By Dave Andrusko
Editor's note. Please send
your thoughts and comments to
daveandrusko@gmail.com
As the preeminent single-issue pro-life
organization, National Right to Life is
scouring the record of Supreme Court nominee
Judge Sonia Sotomayor with great care.
 |
Pro-abortion President Barack
Obama and Supreme Court Nominee
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
|
But whomever pro-abortion
President Barack Obama's nominee would have
been, there are several considerations we
keep high up on our list of items to check
off. Let me offer just three of many
examples.
First, we will not be
intimidated into silence by the same people
who tried to rule an honest appraisal of
then-candidate Barack Obama out of order.
For us the issue was not about the prospect
of electing the first African-American
president but what would he do to advance
the cause of death were he the first
president who happened to be African
American.
It was clear from the get-go
that Obama had a lengthy abortion agenda
that he would try to realize. That was why
we opposed him. Likewise, the issue is not
about the prospect of Judge Sotomayor being
the first Hispanic to sit on the High Court
but her possible impact on abortion
jurisprudence.
Second, what is the nominee's
view on what might be called the plasticity
of the Constitution. Is the text and history
of the Constitution the solid materials out
of which he or she renders their rulings? Or
is the nominee a free-lancer who considers
the text and history the equivalent of
funny-putty that can be shaped into any
result they wish? The latter perspective
gave us Roe v. Wade and Doe v.
Bolton.
Third, there has been no end
to the discussion of President Obama's
insistence that judicial nominees have "empathy"--an appreciation of the
"real-world" implications of their
decisions. Those who are made nervous by
this--like me--worry that under this loosey-goosey
standard the law simply becomes politics by
another name.