This report from Bob Novak is a bit disturbing. It seems the pro-abortion groups are trying to dig up dirt on potential Supreme Court nominees by digging through their financial records. Trashing of nominees started with Bork and has gotten worse over time, to wit, Harry Reid's recent smearing by innuendo of a current judicial nominee. Novak reports:
The abortion advocacy group surely was not asking the judges' views on abortion. Nancy Keenan, who has been NARAL's president some five months, told this column her organization is concerned about "out of touch theological activists" becoming judges. Why seek financial information from them? She said the disclosure information might help identify the "character" of judicial nominees.
Which nominees? "We have lots of nominees that we have great concern about," said Keenan. "We're watching all of them."
Remember when the left attacked the right for having an abortion litmus test for judges? The promotion of abortion as a positive good is the holy grail of the American left and there is little they won't do to protect this "sacred" right invented by Harry Blackmun. I have a very basic standard for federal judges: If they are measured as competent (for instance, by the ABA) and have no serious ethical problems (as opposed to the phony "judicial temperament" problem), they should be approved by the Senate. Both sides have opposed judges on policy grounds (although the Democrats have made this a party stance, while the Republicans only did so episodically during the Clinton years). Both are wrong.
Recent Comments