In Their Own Words: The Thumping (Right-Wing) Base

July 8, 2005

The Bush administration is growing increasingly frustrated by Right Wing leaders’ insistence on determining who the president nominates to the Supreme Court. As recently chronicled by PFAW, the Right Wing is vehemently opposed to the potential nomination of Alberto Gonzales to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The Right has made it clear that it would be “appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment” and has not been shy about making its opposition to Gonzales well known. For his part, President Bush appears to be getting tired of listening to his base demonize his close friend and has repeatedly defended Gonzales, saying "I'm loyal to my friends. And all of a sudden, this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And … I don't like it all."

But the Right doesn’t seem to care. As the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru wrote: “Look, the guy is a public official with a track record, and people can't very well be expected not to express opinions about that record or his suitability for an important government post just because he's a friend of the president. If the president wants to shield his pals from such scrutiny, he can leave them in the private sector.”

The New York Times recently reported that Republican Senate aides have quietly been encouraging right wing groups “to avoid emphasizing the searing cultural issues that social conservatives see at the heart of the court fight, subjects like abortion, public support for religion and same-sex marriage.”

But judging by a fund-raising plea sent out July 6 by Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, the Right does not seem to be listening. In an attempt to reach their goal of raising $300,000 through their “Supreme Court Matching Challenge” the Right’s rhetoric is as radioactive as it has ever been – and the right wing believes it is close to winning what they want: control of the Congress, the White House and the ultimate prize – Right Wing control of the third branch of government – the judiciary.

Led by ACLJ Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, the appeal states:

• The Supreme Court vacancy and our pro-life cases at the Supreme Court will essentially shape destiny for multitudes of unborn children.
• I'll be serving as Counsel of Record as we go back before the Supreme Court to keep the abortion lobby from KILLING BABIES AND SILENCING CHRISTIANS - all for profit!

The ACLJ fundraising appeal notes that they will be filing a brief opposing a challenge to a state law requiring that parents be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood). ACLJ has already filed briefs on behalf of members of Congress in the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits asking the federal appeals courts to overturn decisions against state-level “partial-birth” abortion bans by federal district courts in New York, Nebraska, and California. (National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales, Carhart v. Gonzales)

The Right Wing demands a “return on their investment” in this White House

Considering that ACLJ and others on the right see the resignation of Justice O'Connor as creating the "most critical vacancy possible on the Supreme Court of the United States,” it is not surprising that they refuse to be silenced by the very administration they take credit for helping elect.

According to an article published by ReligionJournal.com: “Christian leaders say now is when they expect a return on their investment in re-electing President Bush to a second term. They vowed to hold him to his promise to nominate someone in the mold of conservative Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. ‘We have full confidence that he will carry out that pledge,’ said James Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family, who left no hint of wiggle room.”

In the words of Rick Scarborough, chairman of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, “The president must be true to his word. He must keep faith with the folks who elected him twice. In other words, he must replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a strict constructionist. The president has a God-given opportunity to change the balance on the Supreme Court. On issue after issue - abortion, sodomy, public display of The Ten Commandments - O'Connor has sided with the court's liberal bloc. Time and again, Justice O'Connor and her colleagues have used the Constitution as an excuse to force weird social experiments on the nation.”

Rev. Jerry Falwell explained why the Right Wing believes that President Bush owes them a nominee who shares their views: “This is what we have been working so hard for [the] past 25 years. This is why we worked so hard last November.” Falwell also launched a petition drive calling on President Bush to “appoint a justice who is committed to the sanctity of life, both born and unborn and marriage as an institution designed by God for one man and one woman … [P]lease know that millions of Americans stand behind you as you defend the family and our traditional Judeo-Christian values.”

The Center for Reclaiming America likewise launched a petition drive calling on “President Bush to nominate and the Senate to confirm … Judicial nominees who will uphold the Constitution and thereby defend public faith and the unborn.” As they see it, “Confirming only pro-life justices and judges not only protects the unborn, but our nation as well.”

For his part, Rush Limbaugh does not seem particularly interested in “[toning] down the heated rhetoric” as President Bush has asked. “I'm tired of these Democrats acting like they won the election. Somebody needs to stand up and say, ‘When you win the election, you pick the nominees. Until then, shut up! Just shut up! Just go away! Bury yourselves in your rat holes and don't come out until you win an election. When you win an election, you can put all these socialist wackos, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, all over the court, but until then, SHUT UP! You are really irritating me.’”

David Limbaugh, Rush’s brother, also sees no need to worry about “getting along and demonstrating mutual respect” for Democrats, considering that “when [Democrats] talk about a ‘consensus candidate’ they mean someone who meets their standards of liberal judicial activism, or at the very least can be relied on not to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Following Justice O’Connor’s announcement, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, stated that the “appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court may be the most important decision that President Bush will make in his entire second term in office.” He went on to state: “We are keenly aware that it was judges who removed prayer from the public schools and decriminalized abortion which resulted in the deaths of 45,000,000 children. It was the courts that attempted to remove 'One Nation Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance and it is now courts that are trying to redefine marriage and the family. There can be no more critical decision that President Bush will make then [sic] who he nominates to the United States Supreme Court.”

According to the Washington Times, the Legal Affairs Council is “calling on conservative groups to stay home and not spend their money if President Bush appoints ‘a moderate or judge of questionable commitment’ to fill retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.” The article goes on to report that the groups complained that “conservatives are treated like the hired help by most Republican presidential candidates … [and] are being expected to hold their nose and support President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, even if the nominee is not a good choice in their view, such as Alberto Gonzales or some politically correct moderate judge.”

For years, the Republican Party has pandered to its right wing base in return for its electoral support. And the Right has willingly supported the Republican Party and President Bush on the assumption that it would be rewarded for this support with a Supreme Court nominee who shares its extremist ideology. That time has now come, and the Right is refusing to remain silent. As Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, made clear recently when he said “we're not an extension of the White House,” the Right is not about to back a nominee who isn’t clearly dedicated to advancing their agenda.

Right Wing Litmus Test

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, attacked President Bush for being “disingenuous” in claiming that he would not employ a “litmus test” in choosing Justice O’Connor’s replacement: “Having litmus tests for a Supreme Court nominee is not a negative thing, in fact, it is absolutely necessary. It is critical that President Bush make it clear to the American public that nominating someone who will “'faithfully [interpret] the Constitution' means nominating a person who will oppose the Roe v. Wade decision, a decision which was clearly judicial activism at its worst and not faithfully interpreting the Constitution. Now is not the time for President Bush to parse words, but rather exert courageous moral leadership concerning the issue of abortion.” It is yet to be seen who is in control of the Republican Party and the White House – President Bush or his right wing base.