NOT ALL TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT CHOICES ARE PRO-LIFE

NewsWithViews.com

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” —Thomas Jefferson

Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. —Alveda King

President elect Trump stated, “Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench, and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. My list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”

At the third debate Trump described the 21 candidates he had identified on two separate lists as “pro-life. “They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted, and I believe that’s very important.”

Okay, President Trump, let’s take a closer look at your choices, or should we say, The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation’s choices…[Link]

From the moment Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February, Heritage Foundation has been at the forefront of the debate over the Supreme Court vacancy. That now includes influencing the list of potential replacements being considered by Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. It is why all these nominees must be completely vetted, because very few of them are pro-sanctity of life.

Trump’s Supreme Court Choices

Here is the full list of the 21 judges Trump would consider appointing for the Supreme Court. He has stated that they are all conservatives, but they are not all pro-life!

Asked what he would do to protect the “sanctity of human life,” Trump said it starts with the Supreme Court.

“I will protect it, and the biggest way to protect it is through the Supreme Court and putting people in the court,” he said. Then vet them President Trump!

Trump went on to say that he favored overturning Roe v. Wade and that, “I will appoint Supreme Court judges who will be pro-life.”

Which Nominees are Pro-Life?

Andy Schlafly is President, Legal Center for Defense of Life; Attorney, Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund; and General Counsel, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons.

Thanks to Schlafly and several Eagle Forum members who have researched President Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court justices, they’ve concluded the following:

12 of 21 are not serious contenders due to age, controversy, or political motivation for including them.
3 of 21 are not really pro-life, as research proves based on their writings and statements.
3 of 21 are probably not pro-life, as they have been unusually silent on the issue.
1 of 21 is possibly pro-life, and could be good on the issue.
2 of 21 are certainly pro-life and will remain pro-life despite pressure by the pro-abort media.

Schlafly states, “Our challenge is to have one of the two ‘certainly pro-life’ candidates selected as the nominee. Trump wants to pick a pro-lifer, but obstacles include the media, Senators, Capitol Hill staff, and possibly bad luck.”

Nominees Who are Not Pro-Life

What Schlafly and others state is very true. Cabinet members leave after merely a few years, but Supreme Court nominees typically hold power for 30+ years. Trump’s upcoming nomination to fill the vacancy of pro-life Justice, Scalia, is as important as the election itself. We cannot afford another David Souter mistake!

Six of the 21 candidates on Trump’s list are being pushed by the media because they are most likely NOT PRO-LIFE. Here’s the list of the six candidates that we need to speak out against and veto:

Diane Sykes – She ruled against a pro-life Indiana law, and required taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood; as a state court judge Sykes sentenced two veteran abortion protesters to 60 days in jail.

Steven Colloton – Colloton wrote or joined multiple pro-abortion opinions: one to eviscerate a pro-life South Dakota law, and another to side with a fellow pro-abort judge against a pro-life Nebraska law.

Joan L. Larsen – Larsen is a feminist law professor who declared recently that there is sexism in law, and she has repeatedly mentioned Roe v. Wade without criticizing it. Larson clerked for Justice Scalia, but many of his clerks were not pro-life. She has no federal judgeship experience and is similar to David Souter in her weakness in writing ability, which makes her susceptible to influence by the liberal media.

The following three would probably NOT be pro-life on the Supreme Court

Raymond Kethledge – He joined a decision that favorably cited a precedent that censored a pro-life advertisement.

Allison Eid – She has been unusually silent on abortion. She tersely dissented from a denial of certiorari before the Colorado Supreme Court in a challenge to an injunction against abortion protesters, initially on only the limited grounds of the length of the injunction, and then later, only on the free speech grounds.

Neil Gorsuch – Unusual and persistent silence on abortion throughout law school and as a judge, yet repeatedly cited the Blackmun decision that gave abortionists legal standing to challenge pro-life laws.

Pledge for a Pro-Life Nominee

In a letter to President Trump, entitled, “Coalition Letter on the Pledge for a Pro-Life Nomination for Justice Scalia’s Seat on the U.S. Supreme Court,” signed by pro-life conservative groups and organizations, true pro-life justices are put forward for consideration as nominees.

