Justice John Paul Stevens

Dismantling the Right Wing Campaign Against Elena Kagan

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 6/11/2010 3:30 pm

Our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus in now available and it examines the Right's plan of attack against Elena Kagan and her nomination to the Supreme Court.

It explains how, from the very moment Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, the Right was vowing to fight any nominee that President Obama put forward to replace him, without even having any idea who it might be, even though they knew that probably would not be able to defeat them. 

So when President Obama nominated Elena Kagan, they swung into action, raising concerns about her so-called "radicalism": 

The right-wing's routine charges of "radicalism" have settled into a tight little rhetorical circle which leaves no room for actual facts or logic. Here's how it goes: because Obama is dangerously radical, anybody he appoints to anything should be assumed to be radical. And the fact that he is appointing radicals just proves how radically radical he himself is.

While any Supreme Court nominee would draw close scrutiny from across the legal and political spectrum, including someone with Kagan's widely acknowledged intellect and her academic and public service credentials, those who were ready to scream "radical" no matter what the facts might actually be have been screaming about Kagan's alleged radicalism:

  • Fox pundit Sean Hannity said "her background is strident radical left like the president's."
  • Robert Knight of the Coral Ridge Ministries charged that the nomination was Obama's "in your face" selection of a "radical lawyer."
  • FRC's Perkins decried Kagan as an "ideological twin" to President Obama and said her "ultimate agenda" is "to reshape the court with a profoundly radical bent."
  • Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery calls her nomination "a triumph for liberal ideology and judicial activism."
  • And this from the Traditional Values Coalition's Andrea Sheldon Lafferty: "President Obama's pick of Elena Kagan demonstrates his willingness to subvert the Constitution for his personal agenda and impose his leftist ideology on our nation for the next 30 to 40 years."
  • Vision America's Rick Scarborough, in a piece called Elena Kagan and the War Against Christianity, calls her nomination "the latest step toward the moral abyss for America." He calls Kagan "a doctrinaire radical leftist with a written disdain for the Constitution of the United States…."
  • David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society, criticized Obama for nominating "an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering.

Those pushing the radical charges won't hear anything else. Sean Hannity asked former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, "So is this just another Obama radical being elevated to the highest levels of our government?" But when Morris repeatedly told Hannity that Kagan had been a moderate-to-conservative voice in the Clinton administration, and predicted based on his experience working with her that she would be a moderate voice on the Court, Hannity would hear nothing of it, cutting Morris off to insist "no way."

This was, of course, just one part of a multi-faceted strategy of lies that the Right has undertaken as they try anything and everything in an effort to sink Kagan's nomination - so be sure to read the entire report to understand how Republicans and the Right are trying to use this issue to boost their political standing.

The Strange SCOTUS Demands of the Religious Right

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 5/7/2010 10:44 am

I have to say that I am rather confused by the strange demands that Religious Right leaders are making of President Obama as he prepares to name his nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

Concerned Women for America is demanding that Obama name a nominee that they supports their right wing views and Phyllis Schlafly is demanding that Obama name a military veteran ... and now a group of leaders are demanding that he name someone "who will support the right of the government to maintain a decent society and to protect children from indecent and other media content that is harmful to them":

In a letter sent yesterday to the president, the group said, "There are currently four cases pending in the lower federal courts in which the major broadcast TV networks are challenging FCC indecency rulings and the broadcast indecency law itself. What the networks ultimately want is an unrestricted 'right' to curse as much as they want and to depict as much nudity and sex as they want (presumably, short of obscenity), regardless of the impact of this programming on children, on unwilling adults who are assaulted by it in the privacy of their homes, and on the moral fabric of society."

...

The letter was signed by representatives of Morality in Media, Decent TV, Parents Television Council, American Family Association, OneMillionMoms.com, American Decency Association, Citizens for Community Values, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Christian Film & TV Commission, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, Family Research Council Action, Business & Athletes for Kids.

I have to say that when I frist saw this press release about a letter signed by FRC, CWA, AFA, and others making demands regarding a SCOTUS nominee, I certainly did not think it was going to be calling for one who will protect children from indecent media. 

Sessions: Obama "Sees the Constitution as an Inconvenience"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 4/29/2010 11:07 am

Sen. Jeff Sessions has already made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose pretty much anyone that President Obama nominates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and he keeps coming up with new reasons why, despite the fact that Obama has not even made the announcement yet. 

But I have to say that his latest justification is rather remarkable, as he is now accusing Obama of seeking a nominee who has no respect for the Constitution and who sees it merely as an "inconvenience" to be sidetracked ... just as Obama does: 

Sen. Jeff Sessions says that a Supreme Court nominee who followed President Obama's legal philosophy of considering the impact of a decision rather than following the law would not be qualified for the high court.

