The presidential election of 2004 may be just as close as the presidential election of 2000. Once again, the outcome could be determined by a handful of votes in a single state.
Yet, the stakes in this election are enormous. While the vote margin between President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry may turn out to be small, the differences in where they intend to take the country are vast.
Kerry is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. But he has labored in this campaign–and especially at the Democratic National Convention in Boston–to hide his true beliefs and obscure his record.
In “The Case Against Kerry,” HUMAN EVENTS sets the record straight, unmasking the plain truth of what John Kerry has done in two decades in the U.S. Senate.
On issues ranging from quotas, to school prayer, to abortion, to whether the Boy Scouts can ban gay Scoutmasters, the U.S. Supreme Court is narrowly divided. In the next four years the court is likely to face additional momentous questions, including whether to declare same-sex marriage a “right” and whether to uphold or overturn a congressionally enacted statute banning partial-birth abortion.
But the court’s narrow divide is almost certain to shift in one direction or another in the next presidential term. John Kerry is committed to pushing it leftward by nominating activist liberal justices.
Retirements from the Supreme Court are long overdue. No Justice has left the bench in a decade. Four members of the court–Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71; Sandra Day O’Connor, 74; William Rehnquist, 79; and J.P. Stevens, 84–are in their twilight years on the bench. It is likely one or more of these justices will depart the court soon. It is possible all four could leave before another four years are out.
John Kerry’s record on judges is unambiguous: He supports liberal activist nominees and opposes conservative constructionist nominees. He opposed Ronald Reagan’s nominations of William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Bob Bork as an associate justice. He also opposed President George H.W. Bush’s nomination of Clarence Thomas as an associate justice. On the other hand, he supported both Bill Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
More recently, Kerry has joined with other Democrats in the U.S. Senate in using the filibuster to block even floor votes for conservative constructionist judges nominated to appellate courts by the current President Bush. For example, he voted against cloture on the nominations of both Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Estrada is a Honduran immigrant with a Harvard law degree, who served as a counsel in the solicitor general’s office of President Clinton’s Justice Department. Owen is a Texas Supreme Court Justice who was reconfirmed to her state court seat by an overwhelming vote of the people of Texas. But neither could pass Kerry’s ideological litmus test.
Given the power the Supreme Court has arrogated unto itself in recent decades, perhaps no issue is more important in this presidential election than who will choose our future Justices. If it is Kerry, Americans must prepare for their laws and public policies to be forced to the Left by un-elected jurists–perhaps for decades to come.
|DANIEL MANION: Nomination to the 7th Circuit||AGAINST:Voted to reconsider confirmation, 7/23/86.|
|WILLIAM REHNQUIST: Nomination as Chief Justice||AGAINST:Vote #266, 9/17/86.|
|ROBERT BORK: Nomination to the Supreme Court||AGAINST:Vote #348, 10/23/87.|
|CLARENCE THOMAS: Nomination to the Supreme Court||AGAINST:Vote #220, 10/15/91.|
|RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Nomination to the Supreme Court||FOR:Vote #232, 8/3/93.|
|STEPHEN BREYER: Nomination to the Supreme Court||FOR:Vote #242, 7/29/94.|
|MIGUEL ESTRADA: Nomination to the D.C. Circuit||AGAINST:Voted No on cloture motion, Vote #40, 3/6/03.|
|PRISCILLA OWEN: Nomination to the 5th Circuit||AGAINST:Voted No on cloture motion, Vote #144, 5/8/03.|
“Justice Rehnquist has consistently–consistently–demonstrated an insensitivity to the rights of minorities, women, children and the poor in our society. He has shown himself to be literally hostile to the principle of racial desegregation and to fundamental constitutional principles such as the separation of church and state. I believe that Justice Rehnquist’s views are so far outside of a mainstream of legal thought that he is irredeemably handicapped in his demonstrated ability to effectively fulfill the essential role of a Chief Justice as a builder of consensus on the court.”
Senate floor speech,
Sept. 17, 1986
“To place this man [Bork] on the Supreme Court would be to reopen old wounds and to refight old battles….I have serious doubts whether a man with the strong views of Judge Bork can cast off the convictions of a lifetime.”
States New Service,
Oct. 2, 1987
“If you’re looking for me to admit that I made a mistake in my years in the Senate, there you go–there’s one.”
his vote to confirm
May 19, 2004
“It may well be that some people cannot draw or do not want to draw a conclusion, but you cannot dismiss the weight of Anita Hill’s testimony….Indeed, I believe Anita Hill succumbed to ambition and there is part of this story that is untold. But that does not contradict her claim of what happened.”
vote against Clarence Thomas,
Senate floor speech,
Oct. 15, 1991
“And [Stephen Breyer] defines his role on the Court to be, quote, ‘to make the average person’s life better.'”
in the Senate Judiciary Committee,
July 12, 1994
“I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy.”
June 20, 2003
“I believe that a woman’s right to choose is a constitutional right. I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right.”
May 20, 2004
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter