As SCOTUS Vacancy Looms, Bush Urged to Remember Pro-Life Commitments
by Jenni Parker, Mary Rettig, and Bill Fancher
July 12, 2005
(AgapePress) - As the anticipated battle over Senate confirmation of the next Supreme Court nominee nears, many people are watching closely to see if President Bush will remember his commitments regarding judicial nominees as well as his obligations to the pro-life values voters who supported his bid for a second term in the White House.As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, recently announced her plans to retire after 24 years on the bench, battle lines were already being drawn. O'Connor has said she will step down before the start of the high court's next term in October, or whenever her successor is appointed and confirmed. But foremost in the mind of countless Americans are some essential unknowns -- who that successor will be and where he or she will stand, especially on one particular issue.
Morse: Litmus Test Fact, Reproductive Rights Fiction
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, a research fellow at Stanford University, believes abortion will be a key issue, if not the key issue, in the battle over the next U.S. Supreme Court nominees. She says as much as liberal lawmakers claim they do not have a litmus test when it comes to judiciary appointments, the legislators do in fact have such a test -- and the nominee's position on Roe v. Wade and other abortion cases is it.
"I think that many jurists now understand that Roe v. Wade was badly decided," Morse says, "and I think what has been enshrined in these laws is the idea that it's possible to completely control your reproductive life. It's not really possible to do that." Also, she observes, "There's a lot of dissatisfaction even with the Casey decision," the ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold Roe v. Wade in essence, but also ruled that the state may impose some restrictions on abortions.
Apparently, Morse suggests, the abortion issue has not been resolved, either in the law or in the national mind. One possible reason is, as she contends, "There's no right to pregnancy on demand that would correspond to a right to abortion on demand. All you can do is give people the right to say no to the baby. You can't give people the right to have a child when they want a child."
The Stanford University scholar says the push for so-called reproductive rights has turned children into commodities instead of allowing them to be recognized as people with rights. Morse says abortion is "simply the right to say no to a baby -- it's not the right to control the complete outcome of your reproductive choices at all." That is why she feels the U.S. needs a Supreme Court justice who recognizes reproductive freedom as the myth that it is.
Partisan Politics, Presidential Promises, and Pro-Life Pressure
A Supreme Court vacancy during President George W. Bush's second term has been expected for some time and has therefore already generated immense speculation and controversy. In view of 80-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist's serious illness and rumors that 85-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens might be stepping down, liberal and conservative groups began mobilizing support and positioning themselves for the confirmation struggle well before Justice O'Connor's retirement announcement.
Bush has pledged that he will name O'Connor's successor quickly. So far, however, the White House has declined to comment specifically on any possible nominees. Nor has the administration commented on whether Bush will name a woman to succeed O'Connor, whose departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman on the high court bench.
Seemingly playing it close to the vest in his statements, Tim Goeglein of the White House Office of the Liaison has assured Bush's supporters that the Chief Executive will be honoring his campaign promises regarding judicial nominees. "The president intends to nominate a person, a man or a woman, who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and who will bring dignity to the bench," the White House spokesman says.
Goeglein has only gone so far as to state that the President's Supreme Court nominee will be rooted in the principle "that it is the role of a judge not to legislate from the bench but rather to interpret the Constitution." Still, the Bush administration liaison has stopped short of naming a specific person, and many watchers are wondering whether that has anything to do with a search for a moderate that might have a better chance than a religious or ultra-conservative nominee at getting through the Senate confirmation process.
American Life League president Judie Brown issued a statement regarding the eagerly awaited appointment, noting that O'Connor's retirement "provides a tremendous opportunity for President Bush to keep his word to those who elected him and demonstrate the pro-life position he professes." And, partisan pressures notwithstanding, the pro-lifer maintains there is no room for political compromise on this issue.
Brown's statement stresses the contention that George W. Bush's re-election was made possible in large part by pro-life values voters. She contends these people clearly "would feel betrayed if he nominates a so-called 'moderate' to the U.S. Supreme Court." While the activist acknowledges that one can be moderate on some issues, she asserts "there's no such thing as moderation when discussing abortion. Abortion is not a political issue. We are talking about life and death for our fellow human beings."
The American Life League spokeswoman says her group is respectfully imploring President Bush to "stand on his professed convictions" in making his Supreme Court appointments by nominating someone who will strictly interpret constitutional law, inasmuch as it requires "authentic justice." Brown adds that the Constitution of the United States calls for the protection of all human persons -- not their destruction through abortion.