“He said that he wanted a judge who would consider the impact the decision would have on ordinary Americans,” Sessions (R.-Ala.) said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS. “That’s a call to something other than the law and the facts. That’s a call to something more akin to politics than law. And so again I think the President’s presenting a troubling philosophy, and you have to assume that’s the kind of judge he’s going to nominate.”

Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that kind of standard shouldn’t be confirmed whether it’s espoused by a liberal or conservative.

“You can have a liberal or conservative judge who has such strong personal views that they can’t -- and won’t -- follow the law,” Sessions said. “Both of those are disqualified.”

He questioned whether Obama considers the Constitution when making decisions. “I think the American people are coming to recognize that the President sees the Constitution as an inconvenience…a handicap to achieving the agenda that he has,” he said.

Sputtering Start to Religious Right's Rebranding

Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 4/20/2010 9:47 am

The Freedom Federation’s “Awakening” conference convened at Liberty University on April 15 and 16  with the ambitious goal of transforming America by touching off the greatest religious revival that America or the world has ever known.   Short of that, the gathering was all about rebranding the Religious Right political movement as a “multiracial, multi-ethnic, transgenerational” movement that cares about social justice (sorry, Glenn Beck). In short, the conference was meant to send a message to young and non-white evangelicals: this ain’t your father’s Religious Right.

Given the gathering’s audacious goals, and the number and firepower of participating Religious Right leaders (who it was claimed represented 40 million Americans), attendance was dismal. In fact there’s probably never been a conference with a higher ratio of featured speakers (52) to attendees (a couple of hundred at best, not counting the session that used a regularly scheduled student convocation to give speaker Sam Rodriguez a larger audience). 
 
Of course, there were plenty of signs that the old Religious Right and its focus on divisive fear-driven politics haven’t gone anywhere.  Speaker after speaker portrayed faith and freedom under relentless attack in America. In spite of repeated assertions that the movement was nonpartisan and would not be co-opted by any political party, it was clear that the top political priorities for these leaders are to help Republicans take back at least one house of Congress in 2010 and to defeat the tyrannical Barack Obama in 2012. Ending abortion and turning back progress toward equality for LGBT people are top policy priorities.
 
Despite the low turnout, the conference served as an opportunity for organizers to meet and strategize for the 2010 elections, and to try out some new messaging and public relations strategies. Here were the conference’s main themes:
  • Tyranny! Red Alert! America is in big trouble. Freedom is under attack by President Obama and his allies in Congress. And since Obama is no friend of Israel, we’re in trouble with God.
  • Fight! Big threats mean we have to be ready to fight, fight fight. The tea party movement was invoked favorably and, given the turnout, a bit wistfully.
  • Unify. A major theme of the event was the need to ignore major theological differences among speakers and focus on common values such as ending abortion and the Obama administration.
  • Diversify. The conference made a major effort to showcase the Freedom Federation’s claims to be a multiracial, multiethnic, multigenerational movement. 
  • Seek Social Justice. Watch out, Glenn Beck, these right-wingers are eager to portray themselves as a social justice movement.
  • Millennial Generation, saving America is your job.

Ralph Reed: Will Life Imitate My New Novel?

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Monday, 4/12/2010 11:31 am

Ralph Reed weighs in on the news that Justice John Paul Stevens is stepping down from the Supreme Court to declare that it will help Republicans (because, in Reed's world, everything is always awesome from Republicans) ... but mostly it's an opportunity to peddle his forthcoming "political thriller":

Stevens made clear in earlier interviews with the Washington Post and the New York Times he would retire while Barack Obama was president. Today’s announcement ups the ante: he is purposely quitting while Democrats still have a 59-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, thereby hoping to make the confirmation of a dedicated liberal nominee smoother.

Stevens may have been too cute by half. It is a safe assumption that Obama will tack left on this nominee to energize his base and maximize the value of the vacancy. And by dropping the battle over choosing his successor before the November elections—while Democrats are on defense and Barack Obama’s job approval rating has plummeted to 44 percent in the most recent CBS News poll—Stevens may have assured this vacancy further energizes conservatives at the grassroots to elect a Republican Congress.

The political ramifications of a Supreme Court pick can be epochal and this battle will be hard-fought. Think Robert Bork, or Health Care 2.0. I recently turned in the manuscript of my next political thriller, which is entitled “The Confirmation,” scheduled for publication in August. The book recounts the most brutal, no-holds-barred confirmation battle of a Supreme Court Justice in U.S. history. Will life imitate fiction? I suspect it just might.

