The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is a Trump Court in the Making?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If Mitch McConnell’s Senate can confirm his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump may have completed the capture of all three branches of the U.S. government for the Republican Party.

Not bad for a rookie.

And the lamentations on the left are surely justified.

For liberalism’s great strategic ally and asset of 60 years, the judicial dictatorship erected by Earl Warren and associates, may be about to fall.

Judicial supremacy may be on the way out.

Another constitutionalist on the court, in the tradition of Antonin Scalia, could ring down the curtain on the social revolution the court has been imposing since the salad days of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Among the changes Warren’s court and its successors succeeded in imposing: The de-Christianization of all public institutions in America. The social war of the 1970s over forced busing for racial balance in the public schools. The creation, ex nihilo, of new constitutional rights, first to an abortion, and then to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

But while the confirmation of a new Trump justice may bring an end to the revolution, it will return power to where it belongs in a constitutional republic, with elected legislators and elected executives.

There will not likely be any sudden and radical rollback of changes wrought in six decades. For some of those changes have become embedded in the public consciousness as the new normal, and will endure.

Roe v. Wade may be challenged. But even if overturned, states like New York and California, which had liberalized abortion laws before Roe, are not likely to re-criminalize it.

Affirmative action, however, racial discrimination against white males to promote diversity, may be on the chopping block.

Why did it take until Trump to restore constitutionalism to the Supreme Court, when the Warren Court had been a blazing issue since the 1950s and Republicans held the presidency for 28 years from 1968 to 2016, and had managed to elevate 12 justices?

Answer: Every GOP president save Bush II, has appointed justices who grew to believe the court had a right to remake America to conform to their image of the ideal liberal democracy. And they so acted.

Said Ike ruefully on his retirement: Two of my worst mistakes are sitting up there on the Supreme Court.

The two were Warren, who, as California’s governor, had pushed to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in World War II, and William Brennan, the most radical justice to sit in over half a century.

Nixon came to office committed to rein in the court by naming “strict constructionists.” Yet three of the four justices he named would vote for Roe v. Wade in 1973. Harry Blackmun, whom Nixon rushed onto the bench after his Southern nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell were trashed and rejected, became the author of Roe.

Nixon’s fourth nominee, William Rehnquist, was his best, a brilliant jurist whom Reagan himself would elevate to chief justice.

Gerald Ford’s sole nominee, John Paul Stevens, confirmed 97-0 in the Senate, turned left soon after his confirmation to join Blackmun.

Reagan named Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman, and Scalia.

But when his effort to elevate Judge Robert Bork failed, he turned to Anthony Kennedy of California, whose seat Trump is filling today.

Over 30 years, Kennedy’s vote proved decisive in 5-4 decisions to uphold Roe, to discover homosexuality as a constitutional right, and to raise same-sex unions to the legal level of traditional marriage.

George H.W. Bush’s first choice was David Souter, who also turned left to join the liberal bloc. Bush I got it right on his second try in 1991, naming the constitutionalist Clarence Thomas.

As for George W. Bush, he chose John Roberts as Chief Justice to succeed Rehnquist and then Sam Alito as associate justice.

Thus, of 15 justices Republican Presidents have named since World War II, five — Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens and Souter — became liberal activists. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, both Reagan choices, became swing justices and voted with the court’s liberals on critical social issues.

Democratic presidents have done far better by their constituents.

Of seven justices named by LBJ, Clinton and Obama, every one — Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor — turned out to be predictably and consistently liberal.

Clearly, the advisers to George W. Bush and President Trump looked back at the successes and the failures of previous GOP presidents, and have done a far better job of vetting nominees. They reached outside for counsel.

It was Trump’s 2016 pledge to draw his nominees to the high court from a list of 20 judges and scholars supplied by the Federalist Society that reassured conservatives and helped him unite his party and get elected.

On the issue of judicial nominees and justices to the Supreme Court, Trump has kept his word.

And the next Supreme Court may one day be called the Trump Court.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Supreme Court 
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Conservatives may get and regret what they wish for when right to safe abortion is appealed and the black population in America goes up exponentially.

