Michael O’Brien over at The Hill reports that Senator Jeff Sessions (R, Ala.) told Fox News recently that he had no litmus test on abortion for judicial candidates and that a judge that had pro-abortion views could get his vote for confirmation.
This might alarm anyone that is vehemently anti-abortion. It should also alarm all those conservatives that pushed for Senator Sessions to be made the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
…but hold your outrage for just a minute. Let’s more closely look at what he said.
“I don’t believe in a litmus test. I believe a judge can have a different view on abortion than I have, and still receive my vote.”
On it’s face, this is a prudent position. After all, when evaluating a judge it is foolish to say beforehand that any one issue will prevent that candidate from taking the bench. One never knows what one will find when evaluating a candidate. Besides, it has long been a standard to eschew litmus tests in judicial candidates. After all, isn’t that what we complain about from the extreme left, that they have litmus tests?
Additionally, even if you do have a personal idea that being pro-abortion violates your litmus test, it is not a good idea to say so outloud.
Still, also on its face, we might find reason to be worried if that was all Sessions said on the matter. But even if we decide to jettison the historical non-litmus stance and find something to worry about in Sessions’ statement, we can find solace in his follow up point…
“I would like to know how they analyze the logic behind Roe vs. Wade. If they are faithful to the law, then we can get along pretty well.”
Think about what Sessions just said there. He just said that if a candidate follows logic and Constitutional originalism in considering the law, then such a candidate and the Senator can “get along pretty well.”
So, what does that mean?
In my opinion, this was Sessions’ cagey way of saying that if a judge follows the law properly said judge cannot hep but realize that Roe v Wade is bad law and should be reversed. So, that means that even if a judge is personally pro-choice, but follows the logic of the law, he’ll be anti-Roe v Wade regardless of his personal convictions. Sessions was saying that this is the sort of judge he could get along with “pretty well.”
I think that Sessions brilliantly set himself up as Mr. “reasonable” as far as his left-wing opponents are concerned while still sending the signal to us that he does, indeed, have a litmus test for a judge. It is a test that holds a judge to strict originalism and logic and not personal crusades.
In essence, Sessions just told us that he will vote thumbs down on any judge that adjudicates with his feelings and not the logic of the law. In essence, Sessions hinted that Obama’s “empathetic” candidate won’t get much empathy from him.
Let us hope I am right. Because if I am not, we just lost another one of our leaders to the mushy middle.
Sessions was perfect - what matters is one's judicial philosophy, not political preferences
Mike gamecock DeVine Thursday, May 7th at 11:28PM EDT (link)That most Americans don’t understand the distinction is a function of the lack of more Sessions in prominent leadership positions.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Follow law instead of money?
gekster Thursday, May 7th at 11:41PM EDT (link)What a concept. Good idea.
A political party cannot be all things to all people.
It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
Ronald Reagan
Every deer hunter in Michigan still likes to take a shot at a squirrel, rabbit, or even a troll every now and then.
In other words...
Next93 Friday, May 8th at 12:43AM EDT (link)…the question for a supreme court judge isn’t if abortions should be legal, it’s whether the constitution gives the federal government the authority to prohibit states from outlawing or regulating abortions.
Sessions’ non-litmus test is whether the judge can put his/her desire for a particular social outcome aside and rule according to the constitution. Unfortunately, a judge nominated on the basis of “empathy” to a specific super-protected group isn’t terribly likely to display that level of intellectual honesty.
Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government:
It’s not just the law, it’s a good idea!
Shhhhhh on this.......
E Pluribus Unum Friday, May 8th at 1:12AM EDT (link)I’m pretty secure in my belief about Sessions, and what he believes about judicial matters. I believe he’s parsing his words in order to not give the Dems and the crap-weasel Repubs (I speak here specifically of Grassley and hatch) a reason to stampede before his position as Ranking Member is secure.
He’s rock solid.
Carthago delenda est
I'm a huge fan of the 9th
BlueLandRed Friday, May 8th at 1:38AM EDT (link)amendment. It’s actually probably the founding father’s great achievement.
But if it’s just this particular interpretation you’re have a problem with … we could clear that up.
Sessions
Sunnie57 Friday, May 8th at 2:47AM EDT (link)“and that a judge that had pro-abortion views could get his vote for confirmation”
I can’t help but think, though, that an antilife Dem would never say that a prolifer could get his vote for being prolife.
I have been making this point for years.
jeffreywturner Friday, May 8th at 9:14AM EDT (link)The morons on the left always miss the point on these things.
The point is NOT to decide wether abortion is a good thing or not. Heck, you may think that abortion is great and everyone should two, good for you! The point is decide wether abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution. Clearly it is not. Even some pro-choice people admitted that Roe was a stretch when it was decided, but they weren’t about to look the gift horse in the mouth.
If you don’t like that fact that certain things (guns and religion for instance) ARE protected by the Constitution and certain things (abortion and sodomy for instance) ARE NOT protected by the Constitution, then there is a process for changing that. It is called a constitutional amendment. You shouldn’t just try to cheat the system and do an end-around by getting judges to “interpret” things into and out of the Constitution just because it isn’t written to your liking.
But wait a second, doing it the RIGHT way is difficult isn’t it? Amending the Constitution actually requires that you convince people to agree with you rather than having a judge force your will upon them doesn’t it? Yeah stupid, and it is that way for a reason. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to change the Constitution, because it is a very serious matter.
The way the Liberals (capital L liberals) have made it (by insiting that judges can simply make things up as they please), there are no longer 3 equally powerful branches of government as was intended by the founders. By far, the SCOTUS is the most powerful. There is nearly no check on their power. They can nullify almost anything anyone else does by simply declaring it unconstitutional, but no one can tell the SCOTUS that they are wrong. Oh, and even if we amend the Constitution to counteract the SCOTUS, guess who gets to interpret that amendment; the SCOTUS!
We need judges to return to being just judges and lawmakers.
OK, end of rant.
“Life is too short, can’t we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?”
Exactly!
golfermike Friday, May 8th at 10:24AM EDT (link)Abortion gets social conservatives undies in a bunch (rightly so I might add) because they believe it is immoral. However, the bottom line is, it’s just bad law. What is really important is to have judges on the bench who will strictly intemperate the constitution and not make/invent law. For example, with strict constitutionalist judges, McCain-Fiengold would not have happened.
Let’s face it, Libertarians don’t care about abortion; however to do want limited, constitutional government. Social Conservatives want abortion stopped, are tired of groups of people getting special rights, and also want limited government. Fiscal Conservatives want the government out of their business. I believe there is a large intersection of interests there and, it should be pointed out with strict constitutionalist judges we all get what we want.
Jeff Sessions answer is exactly right.