I’ve previously written for Conservative Review why I believe the individual(s) Trump appoints to replace Antonin Scalia will be the barometer for his presidency.
But don’t just take my word for it. Andy Schlafly — the director of Eagle Forum and the son of its late, great founder Phyllis Schlafly — thinks this decision is so important that he’s at the tip of the sphere of conservatives across the country united in vetting the names being bandied about. Schlafly, also the general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, gets specific about what’s at stake in the following Q&A.
You are an accomplished attorney in your own right, and you’re doing the kind of leg work I haven’t seen the pro-life movement do before on judicial nominees. Why have you put so much into this and why is it so important?
Schlafly: This appointment is going to last for 30 years. It is really bigger than the election itself. The Supreme Court has more influence than the president does, at least within our country as it currently stands. We need to spend the time looking at what these judges have written and we should discuss it. Some of these judges being mentioned are not pro-life. We were told these were good judges and they have held the right way on some issues, but they are not all pro-life. In fact, most of them are actually not pro-life.
….
What has your research turned up on some of these names?
Schlafly: Diane Sykes is probably the top pick of the Federalist Society. But if you dig into her record you find that when she was a state court judge, she sentenced two pro-life advocates to jail for 60 days for a peaceful protest they engaged in. She also struck down an Indiana law that defunded Planned Parenthood. This is not a pro-life judge.
….
Are there any other names people should be worried about?
Schlafly: Steve Colloton is a problem. He has repeatedly ruled for the abortion side. He did something in a case out of South Dakota, where abortionists are required to warn women about having a higher suicide rate after women have an abortion. He wrote a concurrence where he diluted that requirement and he said an abortionist can use their professional judgement and tell women whatever they think is best. Come on, someone like Kermit Gosnell does not have any professional judgement, and he should not be allowed to tell women whatever he thinks is true.
Yes, someone like Joan Larsen once clerked for Scalia, but many of his clerks were not pro-life and neither is she. She’s a feminist law professor who recently declared ‘there is sexism in law.’ Neil Gorsuch uses pro-abort terminology in his writings. Raymond Kethledge favorably cited a precedent that censored a Christian, pro-life advertisement.
Then there’s someone like Bill Pryor, who just this [past] week decided to grant homosexual groups access to middle schools as young as sixth grade to establish their “clubs.” That’s not the first time Pryor has done this kind of thing. In 2011, he sided against a student counselor compelled by a state school to enroll in remediation after Christian faith led her to question the assertions of homosexual activists.
Who impresses you the most on Trump’s list?
Schlafly: Charles Canady from the Florida Supreme Court is very good. He is consistently pro-life and he was also on the Clinton impeachment team, so this is someone who will stand up against the other side. He is probably the best pick for our issues. He has repeatedly held against a minor getting an abortion without notifying her parents, for example.
Which groups are you concerned about interfering with our cause?
Schlafly: National Right to Life. They promoted David Souter. They are too close to the establishment Republicans, and I predict the moderates who don’t want to fight on the abortion issue are going to line up National Right to Life to back another Souter-like candidate who will pretend to be pro-life. They have state chapters who are refusing to join our efforts to make sure we truly get a conservative justice in place of Scalia.
- Discussion
-
An in-depth look at the "conservative judges" @realDonaldTrump is considering replacing Scalia with. https://t.co/0c4uSIEsg3
— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) December 12, 2016
I don’t trust anything the Orange King promises. His list is meaningless. He said he might not follow the list when picking a SCOTUS nominee. He once said he thought his sister, a pro-abortion judge, would be a good justice. And I’m not about to take his word that the potential nominees on that list have conservative values.
I don’t trust Trump as far as I could throw him. Interesting article. Things look different once someone looks really closely at these people.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.