    Read More
    • Agree: Realist
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @ThreeCranes

    In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women. guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/abortion-and-women-color-bigger-picture

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. KenH says:

    The Jewish led left’s wet dreams that a liberal majority SCOTUS would rule as follows have been dashed for at least twenty years:

    1) The second amendment doesn’t confer an individual right to own firearms (well it does only if you hate white people). So turn em in whitey!!
    2) The first amendment does not protect the speech of white people who don’t hate themselves. That’s hate speech and domestic extremism.
    3) The entire third world has a constitutional right to enter the U.S. by any illegal means then enjoy due process and other rights. I know, it’s counterintuitive but that’s what the Constitution says if you look really, really hard. If you can’t see it then you’re probably a Nazi.
    4) Black people are owed repamarations (sic). Pay up whitey so it can be raining malt liquor and crack!!

    If Kavanaugh is confirmed and rules as a true originalist and rightist then soon, probably within a year, the left will be demanding the abolishment of the Supreme Court just like they’re demanding the abolishment of ICE.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. anon[118] • Disclaimer says:

    The NYT placed Kavanaugh to the left of Gorsuch on the conservatism scale. This does not bode well considering Gorsuch recently took a hard left by voting with the 4 liberal judges against deportation of illegals who committed violent crimes. I was always iffy about Gorsuch, it didn’t take him long to confirm my suspicion, he’s a CINO, Conservative In Name Only.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. @ThreeCranes

    Conservatives may get and regret what they wish for when right to safe abortion is appealed and the black population in America goes up exponentially.

    Your point that the problems blacks cause are directly proportional to their demographic representation is most demonstrably true.

    That said, the black population is not going down either way. Rapidly bringing the issue to a head that forces society to suffer like Sweden until it acknowledges the problem might be a good thing, don’t you think?

    Risky, but again, they’re already a (growing) problem. But only at a pace that seems all too easy for many Americans to ignore the consequences of. Perhaps dumping a proverbial can of gas on this dumpster fire is just what we need to finally garner enough serious attention to have it addressed?

    And if that doesn’t happen, well, good riddance to all the whites who choose a blind death over wising up. The deaths caused by their inaction only make more room for those with the will to act. That IS how natural selection works, right?

    The way I see it, the only real threat is complacently continuing down the Left’s slow and distracting path to genocide by demographic replacement. From that perspective, intentionally trying to turn that whimper into a bang only stands to improve our status by stirring the masses with the kinds of spectacles they can’t ignore, right?

    So then, the million dollar question becomes: How many more Chiraqs can America really afford to keep turning a blind eye to?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    I doubt that Mr. Buchanan could keep from yawning as he recycled this Beltway Bilge. Ever notice that each and every nomination is so purportedly pivotal? I posted this yesterday under one of Mr. Sailer’s, but it is just as pertinent here:

    I think it makes little difference. Look back at how disappointingly Establishmentarian so many “conservative” nominees proved to be.

    The 5-4 votes, “blistering dissents” of Justice Scalia, and all of the political machinations and chatter around each nomination are part of the puppet show to distract from the arrogation of power via national governance. Why did women’s suffrage require a formal amendment ratified by a supermajority of the states, but the imposition of same sex marriage on the states spring forth from the written opinion of five people that those affected never even voted for? Because we’ve become all the more ruled from Washington in the meantime.

    When has “SCOTUS” said or done anything since 1945 to address Big War, which has operated without declaration under the Constitution?

    But if you still like to think that the Court is there to check and balance the Congress and the Executive with the Constitution, have at it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. TTSSYF says:
    @ThreeCranes

    SOME conservatives want the right to abortion appealed. Many of us don’t have any problem with abortion, as long as it’s early in the pregnancy, even if we would never choose it for ourselves or want any family member to have one. Regardless, even if Roe were overturned, I think the States would act, which is how it should have been handled in the first place.

    I find it amusing that the Left is so pro-abortion while many on the Right are quietly just as pro-abortion, albeit for different reasons…or maybe not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I agree with ThreeCranes and have said similar things for years. There have been about 55 million abortions since Roe. About 27 million were of Negroes. Suppose they had not been aborted. Then what? We would have about 45 million more Negroes in the US, including the abortees “keedz”. Will Buchanan support them too? How much higher would US crime rates be?
    To support a law is to support its consequences. Grow up Pat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. How does the nomination of a man with an Ivy pedigree who has spent his entire adult life feeding at the public trough and sojourning on the Potomac jibe with draining the swamp?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @ThreeCranes

    Maybe back when Roe was decided this was true, but with Depo-Provera and the morning-after pill now ubiquitous I don’t think the TFR for blacks is likely to tick up much if roughly 20 states outlaw abortion in the event Roe’s overturned. The only unfortunate thing is that the blackest state (with maybe the exceptions of NC, VA and MD) are also the most likely be among those 20 states.
    Case in point: both Jamaica and Bahamas *outlaw abortions but both have sub replacement fertility; however what they don’t have is an expansive welfare system that set up in the ’60s by LBJ.
    Takeaway- Readily available, easy-to-use contraception AND restricting or eliminating welfare (i.e. after 1 or 2 kiddies welfare mammas get fixed if they want the checks to keep rolling in) would probably be sufficient to keep black fecundity under control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Good column, and I appreciated the synopsis of the last 6 decades’ SC appointments and transformations thereof. However, I have not heard, in this, and tons of other writings, the word IMPEACHMENT. It’s like nobody in the Feral Gov’t can think outside the box anymore, like our 19th century guys did.

    About anyone in Feral Gov’t can be impeached. That word scares the crap out of the elites running things, though, as it involves power in the hands of the people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Rurik says:

    first to an abortion, and then to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

    not to mention the abomination of Affirmative Action

    nice to see all of that will now be on the chopping block.

    we will see Brown overturned in the first session of the Trump court.

    MAGA

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. D. K. says:

    In 1962, Arthur Goldberg was nominated– by JFK, not LBJ— for the Supreme Court’s “Jewish seat,” to replace the retiring Felix Frankfurter:

    https://ballotpedia.org/Arthur_Goldberg

    LBJ wanted to put his legal crony, Abe Fortas, in the “Jewish seat” on the Court. LBJ enticed Justice Goldberg to resign his lifetime seat in return for an at-will appointment by LBJ as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Fortas was confirmed to replace Justice Goldberg, but when LBJ subsequently nominated Justice Fortas to be the next Chief Justice, after Chief Justice Earl Warren had announced his resignation, the chips began to fall as they may:

    ***

    Fortas was a confidant of President Johnson and was nominated Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1968. Support for the nomination was withdrawn after it was revealed in the Senate Judiciary Committee that Fortas received a significant sum to teach a summer course at American University. The nomination was ultimately filibustered and Fortas asked Johnson to withdraw the nomination….

    Fortas resigned from the court after a deal made with the foundation of Louis Wolfson, a former client who was later convicted of security violations, became public. For providing advice, Fortas received a $20,000 annual retainer for life. According to Politico, Fortas was the first Supreme Court Justice to resign under the threat of impeachment.

    ***

    https://ballotpedia.org/Abe_Fortas

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @George Weinbaum

    In a Platonic ideal world we would not support or oppose a law because of a difference in which groups it affects. In our world where Realpolitik counts, we have to take aboard such pragmatic considerations.

    I respond to African Americans as individuals. However, taking the overview of what’s good for society, I have to conclude — reluctantly, but still — that the black population as a whole is somewhere between a debit and a disaster and has been throughout our history. And that’s in spite of some positives such as its development of jazz music.

    Abortion is distasteful to me, and it should be limited to the first two trimesters of pregnancy. But the alternative, of every black pregnancy being carried to term regardless of the desires or the fitness of the mother (usually the father has left her in the dust), would just make a bad situation worse. Not only would it mean breeding lots more hood rats, but taxpayers would be further bled for their nurture, their schooling until they drop out, and costs of their being lodged in prison.

    Unfortunately lots of our “new Americans” like African Africans and Muslims either don’t think of abortion or see births as a prime weapon of demographic conquest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Wally says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Nonsense.

    Each state can decide as they wish.

    Abortion is not in the Constitution and so issues about it should not be decided in the Supreme Court.

    BTW, Roe vs Wade is about taxpayer funding of abortions, not the legality of abortions.

    Make a choice to have sex, get knocked up, pay for your own damn abortion.

    Maybe blacks should be held accountable for the choices they make. Maybe less low IQ blacks that way.
    Same with having black children and the automatic welfare cash increase that goes with each one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Rurik says:

    Roe vs Wade is about taxpayer funding of abortions, not the legality of abortions.

    nope

    the funding part came later, ‘Roe’ simply made it legal regardless of state laws

    (an obvious over-step of Scotus power, and like ‘Brown’, one of many)

    while I personally support a woman’s right to choose in most cases, this is a state’s issue to decide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Rurik

    this is a state’s issue to decide.

    No, Lincoln repealed the 10th Amendment. He was just too busy directing the slaughter of 600,000 Americans to formalize the repeal in writing..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Rurik says:
    @Stan d Mute

    yes, he suspended the same Constitution he swore an oath to uphold, but then even more to the point, he forced the South to submit to Federal rule, when from the very start, the ONLY authority that the Federals ever had came from, and only from- the consent of the governed.

    The second they removed that consent, was the second the federals lost any and all legal or moral authority over any of the states.

    So Lincoln didn’t just subvert the Constitution, he also subverted the very foundation of a free society of free men participating in a government only through their freely given consent.

    Not that slavery wasn’t a problem, it was. But there should have been better ways to deal with it than by force of arms and treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    , @WorkingClass
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Rurik

    So Lincoln didn’t just subvert the Constitution, he also subverted the very foundation of a free society of free men participating in a government only through their freely given consent.

    I visited the Lincoln memorial during Obama’s government shutdown and the Lincoln memorial was open but Jefferson’s wasn’t. Lincoln’s had been vandalized. I was proud to be an American when I saw that. Also proud when I watched the veterans tear down Obama’s barricades and deposited them at the (then) Black House.

    Someday I hope we build a John Wilkes Booth memorial on the rubble where Lincoln’s used to sit. If you ever want an uplifting experience, come to Detroit and visit The Henry Ford:

    https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/inside/lincoln-rocker/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Mike-SMO says:

    I seem to recall reading of an early augument about the “Bill of Rights” merely enumerating the most obvious of many rights which are un-stated v the “Bill of Rights” as a limited enimeration of specific rights. The question of something being a “right” thus is always open to argument. Radio, telephone, and air travel were worked in without “destroying” the Constitution.

    My concern with abortion came after my wife’s 3rd pragnancy which nearly killed her and the boy. “Don’t ever get pregnant again!” “Tie my tubes.” “No. You might want to get pregnant again”. Savita Halapanavar in Ireland. Which brings us to the 2nd Amendment.

    If you kill the patient in front of you, or stand by and allow her to die, then we will be moving into another realm of “law”.

    Just saying…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Rurik says:
    @Stan d Mute

    a John Wilkes Booth memorial

    well, tragically for the South, the assassination of Lincoln was the worst thing that could happen.

    Lincoln, while treasonous and with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands…

    was still more considerate of the South than the ones who took his place, and imposed the cruel reconstruction.

    Lincoln actually wanted to ship the Africans back to Africa.

    Just imagine what a win / win that would’ve been!

    the blacks wouldn’t have to endure all those Jim Crow laws and lynching and endemic ‘racism’, which lingers today.

    and the whites would have been able to enjoy a relative paradise sans the hate-filled primitive Negros demanding an equality that is virtually impossible.

    Even now, one is hard-pressed to understand why the African Negroes don’t return to their beloved homeland, where with all their first-world knowledge and skills, they could turn the resource-rich lands of Africa back into a Wakanda in no time flat! And with no racism or white devils to shoot them while walking with skittles or robbing shopkeeps, Liberia would look like a Negro Switzerland in two to three years.

    Read More
    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Svigor says:

    Conservatives may get and regret what they wish for when right to safe abortion is appealed and the black population in America goes up exponentially.

    This is the only reason I give abortion a pass. That, and priorities (much bigger fish to fry, too few men brave enough to do the job). Christ, I just got out of the car after listening to like 30m of Terry Gross interviewing Rob Schenck, a Jew who converted to Christianity and became a reverend (natch) and joined Operation Rescue, and has tacked back to the Jewish default in recent years. What a clusterfuck this guy is. He’s gone from bad to worse, and to compound his previous sins he’s using them to weigh down the anti-abortion movement.

    I mean it was just bad. The guy’s gone from clown to clown. A litany of stupid shit just poured out of his mouth; stupid shit he used to believe and do, and stupid shit he believes and does now.

    But, conveniently, he’s replaced his anti-abortion activism with (((anti-gun activism))).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Svigor says:

    Don’t know why I decided to fisk the transcript of Schenck on Stale Air, but I did:

    https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=628000131

    And really, there’s no legal solution to it. And I think everyone – even on my side, though, we would say over and over again that if only Roe v. Wade could be overturned, we could end abortion in America. Quietly, there’s an admission that that just isn’t the case. It won’t be the panacea for the problem. So, you know, it will go on for a long time. These are very, very deep feelings and beliefs, I believe, on both sides and quite sincerely and authentically, not entirely cynically.

    Straw man, I doubt very much anyone thinks it’s a panacea; a good deed doesn’t have to be a panacea. Big of him to admit that pro-life activism isn’t “entirely cynical,” though.

    At the same time, I do think that a new generation of evangelicals – speaking for my own community – will see this very differently. And they will see that, in fact, the court – that is the Supreme Court – is not the place to resolve this moral question. And I’m putting that on the table more and more these days. But no, I’m not surprised. But I’m disappointed that we’re revisiting the intensity of that conflict.

    This is another straw man. We don’t “resolve the moral question” of murder by making it illegal, either; we simply make our laws line up with our morals as best we can.

    SCHENCK: Well, I think the place to resolve it is in terms of a social consensus. And I think this is a moral and ethical question more than it is anything else, that this is an individual and his or her conscience. I would add before God. That’s the best arena in which to resolve that question.

    Hey, yeah, let’s just decriminalize murder, rape, and robbery and go back to the drawing board and get a social consensus. It’s all a matter of individual conscience, really; it’s between the individual and God.

    And where I am now? I’m convinced of this one thing – that politicians and those who are politically motivated are not the people to be dealing with this question. And I would say, for many reasons, but among them because when your end goal is a political one, you will without exception exploit the pain and the suffering and the agony of those who face the issue in their daily reality, in their real life. So this is not a question for politicians.

    Agreed: let’s take the politics out of morality and decriminalize murder, rape, and robbery.

    GROSS: So in terms of your own position, you probably personally oppose abortion but support other people’s right to choose it. Is that correct?

    SCHENCK: Certainly, I think there must be space for people to safely emotionally and physically resolve their crisis personally. Reality is that even if abortion were to be criminalized, to be made illegal across the United States, there would still be abortion, and it would be supremely unsafe. It would be criminal. It would be exploitative. It would be extremely dangerous.

    And that’s a reality all of us must face. We can deny it. We can wish that it weren’t so. We can imagine that it won’t be. But reality proves – and I’m going back millennia. We don’t have to go back to the 1960s. We can go back to ancient Rome and Greece and find evidence that there will always be a way to procure abortion, and that should be a reality all of us care deeply about.

    There will always be murder, and a way to procure it, so let’s decriminalize murder now. Same goes for rape and robbery.

    Sure, there’ll be A LOT MORE of all of those things after we decriminalize them, but hey, we need a social consensus and these things are between individuals and God, anyway. Let’s get politics and the law out of morality.

    GROSS: You have such an interesting, complicated story which I’m going to try to sum up part of. So your father was Jewish. Your mother converted to Judaism. But your father, you say, lost interest in pursuing faith at about the time of your bar mitzvah. You have a twin brother, Paul, who became a Christian before you did and encouraged you to follow. And then Paul became an activist in the anti-abortion movement, and that inspired you to follow. Before that, you had started off in your missionary work working with children in the garbage dumps of Mexico. What drew you to the militant end of the anti-abortion movement? And what year did you start becoming an activist in that movement?

    Jews find Jews so interesting. So much more interesting than the goyim.

    And I talk about the transition I went through in my book, “Costly Grace.” I write about three conversions. And my first conversion was to a very loving, very expansive, very warm and welcoming Christ. Later on, I would convert to what I now call Ronald Reagan Republican Religion, which is distinctly different from Christianity, and, over time, became very narrow and very contemptuous of other people – and very self-righteous, very self-affirming at the expense of others. And I spent a long time there.

    And during those years when I was a spokesperson for the same movement, Operation Rescue, that Randall Terry was, you know, the lead personality for in those days, I would have tinges of conscience. But I’m sorry to say I compartmentalized them. I dismissed them. There wasn’t a lot of permission in those days to explore self-doubt. So I really didn’t come to that place until much, much later – in fact, only relatively recently.

    So, because he was contemptuous of people, pro-life activists have to listen to him go through a show trial on NPR, smearing all of them with his failings.

    SCHENCK: Well, of course we engaged in mass blockades. Sometimes we would have a dozen people in front of the doorways to a clinic. Other times, it would be hundreds. On occasion, we actually had thousands. And so, you know, we created human obstacles for those coming and going, whether they were the abortion providers themselves, their staff members, of course women and sometimes men accompanying them that would come to the clinics. And it created a very intimidating encounter.

    There were of course exceptions. There were women who would later thank us for being there. There were adoptions arranged where women, you know, would go through with their pregnancy, deliver their child. The child would be adopted through the pro-life network, but that was a relatively rare exception to the rule. I remember women – some of them quite young – being very distraught.

    GROSS: Because you were blocking them?

    SCHENCK: Of course. Very frightened – some very angry. Over time, I became very callous to that. They were more objects than they were human beings with real feelings in real personal crisis.

    Yeah, I bet all the aborted babies would have been very intimidated by the forceps coming for their little skulls, or the vacuum cleaners, or…

    But what’s that next to all these poor women having to look fat for a couple months?

    GROSS: So one of the things that you used to do – you had a metapathologist (ph) whose job was, in part, to dispose of aborted fetuses, and he wanted your help in giving them a Christian burial. So you ended up taking a couple of preserve fetuses and using them in your speeches and in your protests. Tell us how you managed to take fetuses with you, and how you used them in your work?

    SCHENCK: Yeah. That’s a bit of an unpleasant telling, but of course we were aware that they would be detected in the X-ray machines at the airport. So on occasion – and I did this myself, but we would tape the fetal remains to our own bodies using duct tape and under our clothing. And that way we would pass through the magnetometers. This was before, you know, there was the scanning equipment. So if it wasn’t metal, it wouldn’t be detected. If it was in a separate carrier, it would be seen in the X-ray unit. So we would carry those remains on our bodies to different cities, and then we would unveil them mostly – you know, again, this is all relative but relatively respectfully.

    You know, off – we were accused of throwing around fetal remains. I don’t remember ever doing that. We would cradle them, prepare – sometimes – a box to look like, you know, a coffin. And we would put them on display, either during a news conference or – on one occasion – I took one of those remains out and paraded them literally under the noses of pro-choice activists who were protesting at an abortion facility site. And that was for me of course the most extreme use. And I would later in life come to regret that because of course the child was being used as a prop. I was using that child as a prop. And no human being alive or dead should be used in that way, and I live with regret about that to this very moment.

    So, never mind the beam in the pro-abortion movements’ eye; focus on the mote in your own, instead. Pro-lifers used “props,” don’tcha know!

    GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross back with Reverend Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister who was a militant anti-abortion activist in the ’80s and ’90s, and then took his mission to Washington, D.C., where he handed out Ten Commandments plaques to members of Congress, determined to bring biblical truth to our government. But in the past few years, he’s come to a different understanding of what it means to preach the Gospel – a more inclusive understanding. He writes, (reading) I no longer believe you’re excluded from God’s grace if you’re a homosexual or if you’ve had an abortion or if you perform them. I no longer believe Muslims are dangerous marauders or that Democrats and liberals are apostates. As part of his mission now, he’s working against gun violence and advocating for a ban on assault weapons.

    In other words, he’s now your typical leftist heretic.

    And that, you know, both of these vices, if you will, violate the creators’ intention for humanity. And so after a while, it became one or the other or both being denounced in the same way. We were in every way rejecting the woman in crisis who felt her only relief was abortion. And individuals who were gay and lesbian – we saw them as unwelcome by God who condemned them. And it was our duty to do the same.

    In other words, he was then, and he’s wrong now. His Christianity was scheisse then, and it’s scheisse now.

