Constitutional Emergency

ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL DECISIONS FACING PRESIDENT TRUMP...he must not get this wrong.

http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh375.htm

NOT ALL TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT CHOICES ARE PRO-LIFE

 

By Kelleigh Nelson
December 2, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

“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!

Conclusion

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

Views: 637

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do not think this list of potential Supreme Court nominees is the same list as the one Sen. Ted Cruz negotiated with President-elect Trump before he finally endorsed him.  The list Cruz demanded Trump pick from, and Trump agreed to, were all Constitutionally conservative choices.  Before someone begins calling talk radio programs or even talking with their friends and neighbors, they should verify if I am correct. 

Judy....if you have a different list, share it with the author of this post....I think you can go to the original NewsViews article(URL at the top) and make the point......which I think is a valid one, if there is another list Trump has as a potential group of selections.

I do, however, view Kelleigh Nelson as a very credible journalist.........

Harry, I don't believe the list of nominees Cruz demanded of Trump was ever made known publicly, at least I never saw it in print anywhere. What I do know, as I said above, was Cruz used his list of nominees as a bargaining chip with Trump before he would give his endorsement. Cruz also demanded Trump's commitment to only choose from that list and none other. I trust Sen. Cruz to have chosen dedicated constitutionalist to be judges. Return ou nation to a Constitutional Republic is, of course, Cruz's goal.

I will do as you suggest, Harry, and send the little information I know to Ms. Nelson. Perhaps she can find out who is on the Cruz list.

There is so much to dump on Trump about, it would be sad for us to waste our time and credibility to harp on this issue if the circumstances are now different. I would suggest other issues but the list would be too long for this space....

Not to belabor but as Ryan Pennington states in a later comment, the utmost concern is President-elect Trump appoint SCOTUS judges that clearly honor the US Constitution and are truly committed to the sanctity of life...there can be no deviation in this aspect.  The very existence of the USA is based on our Creator's guidance in the hearts and minds of our Founding Fathers.

President-elect Trump says over and over, "I am but your messenger" meaning he is taking our signals as his driving orders............let us continue to respectfully let him know our wishes for the moral an Spiritual longevity of America. 

I can't think of anything more critical in government appointments than having truly constitutional focused judges in the SCOTUS.

This is interesting.

     I hope President Elect Trump  would consider a Christian Judge who support  Word of God, and our Constitution. That

       would start our great nation in the right direction, repentance, and healing once again.   

       

                      

Talk about a HOT-Button Issue, Right to Life and Roe V. Wade.
And that can also raise the question of What constitutes a Conservative.
Where and how do we determine if a person is a conservative? Where and how do we determine if a person is a Constitutional Conservative?

Talk about a HOT-Button Issue, Right to Life and Roe V. Wade, this is it.
It would seem to me at least that Roe v. Wade is not the measure of either a 'Conservative' nor a 'Constitutional Conservative'. I don't consider Roe V. Wade the deciding factor. Our individual positions and beliefs about Roe V. Wade and Right to Life issues defines our positions on the Right To Life issue alone, but NOT necessarily about the Constitution or who is (or is NOT) a Constitutional Conservative. Who will uphold and defend the Constitution?

We've all heard people claim that Donald Trump is NOT a real true Conservative. And this is the issue those people are referring too when they make that assertion. What does Roe V. Wade really have to do with the Constitution?
My understanding is that the original Supreme Court battle was all about whether or not the Federal Government should be obligated to pay for the abortions of those women who were Dependant on Government support for their health care. It was all about the money, who would pay for an abortion. But it had nothing to do with whether women had the right to have an abortion or not.
Where within our Constitution is that right defined? Granted Or Denied?
Now before everyone starts bashing the hell out of me for this, let me state that I am pro-Life, I do NOT believe in free-willy-nilly abortions for any damn reason a woman wants to come up with. And – YES, I DO believe there ARE certain circumstances under which an abortion might be the only viable option, Very few and limited, (Such as when the woman's life may be at risk, and I believe there may also be other times and circumstances where an abortion might be necessary). But those issues and circumstances should be left between a woman and her doctor. It should NOT be made by politicians and bureaucrats.

So what is a 'Constitutional Conservative? Who would make a good Supreme Court Justice?
I think that would be someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, AND who actually believes in that oath and in that document. To me a good Supreme Court Justice would be someone who will judge the laws based on how those laws balance against, (and within) the freedoms and liberties of all Americans as they have been defined in the Constitution. The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land. Under that Constitution our rights are inalienable and can NOT be taken away by some rouge out-of-control Federal Government or any bureaucracy.
Our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to limit the powers of the Federal Government. They went to great lengths to insure and guarantee, and protect, our rights. They even went to the extent of writing the Second Amendment, stating that our rights to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. They did this because they knew that at some point in time an out-of-control Government might try to limit or abolish those rights. They understood that that potential would always exist. When we allow the federal Government to grant us our rights then we have also ventured into the realms of being in the position where that same federal government can deny those same rights. Any 'rights' that the federal government has the power to grant, they also have the right to deny. Our Rights are NOT granted by the Federal Government. Our rights are inalienable granted by our Creator.
And so it is with Roe V. Wade and a woman's right to an abortion. That right must be reserved between the woman and her doctor. (Even if we don't agree with it) It should NOT be made by our Government or any bureaucrats in Washington. And it should not be the measure of who is or who is NOT eligible to sit on the Supreme Court of these United States of America. I want a Supreme Court Justice who will support, protect, and defend, (and obey), that Constitution, - even if and when he/she does not necessarily agree with any particular issue.
“Not all Trump's Supreme Court choices are Pro-Life.” But that is not what defines a Conservative or a Constitutional Conservative.



Just gonna add my 2 cents worth on the abortion issue, as a Christian first and then as a Conservative.  You are taking a life without cause; abortion is murder.  The only case for abortion which follows sound Biblical principals is when the life of the mother is at certain risk, especially when the woman has older children to care for. That would follow in the traditions of Orthodox Judaism and Fundamental Christianity, which were some of the principals followed by our Founders, based on my understanding.

Lee I'll add a penny!!! Lol.... My family members who are in the medical field tell me the percentage of mothers who's life would be in peril during child birth is very, very small. I believe it's not even 1%.
BRAVO OLD ROOSTER..
Well presented. A Justice should not try to interpret the Constitution but defend it as it is written. The only interpretation needed is to recognize it and interpret it in the manner in which it is written:The Literal sense.
It should be inforced literally and not deviated from it literallity "Shall not be infringed" should be taken literally. When we insert our own ideas we sway from its true meaning and end up "Only certian people can possess fire arms. I might add that this is the primary reason there are so many interpretations of the Scripures. Everything must be interpreted in the style it was written, "literal" alligorical" poetical" u
Sorry it posted by mistake. But I think you understand what I'm trying to say. "Not" means "Not" PERIOD..

No problem Mike, we understand what you meant.

I want to add one more thing to this;
When we say that as Christians we can not support anyone who believes in abortions or that we believe in Pro-Life positions, What we are really stating is our Religious beliefs, our beliefs in Christianity. While I am all in favour of that and I also believe the Founding Fathers were all great Christian believers, we must also remember that those Founders took great care in protecting our Constitutional rights as Americans. They went to great lengths to make sure the Federal Government could never declare any particular religion to be the law of the land. (Read the first amendment, Freedom OF Religion). They did this because they knew that at varying times in human history both Islam and Christianity have both been controlled by tyrants and murderers.
Islam and what we refer to today as Radical Islam is no better and no worse than the early (1500's) of the Catholic popes and during the Spanish and European Inquisitions. After the Crusades the Christians went from one form of brutal slavery and tyrannical masters to another.
Yes - I AM a Christian. I Believe in Jesus Christ as our saviour.
But I also take note of why our Founding Fathers went to such lengths to write that Constitution the way they did. When we interpret that Constitution we must pay very close attention to what the founders had to say and what they meant in the vernacular and language of their time

Col. Riley, You're absolutely right. President Trump must get this one right.
(And so do we).

RSS

About

Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11



HOW TO JOIN YOUR STATE GROUP

1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts


How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......

Events

© 2019   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service