United Press International July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
Copyright 1981 U.P.I.
United Press International
July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
SECTION: Washington News
BYLINE: By WESLEY G. PIPPERT
In Texas, television evangelist James Robison expressed his support for Mrs. [Sandra Day] O’Connor based on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese.
A Robison aide said Meese told the evangelist:
”Sandra O’Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it, the more she changed her mind.
”She is very conservative … Sandra O’Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.”
“The following story appeared in the Washington Times on July 25, 1990, ten days after President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter for the Supreme Court:
CONSERVATIVES LUKEWARM ON SOUTER
Conservatives expressed lukewarm support yesterday for Supreme Court nominee David Souter, but most predicted they will be behind him strongly once they know more about him.
“The consensus is that we would have preferred someone else – not what we were given,” said Richard Viguerie, chairman of the United Conservatives of America. “But we have to accept what’s on the table and move forward.”
Mr. Viguerie made his comments at a news conference that featured leaders of five conservative organizations. “We’re giving a cautious thumbs-up” to the nomination, he said, adding that the president “still has a seriously damaged relationshp with conservatives.”
Peter T. Flaherty, chairman of the Conservative Campaign Fund, said he could not endorse Judge Souter at this time.
“There remain too many unanswered questions about who he is and how this nomination came about,” he said. “President Bush needlesly passed over a number of highly qualified candidates for the court whose philosophy is well known. In doing so, he has taken an unacceptable risk . . .”
. . .
But despite the downbeat tone many expressed about Judge Souter’s selection,David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, predicted: “Most conservatives will get into the fight and fight for the confirmation of Judge Souter.”
Mr. Viguerie agreed. “We’re driven by a lot of things. When the NARL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Molly Yard (president of the National Organization for Women) start trashing this guy, our natural juices start flowing.”
… Liberals are also preparing for combat. The same women’s, pro-choice and civil rights organizations that lobbied to defeat the Bork nomination in 1987 vow to do the same thing to Judge Souter if they find out they don’t like him. While most are officially taking a wait-and-see attitude, some are already convinced he is their enemy.
“At this point we have to assume he’s very anti-choice, since John Sununu, who’s anti-choice, thinks he’s wonderful and President Bush, who’s anti-choice, thinks he’s qualified,” said Chung Seto, spokeswoman for the National Women’s Political Caucus. “It’s no longer enough to have no record. We’ve seen how that works with Anthony Kennedy. We need to know where he stands on women, abortion and civil rights.”
From the Volokh Conspiracy
Thanks to Polipundit, who still supports the nomination, but also says, “Long term damage is done by her nomination: The message it sends to smart young conservative jurists is that they should keep silent about their opinions, and find some way to latch on to rising politicians, like Bush in Texas. Instead, we need young conservative jurists to fight for the cause every day in the legal system, secure in the knowledge that membership in the Federalist Society won’t be held against them.
And there’s short term damage too: An ideological fight for the Court, over a brilliant nominee like Michael McConnell, would have paid significant political dividends; judicial nominations are the litmus test that allow us to paint Red-state Democrat senators as liberals. Instead, we’re stuck with a damp squib of a nomination fight, over a nominee that no one seems enthusiastic about except the president.”
So you see why the fact that Dr. James Dobson and Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ have both endosed the Mier nomination doesn’t mean quite so much to me as one might think.
I’d rather have a horse of a different color, but then, we’re not to put our trust in horses, either.