Tag Archives: supreme court justices



Yes, sir. I’m a sucker for this country. I’m a sucker for the Star-Spangled Banner, and I like what we got here! I like it! A guy can say what he wants – and do what he wants – without having a bayonet shoved through his belly. Quote from the movie, -Meet John Doe

Pro-Life Supreme Court Judges

Odd way to start an article on the choice of supreme court judges? Well, not really, because it is up to all of us. It’s up to us to be the John Does who speak up for life…life of the unborn. It is ultimately the most important decision our new President will make, and it’s a decision that will affect America for decades to come. We need to be the catalysts who ensure pro-life Supreme Court Judges.

The movie, Meet John Doe, with Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck, is just one of the many famous Frank Capra movies that were so successful. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is another famous Capra film starring Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur about a newly appointed United States Senator who fights against a corrupt political system. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, with Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur, is another wonderful Capra film, but it’s the John Doe movie that represents the common man.

Truly, the common man elected this outsider, Donald J. Trump, who will not play the globalist games or buy into the one-world-order agenda put forth by both Republicans (the Rockefeller Kingmakers) and the Socialist Democrats for far too many decades. This outsider has promised us pro-life supreme court justices, and we need to help him achieve that goal in spades!

Pro-Life Coalition Letter

A remarkable 90 pro-life groups have signed onto the a fabulous coalition letter, drafted by Andy Schlafly and loyalists and friends of Phyllis Schlafly’s who were early Trump supporters. The letter with the pro-life group signees has been delivered to both President-elect Trump in New York, and Vice President-elect Pence in Washington D.C.

Please review the letter, because it contains an Appendix which includes six candidates on President-elect Trump’s list of 21 Supreme Court Justices who lack any pro-life record and have even shown an unwillingness to take a pro-life position publicly.

On January 1st, 2017, Fox News Sunday read from the coalition letter, and the segment was aired again later on Sunday. This widely viewed news show also used Andy Schlafly’s superb analysis of the candidates, which you can read here.

There are, indeed, vast differences among candidates on the list, especially with respect to Trump’s pro-life pledge. Some of the candidates (including Sykes and Colloton) have even repeatedly taken the pro-abortion side.

Schlafly stated, “We need to hold self-described ‘pro-life’ groups in D.C. more accountable. Some don’t even say they support Trump’s pro-life pledge, while others are obviously not speaking out as they should. Some have even tried to talk others out of speaking out for life.”

In early January, 2017, the Democrats in opposition said they would try to block whoever the nominee is. Schlafly is right when he states, “So, we should continue to insist on a pro-life nominee worth fighting for, because it is going to be a fight regardless. If Trump’s advisors persuade him to break his pro-life pledge, then it will become a disastrous replay of the first President Bush’s breaking of his famous “no new taxes” pledge.”

Andy Schlafly believes that media and the senators will push for a woman simply because all four women on Trump’s list are not pro-life. Two true pro-life judges are Jennifer Elrod and Edith Jones who could be interviewed for the job, and I’d certainly like one of them to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, my personal opinion leans toward a strong Constitutional originalist and pro-life male candidate to replace Antonin Scalia. The three women presently on the court are far left liberals appointed by Socialist Democrat presidents.

Trump promised the American people in the last debate, and even afterwards, that he would pick only pro-life nominees, and not just from his list whose nominees came from the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. [Link]

It is up to us, the John Does of the country, the common man who elected Mr. Trump, to stand up and fight for life. Our force is greater than we know…just look at what we have accomplished already with the outsider who is now our 45th President. We won the battle, but the war wages on, and we cannot rest on our laurels now. We can shut down the DC capital switchboard as we’ve done before. Let your voices be heard, loud and clear! Pro-life Supreme Court justices for the unborn…this is the rallying call!

The Origin of Eugenics

The history of population reduction, of the falsely alleged “genetically inferior,” via eugenics goes back farther than most Americans are aware, and it involves many of our past leaders. So, let’s do a short refresher course of Planned Parenthood and the elitists who promoted and funded eugenics.

Margaret Sanger (1922), was the first president and founder of Planned Parenthood. The origins of Planned Parenthood date to October 16, 1916, when Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne, and Russian immigrant, Fania Mindellopened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in the Brownsville section of the New York borough of Brooklyn.