    TERRY: The bottom line is there are 30 million children who have been killed, and their blood right now is crying out from the ground for vengeance to almighty God. And God is slow to wrath. But once he begins to move in judgment, he won’t relent. And I can tell you that God has a hundred hurricanes and a hundred droughts and a hundred floods and a hundred terrorists at his disposal. I believe even that the recent beginning stages of terrorism against our nation are the judgment of God against us. It’s like God saying, OK, look, you want to terrorize babies in the womb? I’m going to let you taste what terrorism really feels like.

    GROSS: OK. So this interview was recorded in July of 1993. That was four months after Dr. David Gunn, who performed abortions, was murdered (emphasis Terry’s – Svi) by an anti-abortion activist. Your thoughts listening to that? And, again, I’ll mention for people just tuning in – you worked very closely with Randall Terry during this period.

    SCHENCK: It’s just amazing to me how all – how certain all of us were that we spoke for God. Today that seems, to me, to be terribly audacious that we essentially declared ourselves to be God’s spokesperson. I think we had forgotten our own theology because there are a myriad of verses in the Bible that would contradict what Randall said in that quote. For example, the Scripture speaks very clearly in saying, what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God?

    Again, Schenck was an arrogant ass, ergo, ardent pro-lifers are arrogant asses? Sounds like he’s still an arrogant ass.

    GROSS: Well, you know, on Randall Terry’s website now, he describes himself as a lethal weapon to the enemies of God. And the rhetoric that he uses in that interview excerpt that I just played compares, you know, doctors who perform abortions to murderers. And he – you know, he says that God has terrorists that he can unleash. And this is the kind of language, it seems to me, that could easily incite somebody to murder.

    What’s amazing is that Terry has any time to criticize the right for this kind of thing, given how the left is obviously the main culprit here (I’m being kind) and Terry has ignored them completely. I’ve never heard this lying bitch take the left to task for their violent, inciteful rhetoric, which spews forth on a constant basis, and has resulted in plenty of death and murder.

    And at least three doctors who performed abortions that I’m aware of were murdered – Dr. David Gunn in 1993. George Tiller was wounded in 1993 and murdered in 2009. Barnett Slepian murdered in Buffalo, your hometown, in 1998. And George Tiller who was murdered in 2009 – you had blockaded one of the places where he performed abortions. And your group called him Tiller the killer. And Barnett Slepian, who was from Buffalo where you were an anti-abortion organizer – that was like your hometown.

    Randall Terry for Dr. Gunn – he created a wanted poster for him that was distributed at a rally in Montgomery, Ala. – one of the places Gunn worked – with his face, his phone number and other identifying information clearly displayed. And you describe all this in your book. Did you feel any personal responsibility for their murders?

    Yeah, let’s play the violin for the four abortion doctors who were killed; never mind the millions of dead babies, they’re chopped liver.

    SCHENCK: I can certainly speak for myself in those times, and say that I was not the most self-aware (laughter). I really didn’t understand myself

    Yeah, no shit. It runs in your (((DNA))).

    I will tell you that my acceptance of that responsibility had to come only after a long period of reflective prayer, of listening deeply to those who were gravely affected by those murders, in therapy with my own – I will be careful to say – Christian therapist who helped me come to terms with what really happened and how I may have contributed to those acts of violence through my rhetoric and eventually in a confrontation – a very loving one but nonetheless an encounter, a very strong, very powerful encounter – with the relative of one of the doctors shot and stabbed. He survived. But of course it would be a lasting trauma all of his life for him and for his family – would end his medical career.

    And I talk about that in the last chapter of the book, that moment of truth. And it was in that moment actually at a Passover Seder table when I was confronted very gently and very lovingly by a relative who happened to be a rabbi of that one abortion provider. In that moment, I realized my own culpability in those terrible, terrible events.

    “Oy, I’ve been on the wrong team!”

    GROSS: Since we were talking here about the murders of doctors who provided abortions, I should mention here that you’ve become an activist against gun violence, working on behalf of some kind of control, some kind of regulation on the gun industry and gun ownership.

    “Oy, that’s better. Now my (((conscience))) is at ease.”

    SCHENCK: Certainly that. I’ve approached it in the first instance as an ethical question. I see particularly the evangelical embrace of popular gun culture and our infatuation with the Second Amendment as a great moral failing in my community when we have people now who are coming to church armed. I know pastors, friends of mine that I’ve had long relationships with, clergy who are in the pulpit now, armed and ready to shoot from what we call the sacred desk. I had one pastor friend say to me if someone comes into my church and stands up and yells, they’ll be sorry they ever did because I’ll take them out right from the pulpit. That to me is a terrible moral, ethical and spiritual crisis. It may be a doctrinal crisis because of our espousal of – our principle of the sanctity of human life. So I’ve taken that on. I saw it firsthand.

    Bullshit, that’s not what the pastor said, and Schenck isn’t his friend. Schenck just made that shit up; probably twisted his words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Rurik

    Funny, Henry Ford was a Lincoln fan and that’s why he bought the chair (maybe why he bought Lincoln Motors too) for his museum. But then old Henry, publisher of The International Jew, never saw his great grandson hire a Jew (Fields née Finkelman) to run his company (fired shortly after though) nor his great great granddaughter marry a negro. Maybe Detriot is Wakanda.

    Didn’t Andrew Johnson also want to repatriate the Africans before he was impeached though?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @ThreeCranes

    The end of Roe is not going to be the end of legal abortion in this country. In fact, it is certain to remain legal in two of the three most populous states: California and New York. And I think after Texas gets a load of what abortion prohibition is going to do to it’s finances, it will enact some sort of Doe-style “emotional health” dodge into its early-term abortion law, effectively legalizing early-term abortion on demand.

    Reversing Roe is more symbolic than anything else. It’s primary value is in slaughtering one of the sacred cows of the Communists who have been trashing this country for decades and making decent people miserable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Rurik says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Maybe Detriot is Wakanda.

    compared to most of black Africa, it is.

    I have nothing against blacks in general, and consider them also put upon by the PBT, and filled to the brim with racial hatred- to suit the agenda of our ((elites)).

    However, now that they’ve been thus programmed, I consider it prudent to avoid them whenever practical.

    Interesting take on the Kavanaugh nomination here:

    This man and this culture accept cutting holes in the Fourth Amendment because they don’t believe that it should protect privacy. This man and this culture accept unlimited spying on innocent Americans by the National Security Agency because they don’t believe that the NSA is subject to the Constitution.

    This man and this culture even looked the other way in the face of deep state shenanigans against President Trump himself. This man and this culture accept the federal regulation of health care and its command that everyone buy health insurance, called Obamacare. …

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/andrew-p-napolitano/filling-the-swamp/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Rogue says:

    I believe the US supreme court should be reformed in one MAJOR area: term limits.

    The idea that someone can be appointed to the US supreme court at say age 40, and only retire (or be retired by death) by age 90, is just plain bonkers.

    Judges are not Jedi Masters, they’re human beings. Flawed human beings.

    Since when should their opinions be treated as the epitome of wisdom?

    Ultimately, no human system is going to be ideal, but checks and balances help to eradicate the worst aspects of human-created systems.

    So term limits for US supreme court justices would be a good start.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Rurik

    Lincoln invaded, defeated, occupied and annexed the Confederacy. He is our greatest Imperialist. Wilson took it to another level.

    When I was in grade school, back in the 50′s, in lily white Iowa, it was obvious to me that burning Atlanta because it wanted to go it’s own way was unjust. In those days we were told it was done to “preserve the union”.

    Our constitution, sans federalism, was already not our constitution. Honest Abe undid the work of our founders. If the war between the States was fought to free the slaves (it was not) it was the most wasteful means imaginable to that end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Rurik says:

    burning Atlanta because it wanted to go it’s own way was unjust

    At least they waited until the churches were empty before they burned them, unlike my rude awakening to the Fiend, when I watched horrified at what they did at Waco.

    The idea that Americans must always defer with fealty to the murderous scum in DC has always been a sick joke to me.

    All it took was Affirmative Action, and I knew DC was a den of unprincipled, treasonous scum.

    Nothing I’d ever pledge allegiance to. Quite the contrary.

    Honest Abe undid the work of our founders.

    yep

    ..and it’s only gotten worse.

    Wilson, as you mention, doomed us all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored