For Christian Conservatives, Souter's Retirement a Reminder of Republican Betrayal
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
The Christian right is feeling mighty betrayed these days by its preferred political party. But word of David Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court is a reminder that that history of the GOP betrayal is long and deep.
Souter was sold as a conservative by President George H. W. Bush, who appointed him to the bench in 1990. Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, who, like Souter, is from New Hampshire, assured conservatives that the nominee would be a "home run" for their cause.
Two years later, Souter supplied the pivotal fifth vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the landmark case that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. (The decision also opened the door to new state-level abortion restrictions, a fact abortion foes rarely mention.)
The 1992 Casey ruling established Souter as the elder President Bush's biggest mistake, in the eyes of antiabortion activists. But the Christian right learned its lesson. Conservative Christians helped torpedo George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she was a cipher, as Souter had been.
Learning from Souter helped the movement secure two unquestionably conservative Supreme Court appointments under the second Bush—John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Religious conservatives—and other kinds of conservatives—had learned not to blindly trust Republican White Houses with the high court.
Now, a few years later, the Christian right is feeling beleaguered. It is trying to persuade the GOP not to blame it for the party's sagging fortunes. It is feeling betrayed by Michael Steele's big-tent talk.
David Souter is a reminder that these sentiments are hardly new, that tensions between religious conservatives and the GOP date back decades. With the passing of the George W. Bush era, however, those strains are visible in a way we haven't seen in years.
- Follow Dan Gilgoff on Twitter.
- Read more about Republicans.
Tags: Republicans | David Souter | religion | Christianity | conservatives
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (5) | Print
Reader Comments
Comfort for the Weak Minded
Some must think it is very comforting to be assured that the illiberal judges never have any private opinions, or personal thoughts, or political sensitivities when they examine the arguments on the cases they have agreed to consider. They don't even need to hear the oral arguments, or read the briefs submitted; all they need to do is read the Constitution.
For the sake of the significantly under-informed masses (who find that sort of blather comforting) I can understand that Larry would like to keep them in the dark feeding them organic fertilizer.
If only we could determine what the age is beyond which one becomes immune to learning anything new, then our Presidents and Senators could more confidently select both liberal and illiberal court appointeees. By the way, what is the median age of Republican Senators?
No, Michael (below)
I'm not joking. Years on the Supreme Court will teach some judges, for instance, that the case of Lilly Ledbetter was an outrageous injustice---where the Supreme Court basically told corporations that pay discrimination against women forever is okay, as long as they could keep it secret from those ladies for at least 6 months.
Years on the Supreme Court would tell some judges they had no business appointing a president in 2000---when that right is reserved to voters Constitutionally.
Years on the Supreme Court would tell some judges that the "right" for CORPORATIONS to SELL guns (without being held properly LIABLE for the consequential violence) is arming criminal gangs with massive fire power all over America and Mexico and that there are many unintended victims (PEOPLE)of murder and mayhem as a result.
Years on the Supreme Court SHOULD have told the judges of old (America's founding to the 1860's) that slavery is intolerable for a free people.
Depends on the heart and the conscience.
Some have it. Some grow it. Some never do.
Clueless again
The Supreme Court's role is not to have a heart, it is to determine if laws passed by the Congress comply with our Constitution and that lower courts do the same. They are not there to make laws or to set policy.
The problem with Liberal judges is that they tend to over step their role due to "their" personal positions, not the Constitution. They believe the Constitution is a living document that they can make adjustments to. That is the role of Congress and the American people, not the Supreme Court.
I am tired of everyone focusing on a single issue (abortion) when it comes to the court. Take a little time and read the tenth amendment to the Constitution and all the writings that lead up to it’s creation. The federal government has become just what the founding fathers were concerned about.
Read "Liberty and Tyranny, a Conservative Manifesto" you might learn something. That's if you have a open mind.
advertisement
