Bob Novak Backs Up John Fund's Story on McCain and Alito

Columnist Robert Novak writes at The Washington Post:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

McCain, as the "straight talk" candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party's right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party's potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.

***
That was the background for conservative John Fund's Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' " In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I think some of those who called into question the veracity of Mr. Fund's account owe him an apology. At least one person commenting at Pro Ecclesia the other day - a prominent Catholic pro-lifer supporting McCain - called Fund's piece "a slime job" that "should be ignored".

Well I'm not ignoring it, especially now that Bob Novak has confirmed the story as true. As for "slime jobs", McCain has become an expert at sliming conservatives over the last 8 years in order to curry favor with liberal Democrats and the MSM. So far, I haven't been convinced that that's about to change.

An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy

From George Weigel concerning next week's confirmation hearings:

Dear Senator Leahy:

Because you’re the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, your performance during the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts will tell the country a lot about the constitutional and moral priorities of the Democratic Party and the party’s sense of fair play.

As one Catholic to another, permit me to suggest that you also have an opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to insure that Catholic-bashing, overt or subtle, does not spill over into the Judiciary Committee’s deliberations from the activists’ battle-of-the-blogs and the food fights on cable TV.

Shortly after Judge Roberts’ nomination, President Bush was accused of “playing the Catholic card” in an opinion piece widely circulated in the blogosphere. “Playing the Catholic card” is, to be frank, either a vulgar appeal to ancient prejudices or code-language for “someone who can’t be trusted to take Planned Parenthood’s position on abortion.” In a news story chronicling Roberts’ work as deputy solicitor general, the Associated Press went out of its way to describe the nominee as a Catholic. Referring to Judge Roberts’ Catholicism in a news story in which that fact is wholly irrelevant is yet another example of barely disguised prejudice or warning-shot-by-code-language.

An overreaction? I think not. Consider what would have happened if, after nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, President Clinton had been accused of “playing the Jewish card”? Suppose the Associated Press had run a news story in these terms: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jew, once wrote an ACLU legal brief on the constitutional status of Roe v. Wade”? There would have been outrage, and it would have been wholly justified. American civil society simply will not permit public displays of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. In your work before and during the Roberts confirmation hearings, perhaps you could challenge America to rid itself of vestigial anti-Catholicism — which, as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., once observed, is the most deeply rooted prejudice in the history of the United States.

Permit me to raise another concern. In late July, you told a Vermont radio show that you wouldn’t vote to confirm a nominee who “didn’t consider Roe v. Wade settled law.” You then compared Roe to Brown v. Board of Education, the epic civil rights case that rejected “separate but equal” public education as unconstitutional. I suggest that you have the wrong analogy here. The correct analogy is between Roe and Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that created the “separate but equal” doctrine. Now there was “unsettled law;” there was a decision that cut across the grain of basic principles of justice; there was a decision that roiled our politics for generations, until Brown effectively reversed Plessy in 1954. Plessy, in a word, was the Roe of its time: a case wrongly-decided on a fundamental issue.

There is nothing “settled” about Roe v. Wade, which liberal constitutional scholars like Archibald Cox and Alexander Bickel deplored as judicial overreach in 1973. Roe ignited the most divisive debate in our national politics — just as Plessy eventually did. Because Roe got it so wrong on such a basic point of justice — does innocent human life deserve the protection of the law? — it has endlessly distorted other aspects of our law and our politics: again, just like Plessy did. Roe no more “settled” the abortion debate than Plessy settled the question of racial justice in America. To suggest otherwise ignores the evidence all around us.

One final thought: in these hearings, I trust that you (and Senators Biden, Durbin, and Kennedy) will not reinforce the Kerryesque canard that the Catholic opposition to abortion is a sectarian matter, analogous to Mormons trying to “impose” a ban on caffeinated beverages throughout the United States. The Catholic argument is not complicated: the product of conception is a genetically unique human being; that human being never will be anything other than a human being; as innocent human life, it is inviolable and deserves the protection of the law. That’s it. You don’t have to believe in seven sacraments or papal primacy to engage that argument.

Please remember that in the weeks ahead.

John Roberts May Not Think Abortion Law "Settled" After All

From LifeNews.com:

Observers of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts have been trying to dissect his views on abortion. In a legal brief for the administration for former President Bush, Roberts argued Roe v. Wade was bad law and should be overturned. Later, in his 2003 appeals court nomination hearings, he called Roe "settled law."

In an effort to explain Roberts' views, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, last month, said Roberts was required to say Roe was "settled law" because appeals court judges are not expected to overturn high court precedent.

That left it open for Roberts to decide, as a member of the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

In a Tuesday meeting with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, Roberts confirmed that suspicion.

Wyden said he was concerned by Roberts' answer to a question he posed about whether he still believed the Roe abortion decision is settled law.

Roberts told Wyden the notion of "settled law" depends on what court one is a member of -- opening himself up to the possibility of overturning Roe. The Supreme Court is clearly different from the Court of Appeals, Roberts explained.

Roberts: Congress wrong about Schiavo intervention?

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

[S]enator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, said that Roberts, while not addressing the Schiavo case specifically, made clear during an hourlong meeting that he was displeased with Congress' attempt to force the federal judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.

"I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Wyden said, in a telephone interview after the meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "

The answer, which Wyden said his aides wrote down word for word, would seem to put Roberts at odds with leading Republicans in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, both of whom led the charge for congressional intervention in the Schiavo case this past spring. DeLay said at the time that the federal judiciary had "run amok."

Now, let's look at that answer again:

'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.'

I do not believe the Congress was prescribing a "particular remedy" to the Schaivo case, they were only asking the appeals court with jurisdiction to look again at this case. Though those members of Congress supporting this legislation may have wanted a "particular remedy", the legislation itself did not direct it.

IMHO, this is another attempt, much like the pro bono work on the Romer case, to paint Judge Roberts in a bad light with conservatives. Liberals like Sen Wyden are having a difficult time opposing Judge Roberts so they are trying to get conservatives to oppose him instead. Will it work?

UPDATE: Shannen Coffin clears up what really happened at the Wyden-Roberts meeting.

UPDATE II: Ed Gillespie's letter to the NYT provides some more info.

Fr. Sirico on Mario Cuomo, John Roberts

Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute ["for the study of religion and liberty"], made a guest appearance on the Laura Ingraham Show this morning to discuss Mario Cuomo's interview with Timothy Russert (Sunday - Meet The Press - transcript), the Catholic faith of John Roberts and the greater issue of the role of Catholics in public life.

You can listen to the interview by clicking here (3.5 mb .mp3 file). It's a good one. As Sirico noted, is on occasions like this that the press likes to trot out Catholics "with a dubious relationship to the Church" to present themselves as the ideal of how Catholics ought to behave in modern secular America . . . as opposed to say, the strange folk.

(Via Marc Vander Maas @ Acton Institute Powerblog).

More discussion of Cuomo at Amy Welborn's.

Cuomo: Is Roberts a Vatican Robot?

Press release from the Catholic League on "Catholic" Gov Cuomo's comments yesterday re: Judge Roberts:

NEW YORK, Aug 8 /Christian Wire Service/-- Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on what former New York State Governor Mario Cuomo had to say yesterday about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:

"Mario Cuomo said yesterday on 'Meet the Press' that he wants senators to ask John Roberts the following questions: 'Are you going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the Church says that, you will do it no matter what?'

"Now if a non-Catholic had suggested such questions, he would quickly be branded a Catholic basher. But it should be no more excusable for a Catholic to raise such questions. For Cuomo to float the idea that John Roberts might be a Vatican robot is as shameless as it is anti-Catholic. By doing so, he not only provides fodder to the enemies of the Catholic Church, he further discredits his credentials as a Catholic spokesman."

John Roberts and Church of the Little Flower

If Catholics in America tend to fall into two broad categories--those who dissent from controversial Church teaching and those who subscribe to it--Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr., would appear to fall into the latter category. He attends Church of the Little Flower, a Maryland parish that heterodox Catholics would regard as an outpost of traditional Catholicism.

Read the whole thing here.