At a March 1925, international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.” This makes my blood boil…

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history proves otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others. (See Black Genocide)

Politicians Behind Black Genocide

According to the New American Magazine, a documentary called Maafa21, which details how the elite have been targeting African Americans since the days of slavery, has some juicy info in it regarding the politicians behind Black Genocide. Maafa21 begins in the mid-1800s with Francis Galton, (cousin of Charles Darwin) the British statistician who coined the word “eugenics,” or “selective breeding as proposed human improvement.”

From there, Maafa 21 weaves a chilling tale of the efforts of racists in the United States to eliminate African-Americans from the population. Hitler credited American eugenicists with influencing his European agenda. Through the 20th century these influential bigots planned tactics such as injecting a sterilizing agent into public water supplies. The documentary explains how their racist efforts continue to the present day, and provides a legitimate explanation of the relatively unchanged size of the black population as compared with other races in the United States.

Funding Eugenics

The Rockefeller Foundation was established in 1912, and immediately began giving money to eugenics research organizations. (Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak) Eugenics was a pseudo-scientific and social science movement that emerged in the late 19th century, and gained significant traction in the first half of the 20th century.

The vast wealth and fortunes of the major industrialists and bankers in the United States flowed heavily into the eugenics organizations, promoting and expanding this racist and elitist ideology. Money from the Ned Harriman railroad fortune (father of W. Averell Harriman), with millions given by the Rockefeller and Carnegie family fortunes were subsequently “devoted to sterilization of several hundred thousand of American ‘defectives’ annually, as a matter of eugenics.” [Link]

Powerful American Bigots

In a 1913 letter written by Theodore Roosevelt to American Eugenics Society founder, Charles Davenport, Roosevelt writes, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type, is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”

In 1966, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) accepted the Margaret Sanger Award, and it is mentioned that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman are co-chairs of Planned Parenthood honorary council. [Link] (Source: Lodi News-Sentinel – Oct 10, 1966)

In 1965, former Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, complained that the United States was spending money to slow the population growth of responsible families while at the same time providing financial incentives for ignorant, feebleminded and lazy people to have more babies. He said that history would rightly condemn the United States if we didn’t link welfare to family-planning. At that time, Eisenhower was the co-chairman of a Planned Parenthood fund-raising campaign along with former Democratic President Harry Truman.

LBJ Birth Control Cited: “President Johnson has been the major force in shaping a virtual revolution in government thinking to help meet the global population crisis.” Planned Parenthood- World Population (Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Oct 11, 1966)

Remembered for the Vietnam War, the War on Poverty, and the Great Society, Johnson was also the first U.S. president to back federal support for birth control in social welfare and public health programs (at the urging of a Republican representative from Texas, George H. W. Bush). Margaret Sanger died midway through Johnson’s presidency in 1966.

John Ehrlichman, who was an assistant to President Richard Nixon, wrote that Nixon once told him that African-Americans could not really benefit from federal programs because they are genetically inferior to whites. Later, Nixon would label birth control a national priority and sign legislation to make it available as a service of the U.S. government. Then in March of 1972, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future which Nixon had created three years earlier with the help of Congressional Democrats, began calling for the nationwide legalization of abortion.

Nixon stated, “A majority of people in Colorado voted for abortion, I think a majority of people in Michigan are for abortion, I think in both cases, well, certainly in Michigan, they will vote for it because they think that what’s going to be aborted generally are the little black bastards.” [Link]

The Bottom Line

In a 2009 New York Times Magazine interview, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon that, “…I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” The “Populations” Ginsburg and the rest of the Political Elite referred to is clearly defined in Maafa21.

Trump reminded America during his third debate with Hillary Clinton that he is not afraid to stand up for the unborn, spelling out what partial birth abortion really is…the murder of fully developed babies in the womb.

Abortion, an unjust, murderous procedure, should of course be illegal. Donald Trump has said that if he is elected president, he will appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states where it belongs.

Planned Parenthood’s founder wanted to eliminate the black race, and abortion by the numbers, is a racist institution. In the United States, black children are aborted at three times the rate of white children; Hispanic children are aborted at one and a half times the rate. Whatever the intentions of the abortion industry, by functional standards, abortion is a racist institution.

So, tell me, who are the racists? Certainly not our 45th President, Donald J. Trump

Yes, it’s up to us, the John Does of America, to stand up for life. The bottom line is that we need true pro-life justices. What greater right do we have than the right to life?



“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!


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.