TCC Logo

Commentary by Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus
TCC Home | Bio | Donate | Email List | Contact ]
Archives: February | March | April | May | June
RSS, Comments, Podcasting & More Coming Soon!

  Home  |  July 2005 Archives


  Supreme Court News, Information & Action

TCC in the News: | CNS | WNDWashPost | Tuscaloosa | Birmingham | WND
ACTION: Sign the Roy Moore for Supreme Court Petition!
TCC Supreme Court Resources
Interviews with Howard Phillips by Dan Flynn at FlynnFiles:
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 ]
Interview with Howard Phillips by LifeSite on Judge Roberts

  Here Come The Braves! | July 29, 2005

Here come the Braves! From an early age, perhaps seven or eight, I was a big fan of the then Boston Braves. I collected their autographs and visited them at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Brighton when they were recuperating from injuries. I recall conversations with Warren Spahn (the great southpaw), Del Crandall (the catcher), and Joe Adcock (the magnificent first baseman).

My home in Brighton was in walking distance of Braves Field and I attended games whenever I could, usually in the bleachers where a ticket cost no more than $1 or $2.

I wept bitter tears when, in 1952, the Braves left Boston for Milwaukee. However, I remained loyal throughout their tenure in Milwaukee and now in Atlanta.

One reason for my disdain of the very popular Boston Red Sox was the mocking and ridicule I suffered as a youngster in Boston at the hands of Red Sox fans who never had a good word to say about the Braves. That’s why last year I rooted for the Yankees against the Red Sox in the division series, and for the Cardinals against the Red Sox in the World Series.

One of my great joys came two years ago when Hank Aaron let me use his four tickets behind home plate at Turner Filed to celebrate my son, Sam’s, 17th birthday. I was joined by my wife, Peggy, and my grandson, Aaron, the eldest child of my son, Brad Phillips.

The Braves have won their division title 13 years in a row against incredible odds and an ever declining budget. In recent years, for financial reasons, they have had to give up some of their top pitchers, including Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Kevin Millwood, and Russ Ortiz. They have also been forced to surrender some of their best sluggers, including catcher Javy Lopez, J.D. Drew and New York Yankees outfielder Gary Sheffield.

The Braves have been sustained this year by some extraordinary performances on the part of pitcher John Smoltz, outfielder Andruw Jones, and third baseman Chipper Jones.

My latest hero is Julio Franco, the amazing Braves first baseman who at the age of 46 years and 10 months hit a grand slam home run on June 27. Franco is the oldest player to accomplish that feat, in addition to being the oldest player to hit two home runs in a single game and steal two bases in a single game. Julio is magnificent and an example for all of us.

Perhaps the key to the Braves’ continuing success is its trio of management leaders: including baseball’s greatest pitching coach, Leo Mazzone, its greatest manager on the field, Bobby Cox, and its greatest general manager, John Scheurholz. These three men have done more with less every year.

When I worked as Assistant to the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1966 to 1968, one of my colleagues and mentors was the late AB Hermann, a former Boston Braves first baseman who took the time to arrange personal visits for me with some of the Braves veterans still active in baseball.

  Ann Coulter on the Roberts Nomination | July 22, 2005

Ann Coulter has written a brilliant column on the Roberts’ nomination, and it should be read by every conservative and Christian leader. The text follows:

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah ... we also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?

Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?

Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them "constitutional rights."

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as deputy solicitor general for a portion of the 1992-93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "Hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.

I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee's "talking points" on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

"In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued – free of charge – before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982."

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend it's the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too.

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural.

By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.

It's especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there's no question but that Roberts is smart.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It's as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections – seven of the last ten!

We're the Harlem Globetrotters now – why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we're ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork ... and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.

Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don't hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.

As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights – liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.

During the "filibuster" fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: "Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other five and a half minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are 'extreme.'" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.

Now we come to find out from last Sunday's New York Times – the enemy's own playbook! – that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush's conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.

That's why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.

The Democrats' own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block "judges who would roll back civil rights." Borking is over.

And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of "stealth nominees" and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.!

Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Dubbed "one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics" by George magazine, Coulter has appeared on ABC's "This Week," "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today," CNN's "Larry King Live" and CNBC's "Rivera Live."