His book even has it's own trailer:

How exciting!

With Stevens Retiring, Right Readies For a Fight

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 4/9/2010 2:06 pm

Today, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will retire from the Supreme Court after nearly 35 years of service ... and the Right has been quick to issue warnings to President Obama that they are ready to fight.

American Center for Law and Justice:

"The announcement of Justice Stevens' retirement underscores the reality that President Obama will make a second appointment to the nation's highest court that will impact generations to come," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.

"While there's certain to be much debate about Justice Stevens' replacement, there is one thing that is clear - President Obama is likely to name a nominee who will embrace an extremely liberal judicial philosophy. Make no mistake about it - this appointment really represents more than just replacing one vote on the court. With a replacement who is likely to serve for 30 or 40 years, it's clear this replacement will have a long-term impact on judicial philosophy and likely play a determining factor in decisions for decades to come.

"Once a nominee is named and the confirmation process begins, it's important that the nominee face full and detailed hearings – with specific focus on the nominee's judicial philosophy including how the nominee views the Constitution, the role of judges, and the rule of law. That is what the American people expect and deserve."

Liberty Counsel:

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The Supreme Court should be about law, not politics. Beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court morphed into a political machine. When judges impose their political will rather than the rule of law, the rule of law is undermined and the people lose confidence in the system. As Chief Justice John Roberts said during his confirmation hearings, judges ought to be umpires who simply call the balls and strikes. They ought not play in the game or change the rules. The American people deserve a Supreme Court nominee who respects the rule of law and who will set aside personal bias in order to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Concerned Women for America:

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “The news is no shock for those of us who follow the issue. Justice Stevens has been sending all the signals for the White House to be prepared. Our hope is that President Obama has had time to reflect on the issue and will make a change in the way he has looked at nominations. Will he nominate a justice who will show respect for our laws and the Constitution or will he continue to put ideology over the will of the majority of Americans?

“All three of the nominees in the short list are not encouraging. Elena Kagan’s apparent willingness to look at international law when deciding domestic cases, Judge Merrick Garland’s support of granting constitutional rights to enemy combatants, and Diane Wood’s extremely radical pro-abortion activism should bring chills to every American. We know the President can do better than that.”

CWA President Wendy Wright said, “Coming off of a debate over health care that has deeply divided the country against Pres. Obama, in which he ignored the Constitution and foisted his contentious beliefs onto millions of Americans, President Obama desperately needs to choose a qualified and Constitutionally-sound nominee. It would be healing for the country for President Obama to change course and select a nominee that respects the Constitution more than their own –or foreign countries’ – ideology.

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s Policy Director for Legal Issues, said, “The President has the opportunity to change the radically divisive image he has created in the minds of many Americans. If he decides to nominate someone who respects the Constitution as written, instead of someone who believes in a living Constitution that they can mold to say whatever they want, he can do a lot to repair his image.

“Last time, even his own nominee, Justice Sotomayor, rejected the President’s idea of the role of a judge, even though her own record lined right up with the President’s radical view. That is how radical the President’s view is in this area. So if experience tells us anything, it tells us he will go with ideology instead of what is best for the country, but we hope and pray that we can finally see a ‘change,’ like he promised us.”

Priests for Life:

"The opening of a Supreme Court seat will again open the ongoing debate in our nation over abortion -- and it well should, not because Justices are supposed to shape public policy, but because the very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."

Judicial Crisis Network:

This vacancy will open a new dialogue about the role of courts in our society. The American people are fed up with President Obama’s left-wing agenda and will make their frustration known at the polls. But he still has one ace up his sleeve: packing the Supreme Court with rubber stamps instead of judges. To an activist judge, the constitution represents an inconvenient truth that they will distort, ignore, or defy to push their radical liberal agenda.

President Obama painted Justice Sotomayor as the epitome of moderation, but her record on the court has been anything but. In her first term she has yet to meet a left-wing position she didn’t like. When President Obama speaks about maintaining balance on the court, don’t believe it. If Justice Thomas were the one retiring, the word “balance” would have been already banned from the White House.

 Traditional Values Coalition:

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is good news and bad news. It’s good news that he will no longer be free to impose his liberal ideas on Americans through his Supreme Court edicts. But, the bad news is that President Obama will undoubtedly appoint someone equally liberal and far younger who will rewrite the Constitution according to his or her political purposes.

Ultimately, the retirement of Justice Stevens and appointment of a new Justice is an even trade.

