SCOTUS Vacancy Not About Roe

Don’t be fooled by the fear mongering of the political left. This SCOTUS vacancy is not about Roe. It is about justice.

FILe - In this Feb. 18, 1988, file photo Anthony Kennedy, left, takes the constitutional oath as a Supreme Court Associate Justice from Chief Justice William Rehnquist at a White House ceremony in Washington. Holding the Bible is Kennedy's wife, Mary Kennedy. The 81-year-old Kennedy said Tuesday, June 27, 2018, that he is retiring after more than 30 years on the court.

By Published on June 29, 2018

As you know, the world ends every week in America. This week, it is because of the announced retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court. The left reveres abortion. And every time a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, we hear the screeching call to arms of Big Abortion and its devotees in the media and Hollywood. They never disappoint.

Here’s Michael Ian Black’s graceful take on Twitter: “Stock up on abortions now. Roe v. Wade is gone.”

They’re just cool and rational and funny, you see.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin was a bit more measured, as a member of the media, saying, “Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months.”

The fact that this one decision is always at the center of their fears reflects not only their veneration of abortion (they venerate other issues that do not get the same attention). It’s actually the reflection of Roe’s very poor (in fact, non-existent) constitutional underpinnings. In that sense, they should be worried about the great monuments they have built on such flimsy foundations.

But such rhetoric from the left is not based on facts. Only Justice Thomas is on record saying he believes Roe should be overturned. Several Republican-appointed justices have upheld Roe, including Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, and the very author of Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun.

Nobody knows what the Court will do for sure on this or any other issue.

Further, the pro-life movement true end is not about overturning Roe. We hope it does fall. Indeed, we know it will fall, because it is as heinous and unsustainable as Dred Scott. But we are working towards a day when every person is valued and appreciated as a person created in the image of God, a person with intrinsic dignity.

If Roe is overturned this minute, the pro-life work will continue tomorrow with the same intensity as before. We will be there for any and every woman in need.

If Roe is overturned this minute, the pro-life work will continue tomorrow with the same intensity as before. Big abortion will shift its efforts to the states where their lies will need to be met with truth. And our commitment to women in crisis pregnancies will never waiver. We will be there for any and every woman in need.

So, don’t be fooled by the fear mongering of the political left. Don’t let yourself be riled up by their latest prediction of impending doom. This SCOTUS vacancy is not about Roe. It is about justice. We need a just justice to replace Justice Kennedy. We need someone who is not looking for specific outcomes in cases. Or someone trying to champion the cause of a specific subset of people, as President Obama famously advocated. We need someone who recognizes the limits placed on his role by the Constitution.

To relate it to the abortion issue the media is obsessed about, we do not want a “pro-life judge” who would justify (as liberal justices just tried to do in NIFLA) the government forcing pro-abortion citizens to be silent on abortion or promote crisis pregnancy centers. We want a justice who will recognize that as a violation of the First Amendment.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

In other words, we need to make impartiality great again. It is one of the most foundational principles of law. But liberal judicial activists have largely abandoned it in the pursuit of “progress.” It is why, whoever the nominee is, he or she should reject the constant call by certain members of Congress to pre-commit to specific outcomes on cases, including on abortion.

A judge should decide the cases and controversies between parties that come before the court in a fair and impartial way, putting aside personal policy preferences and remembering the strict boundaries of the judicial role. In the case of Supreme Court Justices especially, they must be all the more diligent in refraining from improperly pre-judging cases, given the wide range of issues where the Court is the ultimate arbiter.

 

Mario Diaz, Esq. is General Counsel for Concerned Women for America.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Karen

    No, your movement is not about Roe v. Wade; it is about locking women who aren’t filthy rich back in the kitchen. Your wife won’t be affected but all the rest of us will return to being slaves of our male relatives and you will enjoy the spectacle.

    • childofjehovah

      Whut? what century do you live in? You cannot produce for me even one policy or piece of legislation that comes even remotely CLOSE to producing what you are describing. Put Alinskeys book down, and join us in reality. You remind me of what Joseph Gobels said, “tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth”

      • Karen

        Married women couldn’t have their own bank accounts until 1974. In Texas, which is a community property state, if a woman inherited money her husband could spend it without her consent until the late 60’s. Women were only admitted to Ivy League schools in the early 70’s. My own mother was not allowed to major in the business in the 1950’s. It was legal for a man to rape his wife in all states until the 1980s and most conservatives still want that. (Read Men’s Rights Activist fora. They are vocal about wanting this.).

        Men have had 40 years of complaining about women refusing to be doormats. I fear what new horrors they have in store for us now.

        • childofjehovah

          You are correct all that happened and it was wrong. However many men and women fought hard to correct those problems we had and they are in the past. As a country we have moved past that. there are not any laws or policies that are even close to what you described. Let me ask you this, how many conservative men are you actually friends with? How do you know what we want? im about as conservative as they come, and if I found out anyone in my circle was wanting to do what you described, I would turn them into the authorities immediately and make sure they were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Out country isn’t perfect, but we have grown, Give us credit for the strides we have made, and do your best to make the future better, not be stuck in the past.

        • Ameribear

          We’ve had 40 years of the judicial sanctioning of the will of the strongest being forced on the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. None of what you’ve listed comes anywhere near equaling the toll we’ve paid in human lives since 1973 because of this. I fear what new horrors against the unborn you’ll continue to excuse in the name of your twisted definition of rights.

    • bjuhlmer

      Women are already slaves to the men who seduce them and insist they kill any baby that results from their activity.

      • childofjehovah

        Care to elaborate? do you have any facts to back your statement up? or are we back to Alinskeyism?

    • JP

      Are you public schooled?

    • Ameribear

      Roe vs. Wade isn’t rooted in reality anymore then you are.

      • stan schmunk

        Sure it is. The reality is that American women/girls have always had abortions even when it was illegal and they always will. No one is forcing them to. Even Reagan knew this when he legalized abortion in 1967. Because of many factors and efforts the number of abortions has decreased to pre-Roe levels. There are 600K less per year than when Reagan was president. The answer is the Gospel but not the kind shared by our so-called pro-life ‘leaders’ who condemn abortion loudly and long and then beg for more money to condemn it some more. Southern preachers, including Billy Graham, used to justify segregation by saying that ‘you can’t legislate morality’. Ok, live up to your own creed.

        • Ameribear

          Roe Vs. Wade denies the humanity and person hood of the unborn. It’s not rooted in reality regardless of how many abortions have, do, or will occur. The pro-life movement has been making steady progress against the culture of death so we’re doing way more then just condemning abortion.

          • stan schmunk

            I agree with your first sentence but the reality in our nation is that millions of women/girls had abortions before Roe. Pro-lifers used to care enough to go to jail over this. It’s just all talk since.

    • Anne Fernandes

      Karen, are you a victim of sex trafficking or any type of actual abuse?

      • Karen

        The fact that you modify the word abuse with ‘actual’ tells me all I need to know about you.

  • dotEdus

    Is it a philosophical gap in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they outline rights that people have as citizens but do not define who counts as a person? Or do they more or less imply that preborn people should be equal in rights to the rest of us and the Roe decision just inserted a foreign assumption about who is human that undermined preborn humanity?

    It seems odd that overturning Roe would simply turn the work of defining who counts as human back to the States and that there is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights hidden underneath Roe that could do that work for us once we alllow it to surface. Is this where a personhood amendment would fill that gap?

Inspiration
Am I a Bigot?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us