  John G. Roberts, Jr. | July 20, 2005

Let’s be judicious in evaluating President Bush’s choice of John G. Roberts, Jr. to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Areas of possible concern include his tenure with the liberal establishment law firm Hogan & Hartson and his work with the left-wing Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. A big red flag for me was the fact that he twice referred to the United States government as a “Constitutional democracy”, whereas the Constitution makes clear that we are a “republic” and that a republican form of government is guaranteed to each state.

On the plus side regarding Mr. Roberts is his strong backing from William Rehnquist who has been one of the better members of the Supreme Court.

We have a lot to learn, and The Conservative Caucus is currently involved in a major research project so that we can come to a considered, responsible conclusion regarding the prospective tenure of Judge Roberts.

  Sandra Day O'Connor | July 19, 2005

On Friday, July 1, when Sandra Day O’Connor announced her intention to resign as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, I issued the following statement:


"President Bush should nominate former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in the U.S. Supreme Court", Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, said today. 

"Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment by Ronald Reagan was a foreseeable disaster," Phillips continued. "As I pointed out in 1981, Mrs. O'Connor was a pro-abortion member of the Arizona State Senate and a liberal judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was chosen because of her gender and a desire to attract to the GOP the support of feminists. 

"Judge Roy Moore also has a track record. He is a rock-solid defender of the right to acknowledge God, a foe of sodomy and abortion, and a critic of the ‘legal positivism' embraced by David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Steven Breyer. 

Phillips concluded: "Roy Moore is the best choice that President Bush could make." 

TCC, founded in 1974, is a public policy action group committed to restoring the Republic by limiting the Federal government to its delegated, enumerated Constitutional functions and returning American jurisprudence to its Biblical Common Law foundations.

It frankly disgusted me to hear paeans of praise for Mrs. O’Connor from politicians characterized as conservative, including, particularly, George Bush and Bill Frist (whose praise for O’Connor was a red flag for those who oppose Roe v. Wade and prohibitions on the acknowledgement of God in the public square).

President Bush was his typically smarmy self, telling his friend, Sandra, in a private conversation, "For an old ranching girl, you turned out pretty good"… 

As they talked, Bush also told her, "I wish I was there to hug you".

In his public statement, President Bush said "When President Ronald Reagan appoint Justice O’Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her and she has surpassed these expectations in the performance of her duties…She leave an outstanding record of service to the Untied States and our nation is deeply grateful".

The reality is that Mrs. O’Connor was one of the worst appointments ever made by a Republican President, in this case Ronald Reagan.

In many respects, she was worse than William J. Brennan and John Paul Stevens, although she was not quite as bad as David Souter, against whose confirmation I testified on the basis of his public record. In fact, I was the only conservative who opposed the Souter nomination, the others relying on the word of White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, the former governor of New Hampshire, who said that the Souter choice was a "home run".

Unfortunately, my conservative colleagues trusted Bush and Sununu more than they trusted the facts – – – which showed that Souter had changed the policies of two New Hampshire hospitals, Concord Memorial and Darmouth Hitchcock, from zero abortion to convenience abortion. Moreover, Souter had written, in his law school thesis, which was, in many ways, a tribute to Oliver Wendell Holmes, that he believed in no "higher law" but was instead a legal positivist.

Despite my entreaties, not a single Republican Senator opposed Souter’s confirmation, just as not one of them had opposed the confirmation of Sandra Day O’Connor.

Indeed, there were only three opposition votes cast to Bill Clinton’s most left-wing nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and only nine against Ted Kennedy’s protégé, Stephen Breyer.

Lest, we forget how invidious, immoral, and destructive was Sandra Day O’Connor’s tenure in the U.S. Supreme Court, recall these words of hers with which Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice David Souter associated themselves in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey: "The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives".

Mrs. O’Connor also did extraordinary damage by pushing the Lemon v. Kurzman doctrine that religious references in the public square are only permissible when they have a secular purpose.

She also supported the pro-homosexual Lawrence v. Texas decision and opposed imposition of the death penalty for brutal murderers under the age of 17.

I could go on, but Mrs. O’Connor’s record should be obvious to all, and is a disgraceful example of how President Ronald Reagan deferred to the political and policy counsel of pro-abortion subordinates such as White House Chief of Staff James Baker.

