Obama Sends Conflicting Signals Over Supreme Court Nominee and Abortion

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews about Obama's likely nominee to the Supreme Court. This follows this post about American's view on nominees. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Obama Sends Conflicting Signals Over Supreme Court Nominee and Abortion


By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) –

U.S. President Barack Obama sent conflicting signals on how abortion would play into his pick for a candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, saying that while he did not intend to have a litmus-test for a Supreme Court nominee, he wanted to see someone on the bench who would take into account “women’s rights” – alluding to abortion – in his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
The president held a meeting with bipartisan leaders of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings on the president’s nominee to the high court’s bench, where he appeared to contradict himself on the issue of abortion and a litmus test.
A reporter asked Obama if he would be willing to nominate a justice “who did not support a woman’s right to choose?”
Obama acknowledged that the use of abortion was “a hugely contentious issue in our country for a very long time,” but said he would take the approach of other U.S. presidents and not require candidates to pass a “litmus test” on that issue.
However, he added that he wanted to see “somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights.”
“And that’s going to be something that’s very important to me,” Obama said, “because I think part of what our core Constitution - constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.”
Obama said he intended to have a candidate for Steven’s spot on the high court nominated by the end of May so that a new justice would be ready for the court’s next session. He said he hopes his nominee will have the same “smooth, civil, thoughtful nomination process and confirmation process” as his last pick, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Stevens announced his retirement on April 9, after spending 35 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, during which time he voted consistently to uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that ruled women had a constitutional right to an abortion, and also opposed measures regulating abortion that were challenged before the high court.
The Pro-Life Action League remembered that in 2003, Stevens was the lone dissenting vote on the U. S. Supreme Court ruling on NOW v. Scheidler that declared Pro-Life Action League and Operation Rescue, along with their respective founders, Joe Scheidler and Randall Terry, were not guilty of violating the RICO anti-racketeering laws by protesting abortion.
Stevens wrote in his dissent that the beneficiaries of the court’s 8-1 ruling were a “class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion.”
Stevens, however, later joined the entire court in rejecting an appeal from the National Organization for Women to review the case, saying the court had already decided the issue and “We also actually entered a mandate too.”
The leading candidates to replace Stevens, according to White House officials, are Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as well as Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District Circuit. Merrick lacks any record dealing with the issue of abortion, but both Kagan and Wood have pro-abortion bona fides.
Wood, however, is the most objectionable choice for pro-life advocates as she was a clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe decision, and is a member of the National Organization for Women. Wood also was heavily involved in the NOW v. Scheidler case, and wrote the 2000 appellate decision that fully concurred with the jury’s 1998 decision against Scheidler. She also concurred in the 2003 Appellate decision that agreed with NOW’s argument that the Supreme Court did not actually mean what it said when they vindicated Scheidler of RICO charges – a decision which the Court had to reverse, much to its annoyance.