If you see judicial activism as a major threat to your freedom, Wesley Clark has just revealed himself as perhaps one of the most dangerous men in America, as well as an extremist on the issue of abortion.
In an interview with the Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, Clark said he supports abortion right up until the moment of birth. Few politicians have dared to be so outspoken on this subject in the past. Though many in his party take positions that, in effect, lead to this policy, few have actually defended it openly.
“Life,” he said, “begins with the mother’s decision.”
Unlike any other U.S. Supreme Court decision in history, Clark believes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is irreversible – a virtual hallmark of the Constitution.
He goes further than any serious candidate who has ever run for president by saying he would never, under any circumstances, consider appointing a pro-life federal judge because anti-abortion views would render him or her unable to follow judicial precedent.
In the interview, Clark stated, “I don’t have litmus tests.” But following the interview, he called back to say, “I’m not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life.”
“I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion,” he said. “It’s between a woman, her doctor, her faith and her family and her conscience. You don’t put the law in there.”
But, of course, that is exactly what the Supreme Court did in 1973. Prior to that case, the federal government did not involve itself in any way in the issue of abortion. It was the judicial activists of that court who stepped in and struck down the duly enacted laws in most of the 50 states with a sweeping, legislative-style ruling – one that exceeded the judiciary’s powers under the Constitution.
Now, with that precedent in place, Clark wants to change the rules. No longer can justices have any say on the issue justices created in the first place.
Someone, perhaps, should ask Clark what he thinks about the June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas. This was a 6-3 ruling of the court that reversed a precedent of the court established only 17 years earlier.
It seems for people like Clark, it’s OK to shatter precedents when you like the ruling, but not if you don’t.
That is the worst kind of judicial activism, because it establishes a political agenda for the court – which is supposed to stick to matters of the law.
Clark is either very confused about the way the judicial branch works or he is very deceitful. He says he can determine which judges are pro-life by the way they follow judicial precedent.
“You just work through what the judge has done and if you find guys who follow judicial and established precedent, you’re not going to find a judge who is pro-life,” says Clark.
Actually, the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who have the highest regard for the Constitution and judicial precedent are William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – three justices who are considered to be the most sympathetic to a reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Because they know it was an invention of an activist court unconcerned with matters of the Constitution, the law and legal precedent.
A vote for Clark is a vote for judicial tyranny. A vote for Clark is a vote for political correctness gone wild. A vote for Clark is a vote for the continued slaughter of the innocent – with no chance of accountability to the will of the people or law based in morality and righteousness.