VOL. 14, NO. 4
June 15, 2012
The 2012 Elections: The Constitution Must Win!, IV
On June 12, 2012, the U. S. Senate demonstrated one of the most powerful reasons why Constitutionalist candidates must prevail in the November elections if the Constitution and the country are to survive and thrive as they have in the past. On that day, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Andrew David Hurwitz to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The tally was taken by voice vote, protecting Republicans, whose party supposedly stands for constitutionalist principles, from public disclosure of their very anti-constitutionalist support of this nomination. Indeed, one of Hurwitz’s champions in the Senate Judiciary Committee had been Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, Hurwitz’s home state. Such nominations give true constitutionalists ample reason to fight for constitutionalist candidates in the current campaigns.
This nomination was so dangerous that, in a rare act, 49 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a June 11 letter to the Senate, urging Senate rejection of Hurwitz. The Congressmen noted that in addition to his radical pro-abortion views, Hurwitz has consistently demonstrated a radical activism/Reconstructionism: “Acting as a pro-bono attorney, Mr. Hurwitz suggested that the Supreme Court change the wording of the Constitution in order to arrive at a ruling based on his beliefs, not on the rule of law.” Senators were also vigorously lobbied by pro-life and other constitutionalist groups attempting to unmask the “real Hurwitz” for his extremist views on abortion and the judicial role.
The infamous Roe v. Wade decision owes much to Andrew Hurwitz, according to an article in the New York Law School Law Review (2002-2003). Now-released papers of several Roe justices reveal that U.S. District Judge Jon O. Newman in 1972 issued two opinions that had a “crucial influence” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s pro-abortion decision in 1973. And who was Newman’s young law clerk? Andrew David Hurwitz. Writing this law review article, Hurwitz claims that when he was being interviewed for a Supreme Court clerkship, Justice Powell “jokingly referred to me as ‘the clerk who wrote the [pro-abortion] Newman opinion.’” Pro-constitutionalist groups composing the Judicial Action Group concluded that “Hurwitz was [indeed] a key author of [the Newman opinions in] two pro-abortion court decisions whose rationale was significantly relied upon by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.”
The Hurwitz Horror of pro-abortion/pro-Reconstructionist philosophy is compounded by the fact that even pro-abortion legal scholars have backed away from the “constitutionally indefensible ‘reasoning’ of the Court’s decision in Roe.” An excellent summary of the Roe debacle was penned by Kermit Roosevelt in the Washington Post published on the thirtieth anniversary of Roe.:
[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. . . . This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.
Ed Whelan in the National Review aptly summarizes the nature of Roe by declaring that no serious judge would want to take credit [as does Hurwitz] for a decision that amounts to one of the worst instances of judicial usurpations of legislative power. Indeed, a former clerk to the Roe opinion’s author, Justice Blackmun, admitted that “[a]s a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.”
This abysmal abuse of judicial power screams for constitutionalist victories in the elections of 2012. Court Watch urges you to join us in becoming educated and activated to fight for the Constitution in the months ahead. Use these resources and become empowered to fight effectively:
JOIN US IN FIGHTING TO
REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION
IN THE 2012 ELECTIONS!!!
ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE AND WEAPONS
TO FIGHT EFFECTIVELY WITH OUR
COURTING JUSTICE BLITZ:
HOW TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION
Court Watch Update: Georgia EF President Sara Salsbury and VP Anne Perry have appointed Richard Gruetter as the Georgia State Court Watch Chairman. National CW Director, Dr. Virginia Armstrong, welcomed Gruetter’s appointment: “We are delighted and excited to have a Georgia Chairman of Richard Gruetter’s broad experience and knowledge to work with us. We urge other state EF leaders to follow Georgia’s lead and name Court Watch chairmen from their state to join us in the critical days before the elections.” Gruetter is the founder of “Preserve our Constitution.”