Difference between revisions of "Alert Jan 29 2017"

Latest revision as of 11:23, 4 February 2017

David Souter was the stealth nominee pushed on the first President Bush and promoted by the Federalist Society and National Right to Life. The selection of Souter resulted in 30 million additional abortions, and he even timed his resignation so that Obama would fill his vacancy with another pro-abort who will hold power for another 30 years.

We are merely four days away from President Trump being misled and pressured to make the same mistake that the first Bush made. This time, no grassroots voters are going to be fooled, and a campaign will then begin for Trump's advisers to withdraw their mistake, as the second President Bush had to withdraw Harriet Miers.

All four candidates being pushed by the inside-the-Beltway groups are "David Souters" or worse: Gorsuch and Kethledge are obviously pro-choice, while Pryor and Hardiman have said nothing pro-life for decades on the bench. Pryor made a pro-life statement a long, long time ago, but has pandered to the social Left ever since.

I have just given speeches to large pro-life groups in Michigan, St. Louis and Orlando in the past week, and I also sponsored a bus to the March for Life in D.C. for my 9th straight year. These grassroots pro-lifers will not sit by quietly if Trump is misled by the D.C. lobbying insiders to break his pledge. The grassroots pro-lifers won't be fooled by another David Souter-type deceitful pick demanded by D.C lobbyists.

The lobbyists are using every trick they can imagine to pull off another David Souter nomination. Robert Bork was a heavy smoker aged 60, but he wasn't too old to be nominated. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was over 60 too. But to push Trump away from the clear pro-life winner of Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady, who has a strong pro-life record as a judge at age 62, inside-the-Beltway groups falsely pretend he's somehow too old. Trump is 70, and we don't want a young David Souter anyway who will be there 30-40 years.

Heritage wrongly kept pro-life women off its list of candidates for Trump, and his advisers should correct that by having Trump interview outstanding pro-life appellate judges Jennifer Elrod and Edith Jones. It's long overdue for a pro-life woman to be nominated. Trump's central pledge was to nominate a pro-life Justice, not confine himself to a lobbyists' list that discriminated against pro-life women judges. The way that advisers coach Trump to say he's confined to a list by lobbyists is degrading anyway. Trump should pick the best available candidate who fulfills his pro-life pledge, and his advisers should recommend that he say so.

Over the years, many politicians signed my mother Phyllis's pro-life pledge, and then some were persuaded by their advisers or lobbyists to break it. I don't think those who broke my mother's pro-life pledge ever won another election.

Andy Schlafly, Esq.
Our coalition letter signed by about 100 groups
our analysis of candidates

Neil Gorsuch has been announced as the leading contender for Justice Scalia's vacancy. Neil Gorsuch is NOT pro-life.

His selection would violate Trump's pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade won't be overturned for 40 years if the 49-year-old Gorsuch is picked. That is 40 million more unborn children who will be aborted based on this.

Our pro-life movement has only a few hours or days to object, protest, criticize, and veto the nomination of this pro-choice candidate. Trump floats these trial balloons to see if people object. We must strongly object, and please speak out loudly now.

For starters, Gorsuch has never said or written anything pro-life. Andy Schlafly knew him in law school and afterwards.

In the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specially found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade.

More information, including how Gorsuch opposes overturning precedent even when it is wrong, is here. He supports special rights for transgenders, too. And he is no Scalia, as Gorsuch was not even on the Law Review in law school.

We've been down this road before, with the first President Bush breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. It doesn't work for Republican presidents. I spoke last weekend at a large conservative conference in Michigan, a state Trump carried by barely 10,000 votes based on immense efforts by pro-lifers there. That margin disappears if Trump is misled to break his pro-life pledge for the Supreme Court.

Evangelicals spoke out and vetoed Bill Pryor. Now it is urgent that pro-lifers speak out immediately and veto Neil Gorsuch.