Jewish World Review April 14, 2003 / 12 Nisan, 5763

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Kerry's abortion litmus test

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Senator John Kerry assured a group of Democratic women at a breakfast in Iowa last week that if he is elected president, he will nominate for the Supreme Court only judges who support Roe v. Wade and the broad guarantee of abortion rights that it stands for.

But isn't that a political litmus test? And aren't litmus tests for judges frowned upon?

Kerry didn't wait to be challenged. "Let me just say to you: That is not a litmus test," he told the breakfast group.

In fact, a litmus test -- an ideological hurdle that he would require any Supreme Court nominee to clear -- is precisely what it is. There are serious legal scholars, not all of them pro-life, who think Roe was poorly reasoned and wrongly decided -- that it essentially conjured the "constitutional" right to abortion out of thin air. Kerry was making an explicit promise not to nominate such people to the Supreme Court, no matter how sterling their credentials or how admirable their character or how compatible their views might be with Kerry's on other topics. That is a litmus test, however much Kerry might deny it.

But why deny it? Are judicial litmus tests really so bad? It seems to me that it's reasonable -- even desirable -- for a president to appoint judges who agree with him on important issues. Don't voters expect as much? Instead of denying the obvious, Kerry could have made it a mark of his commitment. "Sure it's a litmus test. That's because I don't want there to be any doubt where I stand: I will protect Roe v. Wade." If he had said that, I for one would have defended his frankness.

But frankness is rarely the Kerry way. And so he maintains that his position on abortion has nothing to do with politics. Rather, he says, it is simply a matter of defending "settled law" and fixed constitutional principles from reckless judges who might disturb them.

"Litmus tests are politically motivated tests," Kerry told reporters after his speech. "This is a constitutional right." His pro-choice zealotry, in other words, isn't political -- it is mandated by the Constitution.

That might make sense if Kerry were talking about an issue that supersedes political considerations, like the protection of trial by jury or the right of minorities to vote. He isn't. He's talking about a guarantee whose "constitutional" standing goes back only to 1973 and has been the subject of intense political controversy ever since. To Kerry, that makes no difference. Once the Supreme Court has decided a constitutional issue, he seems to believe, the subject is closed forever.

"I think people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted," he said, "and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does."

Read that again: If they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution. A Supreme Court justice who disagrees with an earlier court decision, Kerry is saying, violates his duty to uphold the Constitution. Accordingly, Kerry promises that any judge *he* nominates to the court will unswervingly follow Roe v. Wade -- and, presumably, every other constitutional precedent.

Well, if that's his standard, he is certainly justified in making support for Roe a litmus test. But by the same standard, a candidate for president in an earlier era would have been no less justified in making a litmus test of support for Plessy v. Ferguson (the Supreme Court case that upheld Jim Crow segregation) or Korematsu v. United States (which approved the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans) or Lochner v. New York (which, with its progeny, barred states from passing wage and hour laws). Take the Kerry standard literally and no Supreme Court decision could be overruled, no matter how pernicious it was later deemed to be.

Naturally, Kerry says that's not what he means. "John Kerry of course understands the evolving nature of American law and of constitutional interpretation," his spokeswoman told me. "Many, many Supreme Court decisions have been decided 'wrongly' as judged by contemporary sensibilities."

But he cannot have it both ways. If the Supreme Court sometimes -- let alone "many, many" times -- makes bad judgments and must later correct its blunders, he cannot insist that the holding in Roe is so sacrosanct, so immutable, that a justice who disputes it is by definition a traitor to the Constitution. Conversely, if members of the Supreme Court must never deviate from "the Constitution as it is interpreted," as Kerry said in Iowa, then they can never undo an odious decision or adapt the Constitution's text to a changed social landscape. Which is it?

Roe v. Wade is not going to be the last word on American abortion law any more than Dred Scott v. Sanford was the last word on the rights of blacks. John Kerry is free to embrace Roe and, if elected president, to nominate only judges who pledge to defend it. But he should acknowledge that in doing so, he is setting up a litmus test, one many voters will not like. For the one thing Roe is not is "settled law," above and beyond politics. On the contrary, it remains to this day one of the most unsettled -- and unsettling -- political issues around.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

04/11/03: Meanwhile, in Cuba, the tyranny goes on
04/07/03: Explaining the war to a six-year-old
03/31/03: Empowering a terroristocracy in the name of 'peace'?
03/27/03: America the liberator
03/10/03: THE UNITED NATIONS, RIP
03/10/03: Changing the definition of marriage
03/07/03: Liberate Iraq -- even with unclean hands
03/03/03: Why talk radio tilts right
02/21/03: A boost for Saddam
02/10/03: On outing Kerry
02/06/03: The neverending voyage
02/03/03: This hasn't been a 'rush to war'
01/31/03: Killing the terror regimes
01/29/03: How not to win the war
01/24/03: The UN's moral irrelevance
01/22/03: Musings, random and otherwise
01/17/03: The Sharpton hypocrisy
01/13/03: The fig leaf of 'diversity'
01/10/03: Israeli restraint makes terrorism more likely
01/02/03: The double standard on political hate speech
12/30/02: Good for the spirit, good for the body
12/23/02: The college president who owes a greater duty to a fugitive serial killer than the public or to the law
12/20/02: The death penalty by the numbers
12/16/02: Yes, Virginia, there is (still) a liberal media bias
12/03/02: On the brink of regime change --- in Iran
11/27/02: Light's victory over darkness
11/25/02: A 'Republican' lesson from a Democratic convention
11/22/02: The slippery senator
11/18/02: The campus 'diversity' fraud
11/14/02: MURDER AT A KIBBUTZ
11/01/02: Saddam's shop of horrors
10/24/02: Musings, random and otherwise
10/17/02: Jimma's ignoble prize
10/14/02: New Jersey's bigot laureate
10/11/02: Today it is libs who are most likely to demand the silencing of speech they disapprove of
10/04/02: Learning English from Day 1
09/30/02: The world will follow us to war
09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/08/02: STEVEN EMERSON AND THE NPR BLACKLIST
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/07/01: THE PALESTINIANS' MYTH
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/28/01: THE CENSORS ARE COMING! THE CENSORS ARE COMING!
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
01/05/01 THEY NEVER FORGOT THEE, O JERUSALEM
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe