http://www.lifenews.com/nat2724.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Speculation that a pro-abortion member of the Supreme Court may be planning to step down soon is providing a last-minute shake up in a hotly contested Congressional election that is expected to go down to the wire. The head of a judicial watchdog group says political observers believe Justice John Paul Stevens may retire.
Stevens, an 86 year-old judge appointed in 1975, has been battling health problems and several reports have appeared in recent days that his health has taken a turn for the worse.

Stevens is a member of the five justice bloc of judges on the high court who back legalized abortion and his retirement could potentially pave the way for the confirmation of a justice who could be the deciding vote in overturning Roe v. Wade.

However, should Democrats capture control of the Senate tomorrow, President Bush would likely have a tough time securing the nomination of a justice would strictly interpret the Constitution and not read a so-called right to abortion into it.

Sean Rushton, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, writes about the Stevens retirement possibility in a national editorial yesterday.

"It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority," Rushton said.

Rushton urged voters to consider the potential for a Stevens retirement when they vote and to keep control of Congress in pro-life hands.

"It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to 'teach Republicans a lesson' Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in
decades," he said.

Pro-life groups are warning voters that they need to keep the possibility in mind.

"President Bush was able to appoint two new constitutionalist Justices since 2004 because pro-lifers were the majority in Congress," Susan B. Anthony List director Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote pro-life advocates Monday.

"Just as in 2004, the Supreme Court is at stake again. The control of the Senate up for grabs again," she wrote. "Give President Bush a Senate that will confirm a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court."

Meanwhile, Rushton reminded votes of the fate of pro-life Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who lost a heated nomination battle after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986.

"The rumor should focus the mind not only on whether the Senate will remain majority-Republican, but by how much," Rushton wrote.

He pointed out how large Democratic gains on Tuesday could threaten the bipartisan group of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats who made sure recent nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito did not face filibusters.

Whether Stevens is headed for a retirement soon or not, Rushton said pro-life voters should keep it in mind because it's always a possibility and there are two years before voters can undo the loses that might occur Tuesday.

"Even if the rumor turns out to be unfounded, it is worth repeating because it crystallizes the reality that there will soon be another high court vacancy," he writes. "Senators elected next Tuesday to six year terms will, assuredly, vote on the confirmation of at least one new Supreme Court justice before their term is out."

The message appears to be getting to voters however, as Rushton says President Bush has been mentioning the topic of judges in his campaign stops across the nation and it has been getting a strong response from audiences.

11/7/2006 10:51:20 AM

Quote :

"Speculation that a pro-abortion"

ahem, i believe you mean pro-choice.

nice negative spin though.



[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 10:56 AM. Reason : d]

11/7/2006 10:56:26 AM

if this isnt a shameless turnout shill....

hahaha

NOT PICKED UP BY THE MAJOR NEWS WIRES!!!! BUT WE HAVE EXCLUSIVE COVERAGE FROM LIFENEWS!!!!!

11/7/2006 11:05:30 AM

Convenient timing.

Can we just have a national referendum on this issue and be done with it? This whole 25-year "war" is about as pointless as the Iran-Iraq War. Do pro-choice and pro-life voters ever realize that regardless of who they elect and who is appointed, the end result is always the same with this issue?

11/7/2006 11:07:23 AM

I'm convinced that either Roberts or Alito will lean pro-choice once it comes down to one of their decisions overturning roe v. wade. The Republicains would never put someone onto the Supreme Court who would actually overturn this incredible political issue they have.

Looking back on it, I suspect O'Conner wasn't actually Reagan's Mistake.

</End my crazy theory I don't have much faith in>

11/7/2006 11:27:37 AM

in related news, pro-molestation TWW'er continues making threads

11/7/2006 11:36:19 AM

since bush pushed for the war, does that make him pro-killing?

11/7/2006 11:37:54 AM

Quote :

"ahem, i believe you mean pro-choice."

ahem, no.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2495691

"I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.

Please hold on John, we need you." - Democratic Underground

Quote :

"I'm convinced that either Roberts or Alito will lean pro-[abortion] once it comes down to one of their decisions overturning roe v. wade. The Republicains would never put someone onto the Supreme Court who would actually overturn this incredible political issue they have."

You are probably right that Republicans have benefited a great deal from Roe v. Wade, both in terms of turning out values voters and also slowly killing the offspring of the pro-aborts. However, judges are not known for appreciating party standings, they often go their own way as they see it.


[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason : add]

11/7/2006 11:56:49 AM

yes, you definately mean pro-choice.

tricking people into believing things that aren't true goes against your faith, does it not?

11/7/2006 12:06:21 PM

Quote :

"yes, you definately mean pro-choice. "

Nope, wrong again.

11/7/2006 12:07:01 PM

you didn't answer my question.

11/7/2006 12:07:35 PM

That's because it's an insulting question that starts from an incorrect assumption. If you want people to answer your questions, start asking fair questions. Otherwise, stop bitching when your questions don't get answered.

11/7/2006 12:11:26 PM

im affraid that incorrect assumption can go both ways. i only raise the question because i am pro-choice, and i do take offense when im labelled as pro-abortion. i am not pro-abortion, and neither is the judge. if you expect people to respect your views and your opinions, then you better start respecting others as well.

since the judge is NOT pro-abortion, i feel that my question IS fair.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:15 PM. Reason : df]

11/7/2006 12:14:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm convinced that either Roberts or Alito will lean pro-choice once it comes down to one of their decisions overturning roe v. wade. The Republicains would never put someone onto the Supreme Court who would actually overturn this incredible political issue they have. Looking back on it, I suspect O'Conner wasn't actually Reagan's Mistake. </End my crazy theory I don't have much faith in>"

I think you're right. I think the mega-insider people that run the Republican and Democratic Parties pay lip service to the base on abortion cause it gets people out to vote. I doubt we'll have "no abortion at all" in our lifetime cause the Republicans would get voted out and I doubt abortion rights would ever be extended cause the Democrats would get voted out. It's much easier for the Republican Party mega-insiders, as you say, to advise Bush to appoint a secretly pro-choice justice in either Alito or Roberts and then say they were duped by the appointee and had no idea beforehand. That way the status quo continues, they can still claim that they are steadfastly against abortion without paying any political consequences for it by nothing concrete getting done. Case in point for the other party, Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:17 PM. Reason : /]

11/7/2006 12:15:48 PM

Quote :

"Can we just have a national referendum on this issue and be done with it?"

Well we could, but many in the pro-choice community don't want this. That's because it would end up being no abortions except rape, incest, and for the mother's life.

I'm ok with this sticking as a state issue, although I want my damn referrendum for each state.

11/7/2006 2:16:20 PM

pro-molestation is where its at

11/7/2006 2:24:05 PM

^ You're half-right I believe. I think pro-choice people would be scared, but I think pro-life people would be as well. It's a bit of a case of wanting to keep power away from the masses fearing the decision they would make.

Not to mention, if a definitive answer was ever reached on the abortion issue, there would be no reason for pro-choice and pro-life organizations to continue to exist and their funding would dry up, which could be one reason why the abortion issue is a continuous stalemate.

My opinion on the matter is that abortions can be made illegal in the U.S. if you want, but what's going to stop a girl from driving up to Canada and getting one? The political culture in Canada is so heavily against abortion ever being made illegal. You can't prosecute her cause the U.S. judicial system would have no jurisdiction on something they see as a crime committed not on American soil. I think abortion is wrong the same way the death penalty is wrong, but regardless of my opinion it's going to continue.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : /]

11/7/2006 2:25:46 PM

this is a case when i thank god for federalism. i'll just move out of the south and be done with it.

the makeup of congress is misleading on this issue. even if the dems win, they wont necissarily be able to overturn this. you have guys like bob casey jr. (thank god it's not santorum, tho) who are pro-life, and guys like lincoln chafee who are pro-choice.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .,]

11/7/2006 2:33:30 PM

Quote :

"Well we could, but many in the pro-choice community don't want this. That's because it would end up being no abortions except rape, incest, and for the mother's life."

That's so pussy though.

If you think abortion is murder, you should want to eliminate it even in a case where some girl became pregnant when she was raped by her brother.

Hold the line...

11/7/2006 2:39:13 PM

Quote :

"My opinion on the matter is that abortions can be made illegal in the U.S. if you want, but what's going to stop a girl from driving up to Canada and getting one?"

Nothing, but what's to stop them from flying to Amsterdam to get high? Should we legalize all drugs (I think we probably should, for most of them) just because they can go elsewhere?

This should be a state issue, that's how it is.

Quote :

"If you think abortion is murder, you should want to eliminate it even in a case where some girl became pregnant when she was raped by her brother. "

Well, I think it still is murder, and if my girlfriend were raped by her brother, I wouldn't encourage her to abort the child. But that's a murky issue, so people tend to err on the side of caution.

I feel like you're just baiting though, so you can defend abortion rights.

The same way some pro-lifers bait by trying to say that if its not murder, it shouldn't be considered as such when you kill a pregnant woman or cause her to miscarry through violent means.

11/7/2006 3:03:46 PM

Roe v Wade is far too important an issue for Republicans to see overturned. How would they mobilize voters?

11/7/2006 3:13:33 PM

That's ridiculous. I'd say its an issue that mobilizes voters on both sides of the coin.

But your shit doesn't stink, does it?

11/7/2006 3:15:56 PM

that's my nig, yo. not everyone can pull of a bowtie.

11/7/2006 3:55:35 PM

"anti-choice" vs. "pro-abortion"

waaa waaa waaa


"I do take offense!"

11/7/2006 4:21:49 PM

>0 >0 >0

11/7/2006 4:22:37 PM

I AM NOT PRO-ABORTION

THAT TERM IS COMPLETELY FALSE

I AM SIMPLY PRO RIGHT TO ABORTION

STOP OFFENDING ME

11/7/2006 4:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Roe v Wade is far too important an issue for Republicans to see overturned. How would they mobilize voters?"

They can always drag out the name "Clinton", like they always do ... whether he has anything to do with the issue or not ...

11/7/2006 7:00:50 PM

Kind of like how Dems will be dragging out the name "Bush" for the next 20 years, whether he has anything to do with the issue or not.

11/7/2006 9:30:19 PM

well, 2 of the Dems that have won in the Senate would vote for a Pro Lifer Justice

11/7/2006 9:34:20 PM

so since you support the Catholic church, you support child molestation...

by conventional definitions, i would be called pro-life, but its always retards like this that fuck up their own cause by pissing of the people that can actually think

11/7/2006 9:37:55 PM

Rule #1 for Winning a Debate:
History beats Speculation

11/8/2006 12:17:00 AM

IM PRO-ABORTION, KILLING BABIES IS FUN

11/8/2006 12:22:50 AM

He can die now, no hardcore conservative will take his place, a moderate.

11/8/2006 6:41:39 PM