By Dave Andrusko
As you can imagine, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the all-guns-blazing resistance that has already begun by pro-abortionists were topics of great interest at last week’s annual National Right to Life Convention in Kansas City, Kansas.
There will be endless speculation over the specific candidate pro-life President Trump will nominate. What we know now is the President intends to move fast by submitting a name July 9 and that the final cut of five people includes two women.
A few thoughts going forward. Three, to be exact.
#1. There is no limit to how hysterical opposition will be to whomever President Trump nominates. That is why we hear “Bork” roll off the tongue of Ruth Marcus, the pro-abortion deputy editorial page editor for the reliably pro-abortion Washington Post.
For those who may not know the story of Judge Robert Bork, he was the nominee pro-abortionists eviscerated in 1987 and prevented from assuming a place on the Supreme Court. Marcus tells us there must be “another Bork moment.”
Of course Marcus defines this in a way that sounds soooooo reasonable. It means “insisting on a nominee who is, to invoke the language of the Bork debate, within the broad mainstream of judicial thought.” However the “broad mainstream,” needless to say, is to be defined by Marcus and other pro-abortionists, specifically those in the United States Senate.
#2. As we have discussed probably two gabillion times, pro-abortionists insist on a double standard and are incapable of understanding that the charges they hurl at pro-lifers are precisely the ones pro-abortionists are guilty of.
Marcus began her column thusly:
Hours before Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his retirement, Justice Elena Kagan sketched out the court’s potential dystopian future, with justices unencumbered by precedent and energized to make the law conform to their policy preferences.
There probably has never been a case in which justices more clearly made “the law conform to their policy preferences” than Roe v. Wade.
The specific case Marcus is talking about is not in our single-issue purview so we won’t get into it. But Marcus quotes pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan talking about it to make a larger point. Judge Kagan “explained” [actually alleged].
that the worst part was not that the five-justice majority was wrong — it was that its ruling so cavalierly “subverts all known principles” about being reluctant to overturn prior cases. [It was a 41-year-old decision.]
In the future, well — you can guess what other holdings the court’s conservatives have on their hit list.
Let’s be clear. The decision Marcus is referring to has always been extremely controversial. At the time the justices seemed to be fully aware that what they held rested on a most rickety of foundations. As George Will wrote, the issue was one of free speech and the precedent the Court overturned was “inimical to the First Amendment.”
Likewise, Roe has been hotly debated for 45+years. To be sure the justices that gave us Roe assured us there was a foundation to gut the abortion laws of all 50 states (there wasn’t, of course).
But they hid how radical Roe was in phony baloney assurances that not all laws were overturned and (as the New York Times pretended in an editorial that appeared two days after the decision was handed down) only legalized abortion in “the first three months of pregnancy.”
#3. David Von Drehle is another Washington Post columnist. His headline about the impending battle over Justice Kennedy’s replacement reads “Conservatives have trained for this moment for decades” but, in fact, pro-lifers have been fighting this battle even longer. As we have often reminded the media, “Conservatives” or “the Right” and prolifers may overlap at times but are they are not synonymous.
Von Drehle’s whole point is that while there have been many, many disappointments,” conservatives didn’t fold. Instead, the right dug in for a long war to control the Supreme Court.”
And as we have since 1973, we are digging in again, in this instance to help the President confirm his next nominee whom we are confident will be in the mold of his first nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch.