By Steven Ertelt
Life News
A pro-life mother of seven is reportedly one of three finalists on President Donald Trump’s condensed list of top Supreme Court nominees. The president has reportedly narrowed down his initial list of 25 conservative judges to three potential candidates to be nominated to replace pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Although conservative and pro-life organizations have praised the judges on President Trump’s list, pro-life groups have been rallying around Judge Amy Coney Barrett over the last few days. They say she represents the best potential pick President Trump can make to put a conservative jurist on the Supreme Court who will respect the rule of law and not make up laws from the bench.
They also appreciate her strong pro-life views and believe adding a pro-life woman to the Supreme Court will help counterbalance the pro-abortion women who are currently votes to keep Roe v Wade and its allowance for unlimited abortions in place.
Here’s more:
Trump’s top contenders for the vacancy at this time are federal appeals judges Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge, said a person familiar with Trump’s thinking who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Working closely with a White House team and consulting with lawmakers and outside advisers, Trump has spent the week deliberating on the choice. He conducted interviews on Monday and Tuesday. He has not yet publicly indicated that he has narrowed the list and could still consider others in the mix.
With customary fanfare, Trump plans to announce his selection Monday night, kicking off a contentious nomination process as Republicans seek to shift the court to the right and Democrats strive to block the effort.
Vice President Mike Pence has also met with some of the contenders for the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, The Associated Press has learned.
The meetings took place in recent days, according to a person familiar with the search process. The person did not specify which candidates Pence met with and spoke on condition of anonymity Wednesday to describe the private search process.
Life News article continues here
By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life
You likely recall on January 11, at pro-life President Donald Trump’s first formal press conference following his election, he told reporters,
“I’ll be making the decision on who we will put for justice of the United States Supreme Court, a replacement for the great, great justice Scalia, that will probably be within two weeks of the 20th. I’ll be making that decision, and it’ll be a decision which I very strongly believe in.”
Today, ahead of a meeting with Senate leaders to discuss the vacancy, Trump told reporters, “We will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice.” Asked about a timetable, the President said, “Probably making my decision this week, we’ll be announcing next week.”
Pro-life Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was joined at the White House by pro-abortion Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), pro-life Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), and pro-abortion ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.)
POLITICO reported, “McConnell said on the Senate floor that Trump invited them to the White House ‘as part of his ongoing consultations with Members of the Senate. I appreciate the president soliciting our advice on this important matter.’”
Leonard Leo, one of Trump’s advisers on the Supreme Court pick and Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society, told the Associated Press’s Julie Pace, “The president wants to move as quickly as he can.”
USA Today reported, “The [Senate] Judiciary Committee eventually will conduct hearings on Trump’s nominee, most likely in March.”
Mr. Trump said his first nominee would be from 21 potential nominees whose names were included on two separate lists. Who is among the very top tier makes for interesting speculation but from our single-issue perspective, the most important assurance is Mr. Trump’s promise to nominate only pro-lifers to the High Court.
Life News continues here
By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life
As we’ve talked about for months at NRL News Today, the Media Elite did everything in its power to defeat pro-life Donald Trump. Their guttersnipe attacks have only intensified now–against all their confident assurances to the contrary–that the American electorate chose him to be our 45th President.
As the next phase of that strategy–embarrassingly, transparently obvious–is to attempt to dislodge the coalition that elected Trump by announcing that he is already reneging. With one exception: abortion and pro-lifers.
There the New York Times et al. take Trump at face value. After 60 Minutes aired a typically hostile Leslie Stahl interview yesterday, it would be impossible to argue Trump is attempting to distance himself from the strong pro-life views he espoused during the campaign.
That’s why you get this New York Times headline: “Donald Trump Appears to Soften Stance on Immigration, but Not on Abortion.” Here’s the first paragraph of Julie Hirschfeld Davis’ story.
By Steven Ertelt
Life News
When it comes to the direction of the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion there is probably no more important issue for pro-life voters this election. In looking at that direction there is no greater difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
As LifeNews has reported tonight, Hillary Clinton wants Supreme Court judges who will uphold Roe v. Wade — which allowed for virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy across the United States. On the other hand, Donald Trump said tonight he wants judges in the mold of pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia who recently passed away.
Here’s more about what Donald Trump had to say concerning the Supreme Court and possible nominees for it:
"Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently, and we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges, and I’ve actually picked 20 of them, so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought of and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States, and I think that this is so important."
Last month, Trump released a second list of potential Supreme Court judges he would appoint if he is elected president. A first list Trump released earlier this year went over well with pro-life voters and had the kind of possible Supreme Court judges pro-life groups would welcome.
By Micaiah Bilger
Life News
The future makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is a key concern for both sides of the abortion debate this election. The next president could have the opportunity to nominate up to four justices to the high court and influence the court’s decisions for years.
But a new article in The Daily Signal points out how the next president’s nominations could affect much more than just the Supreme Court. The president has the power to nominate judges to other federal courts, too, and that power in the hands of pro-abortion Hillary Clinton could keep a challenge to Roe v. Wade and other pro-life cases against abortion from even reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pro-abortion President Barack Obama already has made a huge impact on the courts. The Daily Signal’s Philip Wegmann writes:
When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.
Outside of legal circles the transformation of the influential federal appeals courts has gone largely unnoticed, though.
“The Supreme Court grabs the spotlight, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said, “while the 13 federal courts of appeals handle about 35,000.”
More than one-third of the 179 judges on federal appeals courts owe their seat to Obama, Willett told The Daily Signal. “That’s a legacy with a capital L.”
If Clinton becomes president, she could have an even more negative impact on the lower courts, appointing judges who could overturn even moderate, common-sense abortion regulations. Her continuation of Obama’s pro-abortion nominations could sway a huge percentage of lower court decisions for decades, and lead to the loss of millions more unborn babies to abortion.
Clinton promised months ago that she only would nominate judges who support Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand. In February, she revealed that she has a litmus test for judges, and high on her priority list is pro-abortion judges.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments,” Clinton said. “It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.
“We have to preserve marriage equality. We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community, we’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe V. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she continued.
Clinton’s abortion stance is radical and out of touch with most Americans. In February, she defended the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. Then, during an interview on The View recently, Clinton said an unborn child just hours before delivery should have no Constitutional rights. At a presidential forum at Drake University, Clinton called ending the life of another human being a “fundamental human right.”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has promised to appoint pro-life judges who will protect the right to life for unborn babies.
“We are going to appoint great Supreme Court justices… These will be justices of great intellect… And they will be pro-life,” Trump told pro-life leaders in June.
Trump also released a well-received list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees — a list pro-life groups hailed for having strong supporters of the Constitution.
Website: lifenews.com
