Sunday, September 18, 2005

Filling the O'Connor Vacancy

With the Roberts' confirmation hearing s concluded, the President will be announcing this week his choice to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. There are many competent candidates to take her seat on the Court. There will be pressure on Bush to appoint a woman. While he may take this opportunity to appoint a Hispanic, the conventional wisdom is that he will choose a woman. Be advised that whosoever the president appoints will be opposed by the left, its lackeys in the media and the out of touch Democratic senators who worship before the abortion altar.

If he were to defy the prognosticators, he would appoint Michael Luttig from the Fourth Cicuit Court of Appeals.

I he wants the names of some excellent women, he can interview Edith Jones, 5th Circuit, Alice Batchelder 6th Circuit, Karen Williams, 4th Circuit, or Janice Rogers Brown. None of these would disappoint the right to life community.

Then there is Emilio Garza. An excellent candidate from everything that I have seen.

Finally he can always pick Senator Brownback from Kansas or Senator John Cornyn form Texas. Frankly such a move would be a master stroke.

This is where the president must go to prove his commitment to the rule of law and the sanctity of life.

We should pray for him these next days regarding this specific matter that The president will follow the Good Lord's guidance in this most critical of decisions.

1 Comments:

At 11:06 AM, Anonymous John K. Walker said...

As I have been vainly trying to explain to everyone for months now, as I (not a lawyer) read it, in Arizona and many other states, whether Roe v. Wade is ever overturned will immediately and permanently be a moot point as far as ever passing pro-life state legislation is concerned. This is because of the abortion industry's successful, though deliberately little publicized by the media, "legal" strategy to use state courts to force taxpayer funding of elective abortion for public assistance recipients. Unless this strategy is politically overcome (as is constitutionally possible in Arizona) prior to any reversal by the US Supreme Court, the wording of these individual state supreme court decisions (the SIMAT ruling in our case) would immediately be cited as binding precedent to prohibit either any new legislation or to enjoin restoration of any pre-Roe pro-life statutes. (I have found a legal website that supports my warning, if anyone is interested --don't take my non-lawyer's word for it.)

So, it is very, very depressing to have to say this, but unless action is taken beforehand, everyone will find that overturning Roe will not have mattered whatsoever....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home