Does the Supreme Court Crisis Justify Voting for George W. Bush?

(Patrick Johnson, 2004.)

As you may have heard, conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist was hospitalized recently with invasive thyroid cancer. His disease was so severe that it caused respiratory failure, requiring a tracheotomy (a small tube inserted in a hole in anterior neck that allows air to bypass the obstruction into the lungs). He is one of the more conservative justices on an evenly divided court.

Bush supporters have capitalized on this unfortunate event to stress the importance of Bush’s re-election so that he can appoint “strict constructionists” to the bench who will “interpret the law, not write it.” The Supreme Court is evenly divided between those who would do justice and those who would usurp their constitutional limitations and do unjustly. One to three Supreme Court justices may retire this year, and if Kerry is elected, who has an abortion litmus test for judicial appointees, he will stack the Court with liberal judicial bench-legislators.

This is, I freely confess, one of the strongest reasons to support George W. Bush for President, whatever other problems you may have with President Bush.

The facts, however, strengthens, not diminishes, my support for Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka for President.

When we neglect to learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Let us learn from the history of Republican judicial appointments. Republicans Presidents have a long-history of appointing liberal justices. Six of the nine Supreme Court justices that gave us abortion-on-demand with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision were appointed by Republicans. The vote was seven to two in favor of Roe, and one of the dissenting votes was cast by a Democratic-appointee![1] Seven of the nine justices presently on the Supreme Court, that has reinforced Roe v. Wade, were appointed by Republicans.

It was the Republicans who gave us judicial appointments that resulted in abortion-on-demand throughout all months of pregnancy for any reason. Not the Democrats. Republicans appointed the vast majority of the Court that gave us the following judicial decisions as well:

> banned school prayer

> declared sodomy a constitutional “right”

> declared Nebraska couldn’t outlaw partial birth abortion

> declared Congress couldn’t legislate to protect children from pornography on cable television

> declared that a Michigan law school could use race as a factor in admission

> declared that incumbant politicians could restrict free speech of their subjects before election.

Conservatives are justifiably concerned about activist judges forcing “gay marriage” upon the public, but their commonly proposed remedy is more of what ails them. It was Republican presidents who appointed four of the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Texas's law banning sodomites from having sex. This case was the precedent that convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Court to declare “gay marriage” a constitutional right. Six of the seven justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors.[2]

With “conservative” appointments like these, who needs liberal appointments?

Unfortunately, George Bush has not broken with the Republican tradition. Let us learn from his history of his judicial appointments. He has repeatedly insisted publicly that he does not have a pro-life litmus test for judicial appointees, and he has proven that this is indeed the case. He appointed pro-abortion judges as Governor of Texas. In December of 1999, when President Bush was Governor of Texas, he appointed a supporter of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and also of Planned Parenthood, Martha Hill Jamison, to the 164th District Court in Houston.

When he was Governor of Texas, he appointed or endorsed the majority of the state Supreme Court, which said a minor could get an abortion without parental consent.

Bush also appointed Miguel Estrada to the Federal bench, and Estrada’s claim to fame was arguing a “landmark” Supreme Court case for the pro-abortion feminist group, the National Organization of Women, successfully convincing the court to use RICO racketeering laws against peaceful pro-life activists![3]

What about Bush’s other pro-life nominees? First, I’d like evidence that they are indeed pro-life. Clinton claimed to be pro-life and pro-choice, so claiming to be pro-life is not conclusive evidence that they are. No pro-abort claims to be anti-life – they all claim to be “pro-life”, as they define the term. President Bush claims to be pro-life, yet he believes abortion is justified in cases of rape and incest, he doesn’t think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned now, he publicly insists that he doesn’t have a pro-life litmus test, and he increased funding for abortion within the United States and overseas more than any President in history. Is this consistent with a pro-life position, or has “pro-life” been redefined so that it applies to the Republican candidate for office? I am not impressed that a politician or a judicial candidate claims to be pro-life. Are they going to let the bloodshed of innocents continue? Are they going to do justice on behalf of the butchered preborn? I submit to you that Bush’s appointees, like their appointer, will not.