If President Obama had any honor, he would pick a replacement for Stevens who respects the Constitution, but this is unlikely. He will choose a radical ideologue who will push the Court to the left for decades to come. Obama will replace an old judicial activist with a younger one.

Schlafly Loves Quotas, When It Comes to SCOTUS

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 3/31/2010 3:10 pm

Phyllis Schlafly has dedicated her most recent column to making the rather odd demand that the next Supreme Court nominee must be a military veteran and that vets in the Senate must pressure him to make such a nomination, because his "disdain for the military is no secret": 

For as long as we can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran. Recent examples include Republican-appointed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who is expected to resign this year.

The Democrats have not placed a veteran on the Supreme Court in nearly half a century. When President Obama fills Stevens' seat, will the high court be left without anyone who has military experience?

Veterans in the U.S. Senate should make sure that such an embarrassment does not occur. Cases concerning the military appear every year before the Supreme Court, and our nation will not be well-served by a court lacking in military experience ... Obama's disdain for the military is no secret, and the leading names on his short list for possible Supreme Court appointment are as anti-military as he is. The number of veterans in Congress has declined to about 21 percent, but that's enough for them to make a public demand that high-court diversity include a veteran.

Schlafly then goes on to attack possible SCOTUS nominees including Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, Cass Sunstein, and Harold Koh, all for reasons that have nothing to do with military service, before finally criticizing Obama's recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, as if any of that has anything to do with her incoherent demand: 

Obama thumbed his nose at the Senate, but the Senate should not allow him to thumb his nose at our armed services by replacing the last decorated veteran on the Supreme Court with a non-veteran. The men and women who risk their lives for our nation's security deserve better.

And all this time I thought Schlafly vehemently opposed anything that smacked of quotas.

Right Lives Out SCOTUS Fantasy on Film

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Monday, 10/6/2008 12:15 pm

With the opening of the new Supreme Court term today, the newspapers are full of articles explaining that the future of the Court will depend on the outcome of the election, especially on the issue such as reproductive choice:

Every four years, defenders of abortion rights proclaim that the fate of Roe vs. Wade hangs on the outcome of the presidential election.

This year, they may be right.

Through most of the 1990s and until recently, the Supreme Court had a solid 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the right of a woman to choose abortion. But the margin has shrunk to one, now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retired and has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

And Justice John Paul Stevens, a leader of the narrow majority for abortion rights, is 88.

"Clearly, Roe is on the line this time," said Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, a former lawyer for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It is quite clear they have four votes against it. If the next president appoints one more, the odds are it will be overruled."

But for Religious Right activists who just can’t wait to see how it all turns out, there is a new movie opening through which they can live out their fantasies as they watch students at Patrick Henry College (and co-starring its founder, Michael Farris) convince the Supreme Court to finally overturn Roe … or at least win a moot court competition or something:

It is the first Monday in October and a future U.S. Supreme Court tackles the reversal of Roe vs. Wade in a dramatic new pro-life movie, COME WHAT MAY (CWM). The controversial film has received rave reviews from preview audiences nationwide, drawing large crowds in Oregon where 800 moviegoers filled the Grants Pass Performing Arts Center to capacity. Six distributors are vying for CWM, including the company currently distributing the new Christian blockbuster, FIREPROOF.

"What's remarkable is that COME WHAT MAY, a 2008 Redemptive Storyteller Award winner, was largely produced by over 40 homeschooled students mentored by only a handful of professionals," according to Mac Nichols, a tax attorney who plays one of the movie's U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

Advent Film Group (AFG) produced the micro-budget movie in association with Patrick Henry College (PHC), a true-to-life powerhouse in collegiate debate and moot court competition. The movie's legal argument is solid, claims George Escobar, founder of AFG. Dr. Michael Farris, PHC founder and chancellor, wrote the film's legal framework. Farris, a constitutional attorney, has successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Schlafly Snowed By Sen. Graham

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 7/18/2006 2:46 pm
Writing in Human Events, the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly attacks the Supreme Court, not only for its ruling in the Hamdan case, but for even hearing the case at all
The Supreme Court had no business taking the Hamdan case. Congress had passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 withdrawing jurisdiction over Guantanamo prisoners' habeas corpus petitions from every "court, justice, or judge" except the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court did not, and could not, dispute Congress' power to do exactly that. The U.S. Constitution clearly grants this power to Congress. But the court held that pending cases were exempt from this particular withdrawal of jurisdiction even though the law did not say that. Justice John Paul Stevens' majority decision ignored what Justice Scalia's dissent called a "plain directive," and (in the words of a primary sponsor of the Detainee Act, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.) "made legal contortions to get the result the Court wanted."
Relying on Sen. Lindsey Graham's interpretation of what the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 said about cases such as Hamdan is not particularly convincing, considering that he and Sen. Kyl snuck a bogus exchange into the Congressional Record in an attempt to make it look like Congress shared their view on this issue when that was not at all the case.
Syndicate content

