Media Alert: Charmaine FOX Video; Quoted in The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, WorldNetDaily, CQ
The Sotomayor nomination: Charmaine taped ABC and is scheduled for CNN tonight at 8pm. The humidity is down, but will her hair stay up? The Big Question.
Follow us on Twitter; jackyoest & charmaineyoest
Charmaine on FOX debating abortion and
incremental sonogram legislation.
In The Washington Post, Battle Lines Are Drawn On Sotomayor Nomination; Ideology, Abortion and Remarks on Ethnicity Come to Fore; Washington Community Reacts to Sotomayor; Members of the Washington community give their opinion on Obama’s decision to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, By Robert Barnes, Washington Post, Staff Writer, Thursday, May 28, 2009,
Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, described Sotomayor as a “radical pick.” But Yoest acknowledged that Sotomayor’s most notable ruling on abortion was on the conservative side. In the ruling, she said the Bush administration had the right to prohibit abortions by overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding, as well as the right to prohibit the groups from speaking out against the restrictions.
Yoest said Sotomayor was following the court’s precedents, something she might not do if she were on the Supreme Court. “There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy is that she is not only a practitioner of activism, but a defender of it,” she said.
…
On the other side of the debate, Northup’s concern is just the opposite. “That decision certainly doesn’t suggest she’s a judicial activist,” [Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights] said, adding that her organization knows of no instance in which Sotomayor has talked about Roe or expressed support for abortion rights. “We don’t want any Souters, either,” she said. The reference was to retiring Justice David H. Souter, whose jurisprudence surprised his advocates once he joined the court…
From The Chicago Tribune on line, Abortion views hard to judge; Rights activists fear Sotomayor not in their court
“What we know about her we like, but I don’t know the answer on abortion rights,” Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said in an interview.
Abortion opponents say they are convinced Sotomayor is an “extreme” supporter of abortion, although several acknowledge they do not have specific evidence of her views.
“She is a radical pick that divides America,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
WND CHANGING OF THE GUARD, Limbaugh: Obama’s judicial pick a ‘racist’ Criticizes comment that Hispanic woman can make better decisions than white male, Posted: May 26, 2009, By Bob Unruh, © 2009 WorldNetDaily,
Charmaine Yoest, chief of Americans United for Life, said the nomination torches any statements by Obama he wants “common ground” over the abortion war.
“A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice is a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion. Our recent polling data speaks to this point of judicial activism and as a woman, I don’t believe she ‘represents’ American women,” she said.
“The Supreme Court took on the role of the ‘National Abortion Control Board’ in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, and Judge Sotomayor will further entrench the court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy. Based on her judicial philosophy, she will work to elevate unrestricted, unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to a fundamental constitutional right by reading the sweeping Freedom of Choice Act – also known as FOCA – into the Constitution,” she continued.
Join Fight FOCA
Fearful of Latino Losses, GOP Cautious with Sotomayor
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff,
That emotion was clear in the reactions of conservative interest groups to the nomination.
“This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations — supported by the vast majority of Americans — like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion. Other conservative groups called Sotomayor a radical judicial activist — words that in battles past have been used to rally core supporters, yet neutral toward Hispanics, just like the strategists recommend.
Thank you (foot)notes:
Brayton gives voice and ink to the position that Roe was well reasoned. Not many liberals even assume that position any longer.
Sotomayor and Judges Making “Policy” Posted on: May 28, 2009 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
The point is that the line between interpreting the law and making policy is not nearly as clear as conservatives want people to think. Indeed, here is a textbook example of what conservatives really mean when they say a judge should not “set policy” from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, speaking about Sotomayor:
“She believes the role of the court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue,” Yoest said. “This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.”
They think that Roe v Wade was an example of “making policy” but that simply isn’t true. Whether you agree with it or not, Roe v Wade was a decision based on the constitutionality of laws forbidding abortion. So very much like “judicial activism” and its various cognates, when conservatives talk about judges “making policy” or “legislating from the bench” all they really mean is “judges ruling in ways we don’t like.”
Steve Benen writing the Political Animal column at The Washington Monthly, May 28, 2009
Shortly after Sotomayor was introduced as the nominee, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, quickly blasted her as “a radical pick” who “believes the role of the court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board.”
What was that based on? Apparently nothing. The right assumes she’s pro-choice; the left assumes she’s pro-choice. But no one seems to know whether she’s pro-choice or not.
David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas reporting for the LA Times,
Abortion rights groups concerned about Sotomayor’s stance; Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has little record on issues related to Roe vs. Wade
Recent Comments