Supreme Speculation

May 14, 2009 09:00 AM

Over the past few months, since President Obama took over the reins of power, I have seen a mixed bag of responses from allegedly pro-life Americans. Some argue that we should not criticize the man but understand that he honestly wants to find common ground between those who favor killing and those who oppose it. Others point to his record, and carefully document the reasons why he never met an abortion he did not like. The leader in all this documented evidence, in my view, is well known pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who not only witnessed the abomination of Obama's position, but did her level best to get the word out before this man was elected.

You may recall her famous column in January of 2008, entitled "Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide." In that particular column, Stanek reminded then prospective voters,

[T]he No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe v. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

By his own admission, Obama supported acts of infanticide because he was afraid that the so-called born alive bill was nothing more than a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade! And now, he has the golden opportunity to appointment a justice to the Supreme Court who may be just as rabid about killing the innocent as he is. This is why the speculation about the Supreme Court nominee is gaining momentum and is really quite interesting.

Realizing that the president has such affection for abortion and distortion makes me wonder about people. What is it about the man that continues to attract people who say they are pro-life, but cannot identify the real Obama beneath all the rhetoric? I have no idea, but when Douglas Kmiec wrote these words about Obama in March, I really had to take a seat before I fainted!

Politics is the art of compromise and candidates are the embodiment of it. But there's the rub, the Catholic Church is the foremost defender of unborn life, and properly, uncompromising about it. Obama is more pragmatic, accommodating other religious and scientific views that see the origin point of life differently. Obama may thoughtfully call reducing the "moral tragedy" of abortion a top priority of his faith office, but this is not absolute legal protection, and the Catholic hierarchy has not been shy about raising moral objection, for example, to the president's new direction on embryonic stem-cell research.

Give me a break, Doug! The science is not debatable and the Catholic teaching on the humanity of every person is not debatable. So where could there possibly be room for anyone to get away with arguing that "reducing the 'moral tragedy' of abortion" was a priority?

One has to wonder if Kmiec has lost touch with reality or perhaps chosen to ignore what many of us see with clear vision. Who knows? One thing is for certain, though. We are all about to learn the grim truth together, whether we like it or not.

Commentators are weighing in with their Supreme Court nominee speculations already. Some of them strike a frightening similarity to voices from the dungeons of the culture of death. For example, columnist Ruben Navarette, Jr. believes that Obama owes it to Hispanics to select one of their own because more than two-thirds of Hispanic Americans voted for him. And of course, Navarette recommends sitting judges like Christine Arguello or Ruben Castillo.

Arguello, who has the support of the Feminist Majority Foundation, was first nominated to a lower court by President Bill Clinton and is at the very least questionable regarding her views on abortion because of her history.

Castillo, also appointed by Clinton, is also on several short lists that are currently being circulated by unknown sources. While one could not readily say that Castillo is or is not an abortion advocate, they could not say it about Arguello either, and my money is on the Obama agenda. When you couple that with the fact that Arguello and Castillo already won approval from President Clinton, there really isn't much speculation needed.

The feminists would be much happier with a woman to replace Souter, of course. And we have seen several suggestions in that vein such as Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Diane Wood or Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who is already part of the Obama administration, as is Mrs. Clinton. Wood hails from the president's home city of Chicago and in the past, worked for President Clinton.

We've also seen mention of a possible Jennifer Granholm nomination.Granholm is, of course, the pro-abortion Catholic governor of Michigan whose credentials are clearly not as lofty as some of the other females being mentioned.

But one thing is clear, regardless of whom the nominee may be. President Obama owes it to the pro-abortion cartel, all of whom unified to support his election, to choose someone who meets its criteria. As Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America wrote in an editorial recently,

Much has been made of the fact that although Justice David H. Souter was opposed by many pro-choice groups, including the one I led, he has been a staunch defender of the freedom to choose. His integrity and independence will be greatly missed. But it was not Souter's substantive views that drew our opposition. It was the impossibility of knowing them. The health, lives, and freedom of millions of American women were and are too important to risk on a gamble.

Judges, like all thoughtful people, should be open to the possibility of argument changing their minds. They should certainly be neutral toward the parties or circumstances in any given case. But before a new justice places his or her hand on a Bible and swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the American people are entitled to know what he or she thinks that document means.

Michelman believes that abortion is a right already guaranteed by the Constitution. She has said this on numerous occasions and it is perhaps a position that President Obama holds as well, and thus would demand from any nominee he chose for the Supreme Court. At the very least though, Michelman is giving us a clue regarding the process that in my view is going to be followed by this president. I doubt quite seriously that he would ever admit to having a "litmus test" for selecting a nominee to sit on the Supreme Court, but then again, he told America his pay grade was not high enough for him to know when a baby gets human rights. We all know he could have asked any tenth grader that question.

On top of all this, we learn from the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the White House has tapped pro-abortion Catholic Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and pro-abortion Catholic Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to help guide the choice for the Supreme Court nominee.

So regardless of what he says publicly, one has to keep close watch on what he does. Words are, as usual, very cheap.

So get ready, America. The stars will align with Jupiter and King Obama will have his way. That seems to be the way he likes it. 

Back to news