Why Pro-Life People Cannot Support Mark Kirk For U.S. Senate

It's about the Supreme Court!

Here in Illinois, Congressman Mark Kirk is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democrat Roland Burris, who was appointed to the seat by now-impeached former-Governor Rod Blagojevich. The seat was previously held by Democrat Barack Obama, who resigned it upon his election to the presidency, Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who is still fondly remembered by Illinois conservatives, Democrat Carol Mosely-Braun, and, somewhat earlier in history, Stephen Douglas (who successfully defended the seat in 1858 from a challenge by Abraham Lincoln).

Rep. Kirk, a reserve Naval officer, handily won a primary in which several much more conservative, but unfortunately much less-well-funded and less-politically-experienced, opponents sought to prevent his nomination.

Frankly, conservatives in Illinois were scrambling to find a winning conservative to unite behind, and never did achieve much in the way of consensus. Kirk was the favorite of the Republican hierarchy and leadership from early on, and dominated the primary throughout.

The reason for this conservative angst is Kirk's very liberal voting record on fiscal, social and foreign-policy issues.

But while his votes as a Congressman are relevant and instructive, what I find most chilling in the contemplation of a possible "Senator Mark Kirk" is the influence that Senators have over the makeup of the federal judiciary, particularly including the Supreme Court, and the paramount importance of the judiciary to the issue of abortion law in America.

You probably know that Presidents appoint federal judges. But what you may not know is that these appointments are often made on the recommendation of senators from the president's own party.

Mark Kirk, who voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, and who enjoys a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, is as pro-abortion as any Democrat in Congress.

So imagine, if you will, that Mark Kirk is elected to the Senate in 2010. Given the current difficulties of his Democratic opponent, that scenario looks quite likely from our mid-April vantage-point.

Imagine further, that in 2012 America elects a Republican President. It's a long two-and-a-half years until then, and anything can happen, but that might.

So, if Illinois elects a Republican Senator, and America elects a Republican President, isn't that a good thing? Even if the Senator is a pro-abort, the President probably would be pro-life. It's presidents that appoint judges. Right?

True, but... Senators recommend those appointments. And pro-abort Republican Senators have a poor history in this regard. Chicago political veteran Tom Roeser recounts how GOP pro-abort Senator Charles Percy persuaded President Ford to appoint Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court:

Percy told me once he thought the most important aspect of his job as senator was to recommend to the Republican White House people for the judiciary. And appointee to the Supreme Court can transcend the work of many term-hobbled politicians and presidents. Right he was.

Then as now the senior Republican choice for judge was usually honored. When Justice William O. Douglas, a radical, retired Percy promoted John Paul Stevens. Stevens by Percy’s reckoning was a natural: a rich man, heir to the old Stevens hotel, a Brahmin. President Gerald Ford nominated Stevens and that’s what we got today...

Percy’s revenge... his lifelong struggle to be one of the elites, to shuck his past, to be a statesman... from his elevator shoes to the top of his sandy, slightly turned graying hair. By advocating John Paul Stevens, who today refuses to say whether he is still a Republican, Percy got to force change from the Left.

Only trouble is Percy doesn’t know anything about it—and nobody can tell him. He’s committed as an Alzheimer’s patient where he wanders (supervised) through rooms and rooms searching—searching-searching. But all the same, it’s the culmination of revenge…revenge for once being poor, a member of the working class... which he excelled by every measure of standard. Except one.

No one ever figured out the real Chuck Percy and what he once was.

And that, my friends, is what you have to worry about when you determine to vote for a RINO because... well as the saying goes... the other guy would be so much worse. [Empahsis in original.]

New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman, too, persuaded the first President Bush to appoint pro-abort David Souter to the Court:

Is he pro-life or pro-choice? That was the giant unknown hanging in the balance one day in 1990 as President George H. W. Bush nominated a mystery man named David Souter for a Supreme Court seat. Both sides of the abortion issue badly wanted answers. I remember those debates, and especially the uncertainty.

America got its answer in 1992 in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a seminal decision bearing the name of Pennsylvania’s pro-life Democrat governor. In that landmark case, Justice David Souter was the decisive swing vote in the narrow 5-4 majority, enshrining Roe v. Wade as law of the land.

Among those most euphoric over Souter’s vote were two liberal Senators from opposing parties: Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.).

Rudman had pushed the Souter nomination. He ensured liberal colleagues that Souter was their guy. Rudman, a pro-choice Republican, had been Souter’s boss at the New Hampshire office of attorney general. He privately concluded that Souter would not vote against Roe. Rudman’s reasons, which he acknowledged only after he left the Senate, ranged from the legal to humanitarian: Given that Souter was “a compassionate human being,” averred Rudman, he would naturally support continued legalization of abortion—which has produced the deaths of over 40 million unborn babies since 1973.

But Rudman’s allies on the Democratic side weren’t so sure. And Rudman had to walk a fine line, since his pro-life president wanted a pro-life justice. So, Rudman quietly sought to assuage liberals. He urged them to trust him.

That silent trust was critical, since Souter’s position on abortion had to be dealt with stealthily. In fact, it was handled so delicately that the nominee’s true thinking was apparently unknown even to the White House.

Alas, with Casey v. Planned Parenthood, America had its answer, as Souter authorized the sanctity of Roe v. Wade.

As fate would have it, on that same day Senator Rudman and Senator Joe Biden bumped into each other at the train station, not in Washington, DC but in Wilmington, Delaware.

"At first, I didn’t see Joe; then I spotted him waving at me from far down the platform," Rudman later recorded in his memoirs, Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate. "Joe had agonized over his vote for David, and I knew how thrilled he must be. We started running through the crowd toward each other, and when we met, we embraced, laughing and crying."

An ecstatic Biden wept tears of joy, telling Rudman over and over: "You were right about him [Souter]! ... You were right!"

The two men were so jubilant, so giddy—practically dancing—that Rudman said onlookers thought they were crazy: "[B]ut we just kept laughing and yelling and hugging each other because sometimes, there are happy endings."

It was sheer bliss: Roe v. Wade had been saved; it was alive. The two senators, liberal Democrat and liberal Republican, were so overcome that they sobbed. It was the most joyous moment.

Now, Justice Stevens has announced his retirement, and President Obama will shortly be appointing his second pro-abort justice to the Supreme Court.

Pro-abort Catholics and Democrats who supported Obama in spite of their lying claims to be pro-life have been shown what might have been, had McCain been elected: two new Supreme Court justices who might have voted to overturn Roe.

But real pro-lifers must not stumble into the error of setting up the next such circumstance by supporting Kirk for Senate.

But suppose Kirk is elected to the Senate, and Obama is re-elected President? Won't he be an important vote against the Obama agenda? Will he? Really? Kirk voted against Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The guy is so pro-abortion that he opposes parental notification. He supported "Cap & Trade," and hate crimes legislation, and opposed the partial-birth abortion ban and the amendment to defend traditional marriage.

But isn't he "better than Alexi Giannoulias", his Democrat opponent? Not that I can tell. It's about the Supreme Court. Does anyone really believe that a Senator Mark Kirk would oppose Barack Obama's next pro-abort nominee to the Court? Or that a Senator Kirk would support a Republican president's pro-life nominee?

I don't believe it.

If we elect Mark Kirk, it will be 12-18 years before conservatives can have another shot at this office. If Giannoulias is elected, conservatives can try again in six years.

Mark Kirk has bragged about his "independence" from Republican positions throughout his Congressional career. Republicans should be proud to show their independence from Kirk.