It is interesting to note that Mrs. O’Connor was elevated to Arizona’s Court of Appeals in 1979 by left-wing Democrat Governor Bruce Babbitt. She was a big promoter of ERA, supporter of bi-lingual education, and, as a judge, she voted against a ban on funds for abortions for poor women and opposed a bill prohibiting abortions at the University of Arizona Hospital.

Congratulations to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn for disparaging O’Connor for "self-indulgent judicial activism".

  Roy Moore for Supreme Court News Conference | July 18, 2005

At a news conference today (7/13/05), I made the following statement promoting "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore as the standard against which other prospective Supreme Court nominees ought be measured:

My friends, this is a crucial moment in the history of the American republic. The character and the undaunted courage of one faithful man seated on the U.S. Supreme Court could bring about a turning point in our jurisprudence and in our culture, back to Biblical morality and forward to a restoration of the Constitutional design and system of liberty set forth by American’s founding fathers.

I speak of that great patriot, that exemplary jurist, God’s man for these times, the Honorable Roy Moore.

Roy Moore sacrificed his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court rather than submit to an unconstitutional demand by Federal judges to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Judge Moore is a graduate of West Point, a decorated Vietnam vet, a comprehensively knowledgeable student of the Constitution and a dedicated family man.

He is truly a great man whose courage has helped awaken millions of Americans to the assault on our heritage, our beliefs, and our religious liberty, and he has inspired God-fearing, freedom-loving Americans in every part of our nation to join the fight to liberate our Constitutional Republic from judicial tyranny.

After West Point, Judge Roy Moore served our country as a U.S. Army Company Commander in Vietnam before earning a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alabama Law School.

A highly respected Constitutional scholar, Judge Moore served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama since 2001 until he was suspended for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse and insisting that, as Chief Justice, he would continue to acknowledge God.

Judge Moore has been recognized as a "tireless defender of individual liberties", "Christian Statesman of the Year", "Defender of the Bill of Rights", and was named "Champion of Liberty" by the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance.

Roy Moore was first thrust into the national spotlight in the 1990s when he successfully held his ground against another unconstitutional court order demanding that he remove a tablet of the Ten Commandments, which he had carved by hand and hung on the wall alongside his court bench in Etowah County, Alabama.

Judge Moore has been vilified in the media, betrayed by the Alabama Republican hierarchy (including tax-hiking GOP Governor Bob Riley and Karl Rove’s judicial candidate, Bill Pryor, the Alabama Attorney General).

Through it all, Judge Moore conducted himself with modesty, humility, and courage.

And while, sadly, he was removed from his position as the elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court – – – knowledgeable Americans are grateful that Roy Moore took a principled stand against the usurpation of authority by Constitutionally defiant judges. Chief Justice Moore upheld the rule of law against judges and bureaucrats who flagrantly moved to set aside the U.S. Constitution in favor of their personal prejudices.

Most public figures would have wilted under pressure, but Judge Roy Moore fears God, not man.

Roy Moore has conducted himself with courage and integrity, never surrendering, never wavering – – – and his example may prove to be a turning point in American history.

I have been encouraged by the enthusiasm of the many thousands of freedom-loving, God-fearing Americans who have rallied behind this great man and his righteous cause.

More and more God-fearing, freedom-loving Americans correctly see Roy Moore as a man of principle standing up for faith, freedom, and the rule of law, as America’s Founding Fathers understood it.

Already more than 85,000 have signed Petitions urging President Bush to appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What a great victory for God, family, and country it would be if Roy Moore were nominated and confirmed as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court!

As a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Moore would strictly interpret the law according to the U.S. Constitution.

He would defend our right to acknowledge God – – – in public prayer, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in displays which have the Biblical message of God’s Ten Commandments.

Judge Moore has kept his oath to the Constitution of Alabama and to the Constitution of the United States. He has upheld the law. He has obeyed his duty to God, to the people of Alabama and to the citizens of the United States of America. I urge President George W. Bush to nominate the man best qualified in our entire nation to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of God on which that Constitution is premised.