As the letter states in part,

As you stated during the campaign and in your 60 Minutes interview after your election, you are pro-life and you pledged to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who are pro-life. In addition, Phyllis Schlafly and other conservatives endorsed you in reliance on your public pledge to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with someone as close to his views as possible.

Justice Scalia never ducked the abortion issue, and always sided with the pro-life position. His replacement should be nothing less.

You indicated that you will make your nomination from a list of 21 candidates that was provided to you by others. Unfortunately, the list omits any women who have a pro-life record, and includes a total of only four women out of 21. This was probably an oversight, because many well-qualified women with pro-life records are available for nomination, and they should be considered for this important position. For example, Judge Jennifer Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has credentials equal to or better than those on the list, and she would be an outstanding nominee for Justice Scalia’s seat.

Attempts to nominate a “stealth” candidate lacking in a record on abortion was the failed approach of the past, and would be inconsistent with the transparency of your incoming Administration. Despite that, at least a half-dozen of the candidates on the list lack a pro-life record. We urge you not to consider these candidates lacking a pro-life record for the position of Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. Several of these judges on the list have even written or spoken in ways that are at odds with the pro-life position.

Pro-Life Judges

In addition to Judge Elrod as recommended above, her elder colleague Judge Edith Jones would also be a stellar choice. She is likewise a female jurist who has qualifications superior to most on the current list, and yet was inexplicably omitted.

There are several outstanding candidates who have pro-life records that would fulfill your pledge. For example, Justice Charles Canady of the Florida Supreme Court, who is on your current list, would be a fabulous nominee. Judges Elrod and Jones, and Justice Canady, are all experienced judges who have been transparent about their views and have an unblemished record on the bench. Any of these would be a tremendous addition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senate Confirmations of Trump Choices

Not all senate republicans are staunchly pro-life, yet they have vowed to confirm the president’s nominee.

“We’re going to confirm the president’s nominee one way or the other. And there’s an easy way and there’s a hard way,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (right). (| Getty.)

If Republicans change the Supreme Court confirmation threshold to a simple majority, Trump could conceivably install even more conservative justices to the Supreme Court with relative ease. Three current justices are in their late 70s or early 80s. [Link]

This is why it is mandatory that President Trump keeps his promise to choose true pro-life Justices!

Conclusion

President-elect Trump is going to announce his top choices very soon. Please repost this article and email it to your lists.

If you know any pro-life, pro-family leaders who are willing to sign this coalition letter to the Trump campaign regarding Supreme Court Justice nominees, immediately contact Andy Schlafly or Priscilla Gray.

11 responses to “NOT ALL TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT CHOICES ARE PRO-LIFE

  1. You need to get off pushing for SCOTUS Justices that are notably Pro-Life (and will face horrible confirmation hearings), and look for strong Constitutionalists that will support the Tenth Amendment. You have been fighting at the Federal level and losing since ’72.
    Lets get behind the Tenth Amendment and win! At least 45 States would be somewhat more restrictive than the current damnable law! And at least we could stop the Federals from giving money to Planned Parenthood!
    You are not going to get a total ban in any states to begin with, but a ban after 13 weeks except in case the mother’s health is very probable in most states. If you had to settle for 20 weeks of ‘choice’ it would be better than what you have now, and would be going in the right direction.
    The Lib/Prog/Feminazis are going to go batshit to start out with, but you beat them incrementally in the State Legislature easily (I think), but not going to happen in Sodom-on-the-Potomac.
    And forget about a total ban. It is NOT going to happen, can’t be enforced, and would create such a Welfare State problem that any sensible legislator is going to shy away from that. A ban in cases of rape, incest, fetal medical problems, and sacrificing the mother to save the baby is foolish, no matter how well intended.
    If you think your moral superiority is such that you can tell a raped girl or a woman with medical problems who might die that she can’t have an abortion, I think you have lost your “Moral Superiority” right there.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Well, I’m trying to tell you HOW to turn it around.
    Doing it at the Federal Level is a waste of time. The Lib/Progs have more money, & the National;l Media. Look at the record, they are beating you like a drum. You are morally right, but your tactics are dreadfully wrong! Terribly wrong, and sticking with losing tactics is just DUMB!
    Abortion has no mention in the Constitution, is not a Federal Issue and properly belongs to the States. The Tenth Amendment is both your shield and sword. The Lib/Progs hate it and have gotten away with ignoring it!
    Look at this as a Guerrilla War. You can’t win on the Federal Level, but can at the State Level, that has been proven hundreds of times over the last 44 years. But the States LOSE because SCOTUS strikes their law down.
    SCOTUS has USURPED a POWER it does NOT rightly have. So take it away!
    Trying to get strong “PRO-LIFE” by your definition Justices is extremely difficult if not impossible. However, most Conservative and especially Constitutional Judges will listen to a Tenth Amendment argument, and they can NOT just ignore something that is PLAINLY WRITTEN in the Constitution.
    Do you want to see your tax money given to support the barbaric murder of viable babies by Planned Parenthood in Late-term, even Partial-birth abortions? Or do you really want to “Turn it around”, even if you don’t get everything you want in the first go-round?
    I think not accepting the challenge, and chance to go for a partial win, at this point in the abortion fight (Lose on top lose), is almost as bad as the Special Little Snowflakes stamping their feet and crying because Hillary blew the election and blaming Trump, calling him names.
    Get over it! Fight to win, or get used to being the loser!
    The Lib/Progs have had 44 years of continuous victories, mostly because of hard-headed (but morally correct) people “Holding the High Moral Ground”. I ask, How do you like the view? Wouldn’t you like to win a little rather than lose every time?
    You said the right thing – “Turn it around”, but you are not going to erase 44 years of socio-political change in one fell swoop. You are going to have to win the war one small victory at a time.
    Think about it. Read the Constitution & the Tenth Amendment again, and then try to tell me fighting it in the State Legislatures and with Ballot Initiatives in State elections isn’t the way to go. But you have got to go with what the Voters are willing to support.
    At the Federal Level the Tenth Amendment is easy because you fight that under the Girls Bathroom Battle. Something like 96% of Americans are against the Feds making law on that. Easy victory there.
    Same war – Federal Usurpation of Power – just a smaller battle.

    Think! Am I asking you to sacrifice your religious ideals? NO!
    I’m just saying, let’s win a little bit that we CAN. Also this same principle is applicable on dozens of subjects.
    Abortion is a National Disgrace! Let’s try to make it better,
    I personally think that any man that has ever tried to seduce a woman that was not his wife has no right to deny a woman an abortion. I’m a lot of bad things, but not a hypocrite. But this current situation is past Barbaric. It is also a very large warning against letting the Federal Govt micromanage State Law.

    Like

  3. I have to agree with Longknife in this discussion. No question that abortion is Biblically and morally wrong, but constitutionally, it is a states rights issue and that is the way to fight this battle. Ron Paul understood this. Unfortunately, for strictly standing by the constitution along with not being the “show biz” type to bring media attention to himself, he was shut out of the discussion. Typical, but nonetheless sad. To the degree that Trump adheres to the God inspired constitution and doesn’t just “shoot from the hip” to feed his ego and maintain his populist support, his ultimate sucess, as well as that of our rebublic country, will be determined.

    Like

  4. No condemnation from my end, CZ. Along with so any others, so much information catches my attention and I have to pick and choose what I will read or see based on the title of the article. I’m not surprised you would agree with my comments.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Absolutely no condemnation!
    I’m just real tired of the damn Lib/Progs winning and pushing the envelope.
    For the Libs to use Govt to coerce money at gun-point (STEAL!) from moral Christian people and give it those murderous bitches at PP just pisses me off! And them selling the body parts, and the Lead Bitch buying a Lamborgini or something like it just adds to it. I don’t covet the car, but the vicious twit is robbing working families to buy herself a super-fancy Elitist Ride.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Amen….. and Amen. All will reap what they’ve sown! ….”But let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, IF WE FAINT NOT”(Gal.5:9). Keep up the good fight. And again, AMEN.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mike, I saw the NR article, but I would definitely disagree with them. Gorsuch is not pro-life at all. In fact, one needs to actually look at NR since they were staunchly against Trump, and they are not conservatives. Their founder was a CIA agent, a Skull and Bonesman, and a CFR member, and he appointed the editor NR has now.

      I wouldn’t listen to anything they’d write or report…why? Because they’re more the ilk of McCain and Romney than true Constitutional conservatives.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s