Abortion Rights Leader: Expect Filibuster Unless Next Supreme Court Nominee Shows Support

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a prominent abortion rights organization on Thursday predicted a Senate filibuster if President Bush seeks to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy with a nominee who does not clearly support the court's 1973 ruling on the issue. "The burden of proof is on any nominee," said Kate Michelman, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It's the burden of that nominee to address constitutional freedoms and whether they indeed believe the court was right in recognizing a woman's right to choose."

"I fully expect that pro-choice senators will conduct a filibuster against any Supreme Court nominee" that does not express support for abortion rights, she added in an interview.

A spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said the South Dakota lawmaker "feels it's vital that all judicial nominees be willing to faithfully respect the Constitution. That said, he will make a judgment on each individual case as it is presented to him."

Michelman made her comments several days before the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that guaranteed women the right to an abortion. Supporters of the opinion, as well as groups that hope to have it overturned in a future ruling, have scheduled a series of events to mark the date.

Groups opposed to abortion will hold their annual march in Washington on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the ruling, ending at the Supreme Court building. In addition, the GOP-controlled Congress is expected to vote in the coming months on legislation to ban one type of abortions, typically performed late in a woman's pregnancy.

Congress has twice passed legislation covering the procedure, in which the fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured, but former President Clinton vetoed it both times. Bush has said he would sign it.

NARAL will hold a fund-raising dinner on Tuesday night, and all six announced Democratic presidential contenders are expected to speak. In addition, the group will start a political campaign next week to seek passage of abortion rights legislation in Congress.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, prospects for passage of such legislation are dim. Additionally, NARAL backed several Democratic Senate candidates who lost to GOP contenders last November. Thus supporters of abortion rights are likely to find themselves trying to fend off attempts by opponents and the Bush administration to curtail the ability of women to end their pregnancies.

Those struggles are likely to include judicial confirmation battles in the Senate, particularly if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Retirements are rarely announced in advance. But speculation, never in short supply, has increased since last fall's elections, when Republicans gained control of the Senate.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, for example, is 78, and missed December arguments at the court because of leg surgery. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative, is 72. She and the chief justice were both appointed by Republican presidents.

NARAL needs the court to uphold an immoral and unjust law. Americans overwehlmingly are becoming Pro-Life --

USA/CNN POLL

Percentage of adults who would favor the following laws or proposals:

Requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure 88%

Requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done 78%

Requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion 73%

Requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion 72%

A law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a "partial birth abortion," except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother 70%

A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when necessary to save the life of the mother 38%

Source: USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Friday-Sunday of 1,002 adults. Margin of error: +/-3 percentage points.

Excerpt from:Abortion battle hits pivotal point
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-15-abortion-usat_x.htm

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.