Moreover, even if Bush has appointed strong pro-life candidates to the Federal bench, his active campaign support of incumbent Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey in the Republican primaries virtually guarantees that any pro-life judicial appointees will never come to a floor vote in the Senate. Specter has a long history of blocking conservative nominees. It was under his leadership that the conservative Reagan-appointee Robert Bork never made it to the Federal bench. With Bush’s aid, Specter will assume senior chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and unlike Bush, he has a litmus test for judicial appointees. Why would Bush, who claims to be pro-life and who claims that his “strict constructivists” are pro-life, campaign for a Republican pro-abort who will likely refuse to allow any of his pro-life nominations to even come to the floor of the Senate for a vote? Hmmm. It’s almost like Bush doesn’t want any of his pro-life nominations to ever sit in a Judge’s bench.

If Bush loses this election to Kerry, sure, we’re likely to see more liberal judicial activists appointed to the judiciary. But at least pro-life conservatives in Congress and in the Senate will start acting like pro-life conservatives again! Imagine! Imagine every professed pro-life Congressman voting against budgets that kill innocent people at taxpayer expense! Imagine! Imagine every professed pro-life Congressman voting against judicial appointees that think it’s okay to legislate from the bench, or who think that killing innocent preborn children should be legal in America. Every Republican who voted for Bush’s budget – which kills more innocent children at taxpayer expense than any President in history – has the blood of innocent children on their hands. At least with a liberal in the Oval Office, maybe the Republicans will actually adopt a litmus test, and refuse to vote for judicial candidates that will kill innocent preborn people. Would to God that Christians conservatives would adopt a pro-life "litmus test" and refuse to vote for candidates who will vote to give taxpayer money to groups that perform abortion.

Your worst enemy is the one that kisses your cheek and cries “Hail.” Christians must awaken to the fact that it’s not the Democrats who have and who will continue to give us abortion-on-demand, it’s the Republicans. And it’s not the liberal or moderate Republicans who are getting the vast majority of Americans out to elect the Republican candidate for President. It’s us – it’s the American Center for Law and Justice, it's the Center for Bioethical Reform, it Focus on the Family's James Dobson, it's the Family Research Council, it's the Christian Defense Coalition, it’s Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, it’s the Eagle Forum, it’s the American Family Association, it’s the National Right to Life with their dishonest advertisement, it’s the Christian Coalition with their dishonest voter guides. When legalized child-killing continues for the next generation of Americans, when the dam of wrath bursts and judgment overtakes us, we won’t be able to blame the Democrats. It’s the salt’s fault.

Matthew 5:13: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, thenceforth it is good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men.”

Are you voting for someone who kills innocent children at taxpayer expense this Tuesday? Are you voting for someone who has appointed or would appoint pro-abort judicial candidates to the bench? Are you voting for someone who thinks it’s okay to kill your unborn child if the child was conceived through rape or incest? I am not - I am not voting for either candidate who will kill innocent children at taxpayer expense - not Bush, nor Kerry. I am supporting the only 100% pro-life candidate without exceptions – that’d be Michael Peroutka with the Constitution Party ( He has a practical, constitutional plan to stop abortion his first day in office! I’ll not stain my hands with innocent blood with my vote anymore.

I’d rather be a doorkeeper in God’s House than sit at the Republican roundtable. I’d rather try to stop abortion and fail than perpetuate legal child-killing through my vote. Regardless of how the vote turns out Tuesday, Michael Peroutka will be the only candidate who succeeds, because pleasing God is the measure of success. On this November 2nd, Michael Peroutka will be the only candidate who wins because Judgment Day will be the day on which the only real trophies that matter are handed out. Will you be on the winning team, or will you continue to support those who tread our Constitution underfoot and perpetuate legal child-killing in our country?

The “lesser of two evils” every four years has proven that it will not stop the bloodshed of the innocents, but will increase it, and it will not abate but rather hasten the wrath of God that we are due for our nation’s rebellion to Him. If conservatives ever wonder why we suffer so when God’s gavel falls and judgment strikes our nation, God will only have to remind us of our vote.


[1] “Republican-Appointed Justices: Do They Make a Difference?” Pamphlet #522 of the American Wisdom Series,

[2] “The Justices”, Lawyers Weekly USA,

[3] “Miguel Estrada: An American Success Story,” Sept. 13, 2002, The Latino Coalition,