NOT ALL TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT CHOICES ARE PRO-LIFE
By Kelleigh Nelson
December 2, 2016
“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?
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.
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.
[P.S. In order to wake up the population, we need to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh etc.) and mention NewsWithViews.com on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]
© 2016 Kelleigh Nelson - All Rights Reserved
President-elect Donald Trump says he has narrowed his choice for a Supreme Court nominee "down to probably three or four candidates."
One of Trump's first decisions after his inauguration will be to nominate a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. The high court has been functioning with just eight justices since then, with the Republican-led Senate refusing to hold hearings on President Barack Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
During his campaign, Trump unveiled a list of 21 potential nominees to fill the vacancy. Included were U.S. Court of Appeals Judges William Pryor, Diane Sykes, former Wisconsin state Supreme Court judge, s he would consider for the Supreme Court. Along with Pryor and Sikes, the list included Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Michigan Supreme Court Chief Judge Robert Young Jr.
"We're going to have to appoint very soon. We're going to have to come up with a name," Trump told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity in an interview that aired Thursday night. He said his candidates are "terrific people. Highly respected, brilliant people and we'll be announcing that pretty soon too."
He told Hannity that his final choices would be constitutional "originalists."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
They were already "tarnished" now maybe, they're rusted & will be tossed . A Black Dog is all Obama is, Putin got it right!!!
Professional doctors are wonderful gifts from the Lord to mankind, insofar as they practice within the sphere of their God-given work. However, they (in addition to politicians and the rest of us) very easily can be arrogant (we can't stop without faith in the Savior: Ephesians 2). I say this not with reference to any afforementioned medical professional (personal relation or not). Rather I say it concerning all as a subclass/service-branch of mankind. Made in the image of God, it is not within any of our spheres to determine when it is necessary (distinct from "best we can tell, necessary") to take a human life. God has told us when we must and we must not. Abortion (even for the supposed/diagnosed protection of a mother) is not on His list of "you may" Period.
I say this first of all as one who trusts in the Lord Jesus as the only true Savior and Lord, to whom He has given new birth by the Holy Spirit. Second, I say it as a devout disciple and scholar of the Scripture, a bible translation consultant, theologian, and Spirit-gifted tester of prophetic spirits. Third I say it as the son of an ABORTED man. Yes, my father was the eigth (living, many miscarried) child out of ten to be born (and survive to this day). Yes my grandmother had 7 children at home when she pled for my dad's life. The doctors insisted it was "medically necessary" for sake of her life to abort her 2 month premature "fetus" (ok, they couldn't get away with talking that way in the early fifties). After the "procedure" (read massacre) and extraction, while my dad lay on the table someone noticed a sign of life (wonderfully providential, if not miraculous) and my grandmother pleaded again for someone who was trying to save her life to give help to her child. ONE DID. Then when awareness and hope were quite evident, others joined. A month later he was at home, overcoming remaining challenges.
Fast forward thirty years, and you would find my sister in a very similar circumstance in 2 life-threatening, yet successful pregnancies. Since then they have also adopted 2 children internationally.
Kelleigh, thank you for your good work. I hope to hear soon concerning the more conservative list Senator Cruz reportedly secured Mr. Trump's agreement to. Will continue to strive for accountability and responsibility upholding our righteous commitments.
May the Lord bless as we rely on the Blessed One, Christ (the Anointed--Beloved), Jesus the Lord for salvation from our own sins.
I should also state concerning the supposed distinction between constitutionality and judicially being against abortion, that constitutionally, the FIRST of our Creator-endowed unalienable rights is LIFE. God has made very evident the folly of denying the personhood of the unborn, even in the face of all the lies to the contrary. All lies come from the father of lies, the murderer, the devil (means the Slanderer--of God and His works, especially His work of His people).
Let us continue in prayer and submission to God for the good of this land and beyond!
Mr. Pennington, you appear to be a well versed son of God, thank you for your contribution to our conversation.
Buckle up- you're not going to like this.
This issue is a deal maker or breaker, the latter if he picks someone who is not firmly pro life. He MUST nominate a pro life judge or he will be a one term president, thereby setting up the dems to win as the real conservatives will NOT take kindly to being betrayed AGAIN.
As most of you will recall I was suspicious from the get go, guess we'll find out soon and it's irrelevant anyway; we have lost our Republic anyway and no one cares enough to do anything because there's not enough of us to do anything to change it.