If you are interested in reprinting this article please contact me.
PINE BLUFFS — According to Deal Hudson (The Window, 7/5/05), Sandra O’Connor’s resignation from the Supreme Court is “a moment of truth for the White House.” For the Pro-Life Movement, its implications are no less immense.
Catholics and evangelicals speak out
Immediately after her resignation, Catholic and evangelical leaders Judie Brown with American Life League, James Dobson with Focus on the Family, Fr. Frank Pavone with Priests for Life and Jay Sekulow with the American Center for Law and Justice, spoke out on the importance of this presidential appointment. They, together with Pro-Life voters, voiced high hopes that George Bush would nominate a strict constructionist who will exercise judicial restraint and apply the Constitution rather than re-write it.
The President’s excellent appointments to the lower federal courts show his understanding that the Pro-Life community is at the very heart of his political base, and his awareness that our support has been significant through two elections. Indeed, Mr. Hudson wrote that “the... Catholic vote has shifted to [the Republicans]from 37% in 1996 to 57% in 2004.”
That’s about 4.35 million votes. Combining them with Evangelical Christians — 78% of whom voted for Mr. Bush because they see the Republican Party as closer to the Christian message than its competition — gave Republicans a decisive edge in 2004, and may do so again in the congressional and gubernatorial elections in 2006.
Compromise on judicial nominees?
Under threat from Republicans to use the “Constitutional Option,” a “compromise” was forged in the Senate by the media-dubbed “Gang of Fourteen,” permitting several of the President’s judicial appointees who’d been denied hearings to be confirmed. It specified that in the future, only in “extraordinary circumstances” would the filibuster be used to block judicial appointments.
Against this background, Mr. Bush tapped John G. Roberts, a judge on the prestigious Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the Supreme Court’s open slot.
Impeccable qualifications
First in his class at Harvard Law, a Clerk for Justice Rehnquist, a successful lawyer who tried more cases before the Supreme Court than any other lawyer — thirty-nine — Roberts served as a deputy Solicitor General and an associate counsel in the House. Many have referred to him as “the best lawyer in America.” Also worthy of note is that after Mr. Bush nominated him to the Court of Appeals two years ago, Roberts was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.
He served with distinction in that post. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia praised him as an “originalist, a judge who interprets the Constitution faithfully and respects the limits of his own power.” And James Dobson, Ph. D. said, “He (Roberts) demonstrates the legal acumen, judicial temperament, and personal integrity to be a Supreme Court Justice.”
Just when I thought the Roberts nomination would sail through without much problem, up stepped Senate Minority Leader Reid (D - NV), Senator Kennedy (D - MA) and Senator Schumer (D - NY), signaling the Democrats disapproval.
Predictably, their problem centers on Judge Roberts’s comments regarding Roe v. Wade. As deputy Solicitor General, while arguing an abortion-related case, Roberts said: “We believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.” And during his confirmation process two years ago, he said: “There’s nothing in my background that would preclude me from applying Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”
His first statement, trotted out by well-funded attack dogs on the left, caused apoplexy among pro-choice advocates. The second became a source of concern for pro-lifers.
Conflicting statements
When taken together, these comments appear conflicting. Can they be reconciled? Yes. But one must first understand the difference between the roles of a deputy solicitor general and an appellate judge. The former is arguing the position of the Administration. What he says is not necessarily his opinion. The latter, on the other hand, is sworn to faithfully apply the established law of the land, not his personal opinions.
Regarding Roberts, Dr. Dobson stated: “”No one can discern with perfect accuracy what lies in the heart and specifically the opinions and beliefs of this nominee. It will not be until future decisions are handed down . . . that the ideology of this man, if confirmed, will become apparent.”
Will John Roberts turn out to be another David Souter? Will he be a disaster for pro-lifers? By examining another set of differences, what an appellate judge must do and what a Supreme Court Justice may do, we can probably lay this issue to rest. As mentioned, an appellate judge’s duty is to apply the law of the land — precedent such as Rowe v. Wade — in deciding cases. Roberts told Senators at his confirmation hearing that he could do that. So they confirmed him.
But a Supreme Court Justice may overrule existing law — overturn precedent — if, after listening to arguments by both sides, he believes a prior case was wrongly decided. If he can convince four other Justices that he’s correct, that case will be overturned.
Judge Roberts is pro-life. The possibility that Rowe is on its way out is what’s causing certain special interest groups and liberal Senators to spearhead a drive to derail his nomination.
As of this writing, despite efforts by Democrats to delay them, confirmation hearings have been scheduled for the end of August. Things are getting interesting. Stay tuned.
Anthony J. Sacco, a licensed private investigator, is a columnist and the author of the creative non-fiction books, The China Connection and Little Sister Lost, two suspenseful political thrillers classified as Christian inspirational mysteries. He writes from Pine Bluffs, Wyoming.