"Catholic" senator sets Roe litmus test for Judge Roberts

Catholic News Agency reports that "a Democratic senator said yesterday he would subject Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts to a Roe litmus test. On a Vermont radio program yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy became the first Democrat to say outright that he would have a Roe litmus test for Roberts."

John Roberts' Catholic Connections

John Roberts' Catholic Connections -- George Neumayr at Beliefnet.com visits Robert's parish, The Church of the Little Flower (Bethseda, MD), notes the traditional preaching of Robert's pastor, Monsignor Peter J. Vaghi, his schooling at La Lumiere, an all-male Catholic prep school; his wife's pro-life legal work for Feminists for Life and the John Carroll Society ("an association of Catholic laypersons united in their desire for an ever deepening and enriching knowledge of their faith and in service to the Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.") . . . and concludes that this guy's no Ted Kennedy: "By all outward measures, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has faithfully followed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Looks like President Bush made a decent pick.

Time for Action on Supreme Court Nominee

The pro-life Family Research Council is asking us to sign a petition to Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter urging him to make sure that the Roberts confirmation hearing is fair and orderly and not a repetition of the Bork fiasco in 1987. Go to this link to sign the petition. You can also e-mail the Family Research Council "Action Alert" to family and friends. Back in 1987, I don't even think e-mail existed; and certainly there was no internet. Let's use the tools that God has given us for 2005.

The faith of John Roberts

Jonathan Turley has this tidbit in a piece today titled, The faith of John Roberts:

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion. However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.

The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

UPDATE: Seems the Judicial Confirmation Network is a bit upset with Sen Durbin over the above question to Judge Roberts.

UPDATE II: Sen Durbin's office is reporting the question above was never asked. Reuters is reporting that Sen Cornyn asked Judge Roberts if his faith would affect his decisions:

"He recognized that anybody who cannot do that ... is unsuitable for the bench," Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said after a private meeting with President Bush's conservative candidate for the high court.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but for those who are relying on Judge Roberts' Catholic faith to lead him to overturn or limit Roe need to look elsewehere. There are still good reasons to believe that he would overturn or limit Roe.

Pro-Life Leaders Say John Roberts is a Reliable Abortion Opponent

For those worried that Judge Roberts is another "Souter" check out this piece from LifeNews.com:

Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party and someone who has known Roberts for 15 years, agrees.

Even though Roberts has never ruled on an abortion issue, Leo says Roberts opinions on other hot political topics show "a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government."

....

Leo also points to the Roberts' family's strong Catholic faith, his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts' longtime work with Feminists for Life, a top pro-life women's group, and he said the Roberts moved to a new church to follow the transfer of their priest -- known for his pro-life views and defending traditional Catholic teachings.

The Full Post: "Sources: Judge Roberts is Indeed Pro-Life"

Here is my full post that is linked to below in an earlier entry:

Two sources from opposite ends of the political spectrum agree that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be a pro-life justice. From the liberal end, Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman has this tidbit from an unnamed source:

"At least one friend and former close associate I spoke to thinks that, given the chance, Roberts WOULD vote to strike down Roe. But you can't prove it -- and interlocutors in the Judiciary Committee won't be able to prove it either."

Howard Fineman at this MSNBC link.

From the conservative pro-life end, the Republican blog RedState.org has endorsed Roberts' nomination with this tantalizing remark:

"There is much we do not know about John Roberts. There is also much we do not "officially know," but privately are sure of. We at RedState know Judge Roberts is right on life and is right for the Court."

See RedState.org for July 21, 2005 (emphasis added).

One media article I read speculated that Roberts has avoided controversial statements on hot issues precisely to avoid confirmation problems. That certainly makes sense given that he twice missed confirmation in the past: once in 1992 because of Clinton's election and more recently in 2001. He finally made it to the federal bench in 2003. So he has known since the early nineties that he is someone who would likely be nominated by a future Republican president for a federal judgeship. For whatever it is worth, today's N.Y. Times described Roberts as a friend of Clarence Thomas and also mentioned that Roberts' unambiguously pro-life wife works on the board of a Catholic charitable organization along with the wife of conservative legal scholar Robert Bork who was famously denied confirmation in 1987.

The proof is in the pudding. But the signs are good. The rest is in God's hands.

