Another Souter?
As I’ve noted before, Judge Michael McConnell is to be among the likeliest choices to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, should Rehnquist’s expected retirement come through in the next few weeks. McConnell is a conservative, and is highly regarded by legal scholars across the political spectrum.
But Andy Schlafly warns that McConnell may be just another Souter:
In McConnell’s sworn testimony before the Senate in 2002, McConnell volunteered that Roe v. Wade is “as thoroughly settled as any issue in current constitutional law.” That is not the comment of someone who thinks it should be overturned.Indeed, McConnell appears to have carefully avoided saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, McConnell has a knack for criticizing abortion and Roe v. Wade without supporting what the Supreme Court should do: overturn it.
Much is made of the 1996 Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern, in which McConnell joined others by signing a personal endorsement of pro-life values. However, McConnell did not sign a statement calling for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Instead, all that McConnell endorsed on that point was the following meaningless provision: “the Supreme Court could reject the ‘central finding’ of Roe v. Wade, that abortion-on-demand is required by an unenumerated ‘right to privacy’ protected in part by the 14th Amendment.”
Even the Clintons and John Kerry would agree, as a factual matter, that the Supreme Court could take such action. But McConnell did not agree that the Supreme Court should take that action.
RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and they are fine with persons like McConnell who have supported the virtually impossible process of amending the Constitution. But Roe was the mistake of the court, and a nominee should be willing to correct that mistake from the bench. McConnell is not.
To the contrary, the Atlantic Monthly said of McConnell’s Senate testimony that “he virtually bent over backward pledging fealty to legalized abortion.” And this is the person Bush is going to pick for the millions of voters who crossed over to him for the life issue?
I think that concerns about McConnell’s conservatism are somewhat overblown. But, with a Republican president, and 55 Republican senators, why take any chances on a replacement nomination for a Justice (Rehnquist) who already votes to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Conservatives deserve Justices who will represent us on the Supreme Court. We’ve worked very hard to make that possible. The president should nominate someone whose ideology is in no doubt. If the seven Senate Democrat-compromisers filibuster that nominee, then they will have gone back on their word, and Republicans would be free to invoke the Constitutional Option to give the nominee the up-or-down vote he or she deserves. No more Souters or O’Connors!
Subscribe to blog feed.