Justice John Paul Stevens Posts Archive

Dismantling the Right Wing Campaign Against Elena Kagan
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Friday 06/11/2010, 3:30pm
Our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus in now available and it examines the Right's plan of attack against Elena Kagan and her nomination to the Supreme Court. It explains how, from the very moment Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, the Right was vowing to fight any nominee that President Obama put forward to replace him, without even having any idea who it might be, even though they knew that probably would not be able to defeat them.  So when President Obama nominated Elena Kagan, they swung into action, raising concerns about her so-called "radicalism":... MORE >
The Strange SCOTUS Demands of the Religious Right
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Friday 05/07/2010, 10:44am
I have to say that I am rather confused by the strange demands that Religious Right leaders are making of President Obama as he prepares to name his nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Concerned Women for America is demanding that Obama name a nominee that they supports their right wing views and Phyllis Schlafly is demanding that Obama name a military veteran ... and now a group of leaders are demanding that he name someone "who will support the right of the government to maintain a decent society and to protect children from indecent and other media... MORE >
Sessions: Obama "Sees the Constitution as an Inconvenience"
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 04/29/2010, 11:07am
Sen. Jeff Sessions has already made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose pretty much anyone that President Obama nominates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and he keeps coming up with new reasons why, despite the fact that Obama has not even made the announcement yet.  But I have to say that his latest justification is rather remarkable, as he is now accusing Obama of seeking a nominee who has no respect for the Constitution and who sees it merely as an "inconvenience" to be sidetracked ... just as Obama does:  Sen. Jeff Sessions says... MORE >
Sputtering Start to Religious Right's Rebranding
SUBMITTED BY: Peter Montgomery, Tuesday 04/20/2010, 9:47am
The Freedom Federation’s “Awakening” conference convened at Liberty University on April 15 and 16  with the ambitious goal of transforming America by touching off the greatest religious revival that America or the world has ever known.   Short of that, the gathering was all about rebranding the Religious Right political movement as a “multiracial, multi-ethnic, transgenerational” movement that cares about social justice (sorry, Glenn Beck). In short, the conference was meant to send a message to young and non-white evangelicals: this ain... MORE >
Ralph Reed: Will Life Imitate My New Novel?
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Monday 04/12/2010, 11:31am
Ralph Reed weighs in on the news that Justice John Paul Stevens is stepping down from the Supreme Court to declare that it will help Republicans (because, in Reed's world, everything is always awesome from Republicans) ... but mostly it's an opportunity to peddle his forthcoming "political thriller": Stevens made clear in earlier interviews with the Washington Post and the New York Times he would retire while Barack Obama was president. Today’s announcement ups the ante: he is purposely quitting while Democrats still have a 59-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, thereby... MORE >
With Stevens Retiring, Right Readies For a Fight
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Friday 04/09/2010, 2:06pm
Today, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will retire from the Supreme Court after nearly 35 years of service ... and the Right has been quick to issue warnings to President Obama that they are ready to fight. American Center for Law and Justice: "The announcement of Justice Stevens' retirement underscores the reality that President Obama will make a second appointment to the nation's highest court that will impact generations to come," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "While there's certain to be much debate about Justice Stevens' replacement, there is... MORE >
Schlafly Loves Quotas, When It Comes to SCOTUS
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 03/31/2010, 3:10pm
Phyllis Schlafly has dedicated her most recent column to making the rather odd demand that the next Supreme Court nominee must be a military veteran and that vets in the Senate must pressure him to make such a nomination, because his "disdain for the military is no secret":  For as long as we can remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has included at least one military veteran. Recent examples include Republican-appointed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who is expected to resign this year. The Democrats have not placed a veteran on... MORE >
Right Lives Out SCOTUS Fantasy on Film
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Mantyla, Monday 10/06/2008, 12:15pm
With the opening of the new Supreme Court term today, the newspapers are full of articles explaining that the future of the Court will depend on the outcome of the election, especially on the issue such as reproductive choice: Every four years, defenders of abortion rights proclaim that the fate of Roe vs. Wade hangs on the outcome of the presidential election. This year, they may be right. Through most of the 1990s and until recently, the Supreme Court had a solid 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the right of a woman to choose abortion. But the margin has shrunk to one, now... MORE >