Sources: Judge Roberts is Indeed Pro-Life

Oswald over at Catholic Analysis has the latest.

Roberts Nomination & Catholic-Baiting

And so it begins.

The lead article in today's The American Prospect, an online magazine, says that President Bush's selection of Judge John Roberts for a seat on the Supreme Court is evidence of his "Playing the Catholic card."

According to Adele M. Stan, Bush is "betting he's bought himself some insulation - any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism."

She says this is a "timely pitch" to "conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections"; she urges "liberal Catholics" and others to protest Roberts.

Stan goes even further on her blog, AddieStan, by saying "Rome must be smiling" at Bush's choice. She asks that readers contact the Democratic Catholics on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Roberts.

William Donohue reminds us that Jew-baiting is unacceptable, so why isn't Catholic-baiting?

"Now let's apply this logic to President Clinton's selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer for the Supreme Court. Did he do so because he liked 'Playing the Jewish card'? And did he do so because he wanted his critics to be seen as anti-Semites? For good measure, was Israel 'smiling' when Clinton chose Ginsburg and Breyer?

"The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed.

"Practicing Catholic"

Judge Roberts is a "practicing Catholic". This according to Feddie at Southern Appeal. Nathan in the comments for one of the recent posts states this also.

UPDATE I: More on this aspect from the Chicago Tribune:

"He's just a good, solid Midwest guy," said Bob MacLaverty, who roomed with Roberts their senior year of high school at the La Lumiere School, a private school in La Porte, Ind. "He is absolutely the same guy. It's refreshing to see. Very sharp, but not arrogant at all."

At that time, La Lumiere School was a small all-boys school that had been founded a few years earlier by Catholics who wanted a school for their sons. Though the classes had only about 25 students each, the school had a strong reputation for academics and fielding solid sports teams.

---

Shannen Coffin, a Washington lawyer who has worked with and argued against Roberts, said he was also willing to take on cases that didn't necessarily mold with his personal political views. He described Roberts as a "traditional Catholic" who does not talk about his religion.

"He's a guy who'll show up for mass on Sunday and that's sort of his own business," said Coffin, who attends the same church.

(HT: IrishLaw at Confirm Them, who wonders how Roberts' Catholicism may influence his judicial philosophy.)

UPDATE II: The NYT is reporting that Judge Roberts and his wife are "devout Catholics".

UPDATE III: From CNS:

Roberts is a native of Buffalo, N.Y., who moved with his family to Long Beach, Ind., when he was in elementary school. There he attended Catholic elementary and high schools. He was captain of the football team and class president at La Lumiere, a Catholic college prep school, before going on to earn undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.

His wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, is also an attorney who graduated from Holy Cross College and Georgetown University's law school. She also has degrees from Brown University in Rhode Island and Melbourne University in Australia.

She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term.

The Robertses, who have two children, are members of Little Flower Parish in Bethesda, Md., near their home in Chevy Chase, Md.

If confirmed, Roberts would be the 11th Catholic ever to serve on the court and the fourth among current members, joining Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

UPDATE IV: Feddie at Southern Appeal reports on a some comments made by Howard Fineman on Roberts being Catholic and Hugh Hewitt's response.

Fidelis statement on Roberts Nomination

Fidelis is a Catholic-based organization working with people of faith across the country to defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

WASHINGTON, July 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following the nomination of Judge John Roberts of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush to serve as Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court, Fidelis warned Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold to keep anti-religious bigotry out of the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

"Judge Robert's confirmation hearings are ripe for anti- religious bigotry," said Fidelis President Joseph Cella. "Judge Roberts is a faithful Catholic, who is devoted to his wife and children. With the history of Catholic and Christian judicial nominees attacked because of their religious faith and family life in past Senate confirmation hearings, we call on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Ranking Member Senator Patrick Leahy, Senators Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold to prevent this vile brand of hate politics from entering this important process. Judge Roberts is an eminently qualified jurist, and his outstanding legal credentials and temperament should enable his confirmation prior to the Supreme Court reconvening on October 3. "

Cella said: "We expect that Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings must follow nothing less than the three-fold high standard of being responsible, civil and Constitutional. The statements by every Senator, Republican, Democrat or Independent about Judge Roberts will be watched. If any Senator crosses the line and attacks Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith or family life, they will be held accountable."

