpgCase in point: Fred Thompson yesterday on Meet the Press. Read the excerpt from his interview on page 2, and see him do the dance.

    If only pro-life legislators/spokespersons would frankly discuss the contradictions with the pro-abortion position such as they all do behind the scenes, they would break a pschological logjam with the American people, particularly if they invest time educating them.

    Continue reading "Republicans do the Pro-Life Dance"

    Lindsey Graham: "[John Roberts] is pro-life"

    This just in from Hannity and Colmes. Being interviewed was Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who in reference to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said, "I can tell you his position, he's a pro-life person.... He's pro-life."

    Roberts wife: Executive of Feminists for Life

    Several sources broke the news that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' wife Jane Sullivan Roberts is a former executive board member of Feminists for Life.

    Today's posts a story on her history with FFL, as does the Chicago Tribune, which dwells on the topic. (See page 2 for that.)

    The online encyclopedia Wikipedia lists Jane's involvement with FFL in her husband's bio.

    An added indication that John Roberts may be pro-life is that his two children are adopted.

    Meanwhile, Ann Coulter wrote a sobering column on Roberts that gave me pause... until I read the aforementioned.

    I don't know of any pro-life leader (not rank-and-file) who is married to a pro-abort. The two are simply incompatible.

    Hat tip: Reader Mike P., Jewels of the Jungle

    Continue reading "Roberts wife: Executive of Feminists for Life"

    London Times headline

    "Bush nominates anti-abortion judge to Supreme Court," is the headline in today's London Times.

    PFAW on Roberts: "constitutional catastrophe"

    A "catastrophe" to PFAW is a blessing for America:

    From People for the American Way website:

    Bush Nominates John Roberts for Supreme Court nomination raises serious concerns, questions

    People for the American Way is extremely disappointed that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor. John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues - it will be extremely important for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe.

    Roberts nomination highlights upcoming cases on pba and parental notification

    From National Right to Life, this evening:

    WASHINGTON -- Following today's announcement regarding the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

    "Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

    In an interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt with Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, on April 11, 2005, the following exchange occurred: Hewitt: "Do you oppose and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?" Aron: "Yes, we would." See:

    In 1990, as a Justice Department official under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts wrote a brief in a pending Supreme Court case stating the Administration position "that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...."

    Additional information on the potential new make-up of the Supreme Court in relation to upcoming abortion cases is on page 2....

    Continue reading "Roberts nomination highlights upcoming cases on pba and parental notification"

    Thanks, Planned Parenthood

    Planned Parenthood has rounded up media quotes on John Roberts. His nomination doesn't look at all good for the other side. Thanks, President Bush. You came through.

    With impeccable credentials ... the question marks about Roberts have always been ideological. While his Republican party loyalties are undoubted, earning him the opposition of liberal advocacy groups, he is not a 'movement conservative,' and some on the party's right-wing doubt his commitment to their cause. His paper record is thin: as Deputy Solicitor General in 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. A line in his brief noted the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

    ~ Washington Post, July 1, 2005

    Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection....

    For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

    ~ Slate Magazine, June 24, 2005

    The official, who declined to be named, said appellate judges J. Michael Luttig of Richmond, John Roberts of Washington and Samuel Alito Jr. of New Jersey might top the list, which published reports say also includes several other judges and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales....

    Roberts, 50, voiced opposition to abortion rights as a government lawyer. In 1991, he co-wrote a government brief in support of federal law barring federally funded family planning organizations from offering abortion-related counseling. The government argued that Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overturned," and that the high court's ruling in the landmark abortion case was not supported 'in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.

    ~ Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 24, 2005

    Roberts, 50, has seen his stock rise in recent months. Widely considered one of the top appellate lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court, Roberts was first nominated to the bench near the end of the elder Bush's presidency, and the nomination died in the Senate. He was confirmed two years ago with bipartisan support, but less is known about his views than those of other contenders.

    ~ Chicago Tribune, June 22, 2005

    Many liberals think Roberts may be a sign of what's to come. They grew nervous with his dissents challenging the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act and because of his support of the White House decision to keep the Cheney energy task force records secret.

    ~ The Village Voice, June 21, 2005

    In the meantime, Republicans close to the preparations say that the White House has assembled research on some 20 Supreme Court candidates, with more intensive research on a handful of the most mentioned, all federal appellate judges and all conservative: ... John G. Roberts Jr. of the District of Columbia....

    ~ The New York Times, June 20, 2005

    A former Rehnquist clerk has also been mentioned as a possible court nominee. John G. Roberts, who has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003, was one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench....

    Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    ~ Associated Press, June 18, 2005

    Good sign: NARAL hates Roberts

    NARAL says, "If [John] Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

    Judge John Roberts talking points

    These are the talking points coming from DC on John Roberts:


    Judge Roberts is Exceptionally Well Qualified.

    Judge John Roberts has the keen intellect, impartiality and temperament, sound legal judgment and highest integrity necessary in a Supreme Court justice.

    He rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion.

    It's not surprising that The National Journal has said that "John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have - all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law."**

    Judge Roberts has Extensive Experience.

    Prior to his service on the D.C Circuit (often referred to as "the second highest court in the land" and the bench from which three current Supreme Court Justices came to the Court), Judge Roberts argued a remarkable 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Only a handful of the 180,000 members of the Supreme Court bar come close to that record of accomplishment.

    Judge Roberts was graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University in only three years. After graduating from Harvard Law School with high honors and serving as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, Judge Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and later for Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court.

    After his clerkships, Judge Roberts served in the Department of Justice and later as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan before going into private practice.

    After three years in private practice, Judge Roberts returned to the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court.

    Judge Roberts Widely Respected for his Fairness.

    Upon his nomination to the D.C. Circuit, 152 members of the D.C. Bar wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that Judge Roberts is "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate." Signers, ranging from Democratic lawyers like Lloyd Cutler and Seth Waxman to former President George H.W. Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, cited his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."

    Anne L. Bryant and Julie Underwood of The National School Boards Association have noted that Judge Roberts "is always willing to take the time to do things right; and he is willing to support others who exhibit similar values. Above all, he personifies the qualities of an outstanding jurist with his even-temper and respectful demeanor."

    In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued-free of charge-before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982.

    Judge Roberts Should be Confirmed Before the Fall Term.

    Judge Roberts personifies the qualities President Bush said he would seek in a Supreme Court Justice. The American people have every right to expect the Senate to provide a fair hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and a timely vote so that the Supreme Court can convene for its Fall term on October 3rd with all justices in place.

    Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent.

    President Clinton's two nominations took an average of 58 days from nomination to confirmation. Over the past 30 years, the confirmation process has averaged 72 days from nomination to confirmation.

    The White House has demonstrated an unprecedented level of consultation with Senators from both parties, consulting with more than 70 Senators, including every member of the Judiciary Committee and more than two-out-of three Democrats.

    Personal Background.

    Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955. Raised in Indiana.

    He is one of four children (the only boy, and second oldest).

    Judge Roberts lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts and their two children.


    ** National Journal asked that I clarify that these views were those of columnist Stuart Taylor, Jr., and not National Journal, which is a "non-partisan, non-ideological publication."

    They purr when stroked

    I commented last week that the reason President Bush may be trying so hard to reach out to all Senate members for their thoughts on his Supreme Court nominee might be to disarm them, that feeding their egos might be all that is required to stop liberals from filibustering his strict-constructionist nominee.

    If this is his plan, quotes of late from the self-importanced members of the Gang of 14 would indicate it is working See them purr on page 2.

    Continue reading "They purr when stroked"

    No comment

    NY Times columnist David Rosenbaum today reminds potential borkhappy senators that the words "no comment" by Supreme Court nominees on particular topics should expected in upcoming hearings and are historically based. Says Rosenbaum:

    [A]s a practical matter, senators have no real recourse when a nominee declines to answer questions. They can hardly refuse to confirm the nominee on that ground alone, since so many other justices who have been noncommittal on the issues of the day have been approved.

    And even as Dems threaten to act like donkeys on the Supreme nomination, a Washington Times editorial reminds them to adhere to their own standard on the timing of hearings.

    To stroke or not to stroke

    The White House appears to be bending over backwards to "consult" with senators on the Supreme Court nominee. (See quote on page 2 by Scott McClellan at a White House briefing yesterday.) For instance, President Bush had a a "power breakfast" with four top senators today.

    These placations may make conservatives nervous and even angry. Historically, Republicans have respected Democrat Supreme nominees, even if they were godawful - like ACLU-card-carrying Ginsberg - but Democrats have not. The other side deserves snubbing and to be put in their place when we have the power to do so.


    Fox contributor Jeff Birnbaum made the point last night that stroking liberal senators' egos, even if President Bush has no intention of serving up any Supreme nominee other than a Scalia or Thomas clone, may smooth the path. Perhaps, it is hoped, liberal senators will grumble with his choice but not filibuster, since they feel they were part of the process.

    [See page 2 for McClellan quote.]

    Continue reading "To stroke or not to stroke"

    Shut up - A third Supreme vacancy?

    Marathon Pundit reports:

    Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard was just on Fox News Live and said that there may be two more Supreme Court resignations, ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist and octogenarian Justice John Paul Stevens.

    According to Kristol, Rehnquist's resignation could come today.

    UPDATE 11:30 AM CDT. Drudge says rumors are rife that Rehnquist (but not Stevens) has resigned.

    I'm told to look for Rehnquist's resignation when President Bush gets off the plane from Europe....

    Democrat compromise boomerang?

    I noted yesterday that the Gang of 14 compromise I admit I fumed about may not have been a bad deal after all.

    Because of the compromise, Bush's three most conservative nominees were "unfilibustered" and now sit securely on the federal bench: William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen.

    So how can Democrats now cry "extraordinary circumstances" for a similarly tempered Supreme Court nominee? (That was a rhetorial question... I expect they'll find a way.)

    As Jim Angle of Fox News reported:

    Supporters of the White House say the compromise under which those judges were confirmed set a clear definition of what is acceptable and what is not.

    "I think it really takes off the table the ability of the Left and the Democrats to argue on the basis of judicial philosophy that a nominee is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court." [Quote by Ben Ginsberg of Progress for America]:

    Angle reported that at least two Republican members of the Gang of 14 will walk away from the compromise and support the constitutional (nuclear) option if Democrats filibuster based on whether a nominee is conservative: Senators Lindsey Graham and John Warner.

    (I'm told there are actually "several" of the seven Republicans who have indicated this but don't have documentation for others.)

    Closed Angle in his report:

    With those two senators and others there is now enough support to change the rules to end judicial filibusters if the Democrats threaten one, prompting one Republican official to say flatly, "There is now no possiblity that opponents could deny an up-or-down vote on a Supreme Court nominee."

    [See Fox video clip, "Constitutional Chaos" for entire story.]

    Rehnquist may retire this afternoon

    I hear that Robert Novak just announced on CNN that Justice Rehnquist plans to announce his retirement this afternoon.

    Will President Bush split the baby?

    With news that Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist's retirement is imminent, Robert Novak started chatter that is getting louder: for President Bush to split the replacements of Rehnquist and O'Connor between one conservative and one liberal - no net gain for anyone; a stalemate; a compromise.

    Conservatives say this is unacceptable. Patrick Buchanan says why:

    Does Bush get it? He needs three seats to capture the court, that of Chief Justice Rehnquist when he retires, that of O'Connor, now open, and that of one other justice, as long as it is not Antonin Scalia or Thomas.

    Bush can succeed where every Republican president in 50 years failed: to rein in this radical and renegade court and restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the highest law in the land: to be interpreted by Supreme Court justices, and not perverted to their own ideological and political ends.

    To succeed will take perseverance and courage by President Bush. But if he does, he will leave a mark on history. It will be his greatest domestic achievement, for which his country will forever remember him, his friends will praise him and his enemies will be eternally gnashing their teeth. Let's get it on.

    With friends like these...

    Not only do Socialists appear not to have a problem with Alberto Gonzalez as potential Supreme Court nominee, neither does Democrat US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The NY Times also ran a "Cool it on Gonzalez, conservatives" propoganda piece on July 5, meaning its editors also like Gonzalez.

    Human Events has posted Q&A between Dr. John Willke and Gonzalez specifically on the topic of abortion.

    Hat tip:

    Supreme nominee won't be borked?

    From Concerned Women for America:

    Americans lost the opportunity to have Judge Robert Bork on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court because conservatives were not anticipating a fierce confirmation battle. Jan LaRue, CWA's Chief Counsel, says that will not happen to the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court because CWA and like-minded groups have been preparing for this battle for a long time. She adds that the public doesn't need to wait for a nominee to be announced to take action. Click here to listen.

    A Socialist's view of O'Connor, Democrats, Kennedy, and abortion groups (not good), and Gonzalez (not bad)

    socialist.gifA columnist has a "glass half empty" take on Sandra Day O'Connor, the Democrats, Ted Kennedy, abortion groups, and potential Supreme pick Alberto Gonzalez. Read page 2 for outtakes....

    Continue reading "A Socialist's view of O'Connor, Democrats, Kennedy, and abortion groups (not good), and Gonzalez (not bad)"

    Kennedy plans to abort Supreme candidate

    This Ted Kennedy quote on his vision of the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation process comes from Dave Eberhart's July 5 analytical piece in

    "Like sausage and legislation, the confirmation or rejection of a Supreme Court nomination is not always something pleasant to watch or be part of."

    Sounds like Kennedy plans to grind up Bush's nominee - much like an aborted baby.

    [Read complete column on on page 2. Source:, 7-5-05.]

    Continue reading "Kennedy plans to abort Supreme candidate"

    Scheidler: Pro-aborts are "nervous wrecks" on Supreme pick

    The Daily Herald reports that the National Organization for Women held five rallies around IL on July 5 to call on President Bush to appoint a pro-abort Supreme nominee. Responded Pro-Life Action League President Joe Scheidler:

    "I can see why the (abortion-rights groups) are making a public show.... They're scared.... That's what we've been hoping for for 32 years. I can see why (they) are nervous wrecks."

    Does anyone else see the two ironies in this section of the story?

    Cyndee Kawalek brought her daughters, Dakota, 8, and Summer, 5, to the [NOW] rally. As the girls hoisted a purple sign that said "Young Feminists Mobilize," their mother explained that the girls knew they were trying to protect the rights of women.

    "This is to protect the future of our country," Kawalek said. "If the courts turn (Roe v. Wade) over, what else are they going to do."

    [Read complete column on on page 2. Source: Daily Herald, 7-7-05.]

    Continue reading "Scheidler: Pro-aborts are "nervous wrecks" on Supreme pick"

    Novak: "Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court"

    Robert Novak writes in his column today:

    Conservatives who have spent more than a decade planning for this moment to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court are reeling from blows delivered by two dissimilar political leaders: Edward M. Kennedy and George W. Bush. Sen. Kennedy has succeeded with the news media in establishing a new standard of "mainstream conservatism" for a justice. President Bush has put forth "friendship" as a qualification for being named to the high court.

    Bush is by far the bigger obstacle in the way of a conservative court. While Kennedy's ploy presents a temporary problem, Bush's stance could be fatal. The right's morale was devastated by the president's comments in a USA Today telephone interview published on the newspaper's front page Tuesday: "Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."

    [Read complete column on on page 2. Source: Chicago Sun-Times, 7-7-05.]

    Continue reading "Novak: "Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court""

    Thomas: Don't just take his word for it

    Cal Thomas reminds us in his latest piece that Republican presidents nominated pro-aborts Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, after giving assurances to conservatives they would be "ok" on our issue. About President Bush's pick, Thomas says:

    Conservatives say they have learned from previous court battles and are not going to be fooled again. They will look beyond assurances that a nominee is "OK" and examine the substance of that nominee's record and philosophy. Nothing but delivery on the president's promise will satisfy them.

    This is the big one, the main event. If the president does not nominate someone who measures up to his often-stated view of the court and the Constitution, he can forget about conservative support for anything he wants to do during the rest of his term. Even if he names someone who is eventually rejected by the Senate, he will get significant support from conservatives and momentum for nominating another conservative.

    Hat tip: Reader George Hendrickson

    [Read complete column on on page 2. Source:, 7-5-05.]

    Continue reading "Thomas: Don't just take his word for it"

    Kennedy unplugged


    [Thanks to reader Michelle for providing attribution: Paul Nowak,, 7-5-05.]

    Unchained gang?

    What will become of the Gang of 14 if Democrats filibuster President Bush's Supreme nominee? Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy are promising a filibuster, calling it an "extraordinary circumstance" if Bush picks a pro-lifer.

    Lindsey Graham (Republican and one of the 14) says he doesn't think "differences of legal opinion" should qualify as 'extraordinary'."

    Sounds like the Gang will shortly be unchained, in which case Republicans will have made the sweeter deal on the so-called filibuster compromise. Their most conservative picks have now been approved, and the upcoming Supreme filibuster was going to happen regardless.

