It may seem odd to suggest that President Obama would nominate a Supreme Court Justice to help overturn Roe v. Wade. However, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
President Obama, like all Chicago politicians, is steeped in a culture of pay-to-play. The entire Chicago political apparatus operates on that principle. To assume that a nomination as important as an appointment to the Supreme Court comes without strings is, in my view, naive. Yet, if strings are attached, what strings might they be?
Obama is clearly not looking to swing the court to the left with this nomination. If anything, Judge Sotomayor is more conservative than outgoing Justice Souter. He's also not looking to placate the right. The right will attack any Democratic nominee so it makes no difference how moderate the choice. But Obama could easily have picked a judge with a clear position on abortion.
Why didn't he?
The fact is, Judge Sotomayor's position on abortion is not just unclear. It's entirely unknown. We do know she's Latino. We know she's Catholic. And we know that Latino Catholics, as a group, are traditionally opposed to abortion. We also know that her addition to the court would make it disproportionately Catholic.
We also know President Obama is morally opposed to abortion, though he's gone to great lengths to assert his support for a woman's right to choose. And we know that abortion is a major dividing line between Democrats and the Republican faithful.
Oh, and we know one more thing.
If Judge Sotomayor were to side with the majority on the court and Roe v Wade was overturned, President Obama could publicly express his dismay over the decision and claim that there was no way he could have known how she'd vote on the issue while privately applauding the outcome. Abortion would become illegal and Obama would shoulder none of the political fallout.
That's politics Chicago-style.
With that divisive stumbling block out of the way, Republicans would find themselves with one less major fundraising issue and an ever more difficult path toward rebranding. Democrats, by contrast, might find themselves winning more elections in traditional Republican strongholds.
This might also be the reason Ted Olson has filed on behalf of gays and lesbians in California who've lost the right to marry. Ted Olson is no friend to the GBLT community. And this case is certain to go to the California Supreme Court. But it also might wind up in the...
U.S. Supreme Court.
Hmmmm. That means a case led by Ted Olson with national implications for gay marriage could end up in front of a Supreme Court with Justice Sotomayor as it's newest member. And, considering that Latino Catholics were largely responsible for defeating Proposition 8 in California, it's not inconceivable she would side with the other Catholics on the court.
Could gay marriage, which Obama expressly opposes, be next on the chopping block after Roe v Wade, and is Judge Sotomayor the president's designated "hatchet man" on the court?
I believe she is. And I hope Senator Feinstein and others flush out her stand on these issues before rubber-stamping her nomination. President Obama must not be given a pass by the progressive left. By his own admisstion he opposes gay marriage and abortion.
Women and members of the GBLT community must not be deceived into believing we have an ally in the White House.
Recent Comments