Fidelis recently completed their initial advertising campaign in the run-up to the Senate confirmation hearings. The print ads ran in Roll Call and in the Nevada Appeal, and a radio ad in Nevada, citing the role that anti-religious bigotry played in the Senate confirmation battle of Judge Bill Pryor.

The ads highlight anti-religious statements made by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Article VI of the United States Constitution states: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," which expressly prohibits such religious tests.

Cella said: "A judicial candidate's promise to soundly interpret the Constitution is often not enough for many Senators. In order to disqualify a particular judicial candidate, some Senators have resorted to a quasi-inquisition of a candidate's personal religious beliefs, and that cannot be tolerated. We will work with Catholics and all people of faith to defend Judge Roberts who will likely be attacked because of his faith and deeply-held beliefs," Cella stated.

To learn more and view and hear the Fidelis ads, log onto http://www.fidelis.org.

John Roberts Dance Party

. . . to lighten the mood for a minute, GOPVixen explains why President Bush was smirking when he announced John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

NRLC Press Release on Judge Roberts Nomination to Supreme Court

From the NRLC Press Release:

ROBERTS NOMINATION HIGHLIGHTS
UPCOMING CASES ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

WASHINGTON -- Following today's announcement regarding the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

“Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

In an interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt with Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, on April 11, 2005, the following exchange occurred: Hewitt: "Do you oppose and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?" Aron: "Yes, we would." See: http://www.hughhewitt.com/nan_aron_interview.htm

In 1990, as a Justice Department official under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts wrote a brief in a pending Supreme Court case stating the Administration position "that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. . ."

After being nominated in 2001 by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on May 8, 2003.

More from Fr. Pavone on Judge Roberts

I see Christopher points to a press release from Fr. Pavone. Here is his newsletter from tonight:

---

Dear Friends,

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is highly qualified and has proven legal abilities.

Now, his nomination will go to the Senate while he will be questioned about his judicial philosophy and credentials.

We can also expect, unfortunately, that many Senators will seek to derail his nomination with vicious personal attacks against his faith, his belief in strict interpretation of the constitution, and any rulings that he has made that do
not fit their public policy ends. They will question him about abortion and Roe vs. Wade, as if that decision cannot be reversed and belongs to some kind of sacred, unchangeable dogma. In regard to this, of course, it is important to keep in mind what I said in a recent column, that is, that the current Chief Justice of the United States is one of the original dissenters in Roe vs. Wade. If he can hold that position, so can an Associate Justice of the Court. A belief that Roe should be overturned should certainly not be considered an obstacle to serving on the Court.

Expect some Senators to attack Judge Roberts for his religious and personal beliefs. Many have argued in the past that those with strong religious beliefs do not belong on the Supreme Court. This would effectively eliminate every faithful member of any faith from service on the highest Court in the land.

To achieve their goals, some may choose to filibuster Judge Roberts. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent. It would be the first time in history that a minority of Senators prevents the full Senate from fulfilling its duty to provide advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. This would create a constitutional crisis, as a minority of Senators would unilaterally amend the Constitution without going through the necessary process to do so.

We can fight those who would engage in these bigoted and unfair tactics, but we need your help to do it!

Please take a few minutes to contact your Senators and tell them you expect a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate! Tell them, furthermore, that any religious or moral beliefs that Judge Roberts expresses should not disqualify him from confirmation. Simply call (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senator. You will need to make two calls, one for each Senator.

And please keep up to date on this judicial confirmations battle by going to our website, www.priestsforlife.org and clicking on the link for "Judges." Be sure to join our prayer campaign for the Supreme Court at www.PrayerCampaign.org Remember, this will be a battle. Pro-abortion advocates have suffered many losses in the legislatures, and many losses at the voting booth. The Courts are their only real stronghold of political power, and they don't want to lose that! You and I need to urge our Senators to do the right thing. This is what we voted for in November's election - a positive change on the Supreme Court! Let's keep the momentum going!!!

Thank you!
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director of Priests for Life