    I may owe someone an apology.

    Schumer confirms: Gay marriage a Supreme issue

    As Democrats push the pro-gay/pro-abortion issue as Supreme criteria, they push more voters away. But they have no choice, having boxed themselves into a corner. The abortion, gay, and environmental lobbies and unions are their only remaining financial supporters....

    Leading Senate Judiciary Democrat Charles Schumer said Sunday that he intends to make gay marriage an issue in the upcoming confirmation battle over President Bush's pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

    "All questions are legitimate," Schumer told ABC's "This Week." "What is your view on Roe vs. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage?"...

    The top Democrat's mention of same-sex marriage in the same breath as his party's primary litmus test issue, abortion, raised a few eyebrows....

    [Read complete story on page 2. Source:, 7-5-05.]

    Continue reading "Schumer confirms: Gay marriage a Supreme issue"

    Bush's Supreme criteria

    At 4a EST this morning in Denmark, President Bush took questions on his criteria for picking a Supreme Court replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. He repeated what he has often said:

    "I'll pick people who one, can do the job; people who are honest, people who are bright; and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from. That's what I campaigned on, and that's what I'm going to do."

    Reassuring words.

    When liberals like Senator Durbin call on President Bush to appoint a "moderate," it is code for "pro-abortion." In recent years it has also become code for "gay union/marriage tolerant."

    Clearly, there is no such person as a "moderate" on abortion or gay unions/marriage. One is either pro-life and pro-heterosexual marriage (conservative) or pro-"choice" and pro-gay unions/marriage (liberal).

    [Read complete story on page 2. Source:, 7-6-05.]

    Continue reading "Bush's Supreme criteria"

    Anti-Gonzalez Hispanic Supreme candidate

    garza.jpg Conservatives oppose Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as Supreme Court justice candidate due to his anti-Roe history.

    But there is another Hispanic who would do: Emilio Garza, a federal appeals judge from Texas. Read about him here, here, here, here, and here.

    [Photo credit: Notre Dame ulumni page]

    Another federal judge confirmed

    The Senate just confirmed DC Circuit Court nominee Tom Griffith by a vote of 73-24. All Republicans voted aye.

    The White House's bio of Griffith is here.

    Shannen Coffin of National Review Online offers this analysis of how Griffith's appointment will impact the DC Circuit Court.

    Here is why People for the American Way detests Griffith.

    On guard

    mcc.jpg Andy Schlafly has written a warning against one potential Supreme Court nominee, Michael W. McConnell, a former Bush nominee who was sworn in as 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge on January 3, 2003

    Andy writes in his piece, "McConnell: A New Type of Souter":

    Judge Michael McConnell is shaping up to be the next David Souter, the notorious Supreme Court nominee of the first President Bush who betrayed Bush's supporters.

    History is repeating itself with the recent pressure on Bush to appoint Judge McConnell to the Supreme Court. Unlike Justice Souter, McConnell has written voluminously and his backers claim those writings prove him to be conservative....

    Continue reading "On guard"


    Tonight, the Senate confirmed the following circuit court nominees:

    1. Bill Pryor (11th Circuit): 53-45-2
    Democrats voting for: Nelson (NE) and Salazar
    Republicans voting against: Chafee, Snowe, and Collins
    Not voting: Jeffords and Murkowski

    2. Richard Griffin (6th Circuit): 95-0

    3. David McKeague (6th Circuit): 96-0

    Brown in

    Frist's office reports, "The nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was approved by a vote of 56-43-1. All Republicans voted for Brown, plus Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). Sen. Chafee did not vote."

    5:25p correction: Sen. Jeffords did not vote for Brown. Sen. Chafee voted aye with all 55 Republicans.

    Judges rule

    Yesterday in Virginia the 4th U.S. district court of appeals overturned a law passed in 2003 banning partial birth abortions.

    Meanwhile, in Mississippi, a U.S. district court judge ruled that a law passed there in 2004 requiring that late term abortions be committed in hospitals and surgical clinics is unconstitutional. The judge determined that access trumped safety.

    Do you see the importance of electing conservative judges? Everywhere, activist judges are scrapping common-sense abortion laws and regulations passed by the people and their representatives. Pro-aborts are only able to sustain their evil trade through the courts.