Difference between revisions of "Response to National Review"

UPDATE: Ed Whelan posted a response late Friday, and I welcome the further dialog. Trump pledged to appoint pro-life justices, and I support the pledge. Ed Whelan apparently does not. That's unfortunate, and logical inconsistencies in his analysis flow from there.

First, there is nothing flawed about the pledge, any more than the first President Bush's "no new taxes" pledge was somehow defective. If voters want a president who appoints pro-life justices -- and enough swing voters did -- then the pledge should be honored. Yet Ed Whelan hasn't admitted that.

Second, it is silly for anyone to imply that all the candidates on the list of 21 would overturn Roe v. Wade, or that all would satisfy the pledge. Of course some on the list would not fulfill the pledge. It's absurd for anyone to pretend otherwise, particularly in light of how three out of the five justices placed on the Supreme Court by President Reagan and the first President Bush violated similar intentions.

Third, there is nothing wrong about evaluating candidates for such an important position. Much of Whelan's overheated rhetoric seems designed to silence criticism of anyone on the candidates' list. Whelan should reread the First Amendment and welcome the criticism, and not react so harshly against it.

Fourth, Whelan criticizes my supposed lack of specific rebuttal on the six candidates mentioned in the coalition letter. But I have posted specifics at Nominees Supreme Court, Steve Colloton, and Joan Larsen, and will be posting more. Whelan's defense of the six candidates is filled with irrelevant cases to which I was not even referring, and fails substantively to address many of my primary criticisms.

Fifth, Whelan continues to defend a director of his organization, Leonard Leo, but Leo was quoted and he apparently continues to push candidates who would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Moreover, Leonard Leo takes the mistaken approach of promoting less-qualified, younger candidates, which is contrary to norms embodied in the law against age discrimination, although this particular position is exempt. Mr. Leo's approach runs afoul of conservative principles, which recognize that the longer someone is in D.C., the more liberal they generally get. That's apparently true for some think tank executives as well, by the way.

Finally, Whelan falsely pretends that the 80 or so signatories on the coalition letter is a "small handful of folks," but then he asserts that a mere seven inside-the-Beltway groups somehow have much greater significance. Perhaps that same D.C.-mindset led Whelan to sign the misguided letter denouncing Trump and even urging Catholics not to vote for him. Has Whelan ever admitted that letter was wrong?

Andy Schlafly

National Review, through Ed Whelan, has posted a series of articles criticizing the effort by Andy Schlafly and 70 pro-life leaders for fulfilling Trump's pledge to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. By way of background, Whelan's criticisms disparage the very concept of appointing a "really pro-life" justice to the Supreme Court, so he is a weak candidate to talk about satisfying the pledge. Indeed, Whelan himself may not even support Trump's pledge, and earlier Whelan stridently opposed Trump and even insisted that Catholics should not back him at all.

President-Elect Trump morally, emphatically, and repeatedly made a welcomed "read my lips"-style of campaign pledge to American voters, to nominate pro-life judges to the U.S. Supreme Court so it can overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump even reiterated his salutary pledge in a 60 Minutes interview after the election. The pro-life movement must speak out now to ensure fulfillment of this all-important pledge.

Enter Ed Whelan, who reports to Leonard Leo, a director of the D.C.-based think tank where Whelan works. Leonard Leo is executive vice president of the Federalist Society, which is not a pro-life organization and which has never had a pro-life presentation at its annual conference for decades. Mr. Leo is steering Trump away from his pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, just as advisers to the first President Bush steered him away from his "read my lips" pledge with disastrous political results.

Obviously there are Republican senators and other Trump advisers who want to avoid a confirmation fight over abortion, and who would prefer to ignore the pledge. The ostensibly pro-life adviser to Trump, Leonard Leo, is not even helpful in honoring the pledge and has recommended candidates who are not pro-life and who will not overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Leo even stated on Bloomberg Law radio that he does not envision the new Court, with Trump-nominated justices, overturning Roe v. Wade:

"There are lots of follow-on regulations to abortion involving partial-birth abortion, fetal pain and other issues that the court hasn’t fully resolved," Leo, who met with Trump on [November 17], said on the Bloomberg Law radio show. "When he talks about Roe v. Wade, that’s probably the way he’s thinking about it." [1]

The Bloomberg Law reporter then correctly explained in the same article how Mr. Leo's own statements are at odds with Trump's pledge to the American voters:

During the third presidential debate with Hillary Clinton in October, he said that overturning Roe v. Wade would "happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Nov. 13, Trump discussed the prospect that, with Roe overturned, some states would be able to ban abortion altogether.

Mr. Leo has been pushing candidates who are not pro-life and who would not overturn Roe v. Wade. These candidates are Judges Diane Sykes, Steve Colloton, Neil Gorsuch, and Raymond Kethledge, and Justices Joan Larsen and Allison Eid, as explained here. These candidates must be rejected by the pro-life community, and Trump should nominate a justice who has a solid pro-life record, such as Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady.

Andy Schlafly