|
NRL News
It’s the
Economy … NO, THE SUPREME COURT! As Democrats dream about the possibility of retaking the White House in 2008, they are also fantasizing about their first Supreme Court appointments since 1994. But the bench of potential candidates is surprisingly thin….[M]ost of the sitting Democratic appellate judges are too old to be considered plausible Supreme Court candidates…. That leaves only one other category of potential Democratic justices: current and former politicians…. Politicians … tend to be more pragmatic than ideological and … [can] build majorities and transform the Court in their own image [emphasis added].
[A]ny
Democratic justice appointed from politics would have to be book
smart as well as a ruthlessly determined politician. All of which
means that the next Democratic president may have only one obvious
candidate for the first Supreme Court vacancy: Once Obama has beaten
[Hillary] Clinton, or vice versa, and gone on to the White House,
the winner can appoint the loser to the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Rosen may appear to be “dreaming” or “fantasizing,” but he is certainly serious about his suggestion. And pro-lifers must take this scenario seriously, too. (Most likely, Bill Clinton was not considered an “obvious candidate” by Rosen because Clinton was disbarred for several years after he had given false testimony in court and has, well, other “baggage.”) Pro-abortion Democrats may be “dreaming” and “fantasizing” about either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama “transforming the Court in their own image,” but for pro-lifers such a turn of events would be a nightmare. It would be bad enough if either of them were to become president, but to have a “twofer” with the Democratic primary elections loser becoming a Supreme Court justice would try our patience to the utmost. In the case of such a calamity, the marshal’s words at the beginning of a Court session would then become our fervent prayer: “God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!” Anyone who doubts that a President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama would appoint anyone but a rigid pro-abortionist to the Supreme Court should keep in mind the common refrain at an Obama rally: “Yes, we can!” Let’s face it. Once again the Democratic Party is offering this country only presidential candidates who are enthusiastically “pro-choice”—that is pro-abortion. The only antidote to that sad situation is that the other major party offers us a candidate who is pro-life and can win. This late in the election season, debates about who is the “most” pro-life candidate, who is the “perfect” candidate, etc., are not only meaningless—they are outright dangerous. Dividing the pro-life voting contingent with such debates makes it only easier for the pro-abortionists to succeed on Election Day. Anyone who insists on finding and supporting only the “perfect” pro-life candidate should look in the mirror. Are you a “perfect” pro-life voter? Will your “perfect” actions (or inactions) draw votes from an “imperfect” pro-life candidate and thus make it more likely that the pro-abortion candidate wins? For the sake of the unborn, be honest and realistic here! Are you more interested in “making a statement” than making a positive, pro-life difference? Are you willing, for the sake of “principle,” to sacrifice the lives of millions of future unborn children by handing a victory to the pro-abortionists, so that they can “transform the Court in their own image” for decades to come? In my previous column I gave you the reasons and figures on how, over 25 years, pro-life work and laws have saved the lives of millions of unborn children. All this progress will be jeopardized if a Democratic pro-abortionist wins the presidency and, in concert with the pro-abortion Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, pushes for and finally puts his signature on a law like the infamous “Freedom of Choice Act.” It would mean the end to effective pro-life laws, and pro-lifers could no longer claim that the Supreme Court imposed abortion on demand through extra-constitutional “legislating from the bench”—no, the people’s elected representatives would have done it. Given the possibility of a pro-abortion sweep of the executive and legislative leadership, are you willing to stay at home on Election Day for the “sake of principle” or “making a statement” or what not? Are the lives of the unborn that unimportant to you? I hope not. Those who think that a pro-abortion president can not “really” do much damage are not learning from history. Look at the “centrist,” but pro-abortion Bill Clinton. On his first day in office he rescinded the pro-life policies of his predecessors, presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He brought the abortion drug RU-486 to this country. He appointed the extreme pro-abortionist Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. He vigorously pursued a pro-abortion agenda at the United Nations and worldwide. He wanted to make abortion a routine medical procedure (“no questions asked,” as one commentator and later Clinton advisor put it) in the Clintons’ national health care plan. He wanted to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” (which didn‘t pass Congress after an enormous lobbying effort by pro-lifers). And let’s not forget his dishonest slogan that “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare”—how can abortion be rare if it is legal? (Anyone for “legal” embezzlement or theft?) Those are only the highlights. Had enough? The facts about the upcoming presidential election are quite clear: if the pro-life candidate doesn’t win, pro-lifers are in for a very difficult time for years to come. Worse, the real loser will be the unborn babies who will be sacrificed on the altar of “choice.” What will you do? |