Joining me at the news conference were Dr. Alan Keyes (The Declaration Foundation), Maryland Republican Delegate Don Dwyer (Director of the Institute on the Constitution), Rev. Rob Schenck (National Clergy Council), and Lancaster, Pennsylvania Attorney James Clymer (Chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee)

Media representatives included: Mary Orndorff (Birmingham News), Sara Michael (Tuscaloosa News), James Brosnan (Birmingham Post), and Hanna Rosin (The Washington Post).

  Supreme Court & Ten Commandments | July 14, 2005

The Supreme Court rulings in the two Ten Commandments cases concerning which they issued Opinions on June 27 are outrageous.

Basically, what the court is saying is that it is unconstitutional for any public entity (Federal, state, or local) to acknowledge God by means of the Ten Commandments, which is after all the foundation for America’s law system.

This ruling emphasizes once again the urgency of Congress acting to pass the Constitution Restoration Act [CRA] (H.R. 1070 and S. 520).

The full text of the Senate bill reads as follows:

1st Session
S. 520

To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

March 3, 2005

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill (S. 520); which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the
'Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.



(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.


(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:

`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.



In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.



Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to, on, or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.


To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution.

Senate cosponsors of S. 520 are:

Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 5/10/2005

Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 3/3/2005

Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 5/10/2005

Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 4/4/2005

Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 3/3/2005

Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 3/8/2005

Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 5/10/2005

Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 3/8/2005

House cosponsors of the companion bill, H.R. 1070, are:

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 6/8/2005

Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 4/5/2005

Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 3/3/2005

Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 3/3/2005

Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 3/3/2005

Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 6/8/2005

Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 3/3/2005

Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 3/3/2005

Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 3/3/2005

Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-10] - 5/3/2005

Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 6/28/2005

Rep Everett, Terry [AL-2] - 3/3/2005

Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/3/2005

Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 4/5/2005

Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 3/3/2005

Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 3/3/2005

Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 3/3/2005

Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 6/8/2005

Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/3/2005

Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 3/3/2005

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 3/3/2005

Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 3/3/2005

Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 6/30/2005

Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 4/5/2005

Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 6/28/2005

Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 3/3/2005

Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 3/3/2005

Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 6/28/2005

Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/3/2005

Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 3/3/2005

Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 3/3/2005

Rep Sodrel, Michael E. [IN-9] - 4/14/2005

Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 3/3/2005

Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 6/17/2005

Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 4/5/2005

Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/3/2005

Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 3/3/2005

Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 3/3/2005

If any of your senators or representatives in Congress have failed to sign on as a co-sponsor of the CRA, please get on their case. Your help is needed now.

  The Reason We Still Have Abortion in the USA | July 13, 2005

I told Marc Morano of Conservative News Service that conservatives and Christians have too often based their reaction to obviously pro-abortion judicial nominees on emotional affection for the incumbent Republican President, whether it is Reagan (Sandra Day O’Connor), George H.W. Bush (David Souter), or George W. Bush (Alberto Gonzales).

It is time to replace emotion with facts and to recognize that blind loyalty to the Republican Party by Christians and conservatives is the reason we still have abortion on demand throughout the United States of America.  CNS News Article

  The Records of O'Connor & Souter were Entirely Foreseeable | July 12, 2005

I was interviewed by Charlie Butts of USA Radio concerning TCC’s campaign to place "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the 10-minute interview, which was broadcast nationwide, I encouraged listeners to contact President Bush at the White House, as well as their two U.S. Senators in support of Judge Moore. I emphasized that, contrary to popular myth, the likely rulings of prospective nominees are entirely foreseeable.

On the basis of her pro-abortion radical feminist record as a member of the Arizona Court of Appeals and an Arizona State Senator, there was no doubt that Sandra Day O’Connor would turn out as badly as she did. That’s why her nomination by President Reagan was applauded by every Left-wing feminist group in America, including the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Similarly, David Souter’s record was entirely foreseeable on the basis of his law school thesis in which he rejected higher law and embraced the legal positivism of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Moreover, as the trustee of two New Hampshire hospitals (Concord Memorial and Dartmouth Hitchcock), he had succeeded in changing the policies of those hospitals from zero abortion to convenience abortion.

I observed that Roy Moore is not on the White House short list for the Supreme Court because of the hostility of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who was turned down by Roy Moore when Rove asked Moore to hire him in connection with Moore’s campaign for the Alabama Supreme Court.

Rejected by Judge Moore, Rove became a hired hand for the man whom Moore ultimately defeated, Harold See. Similarly, Rove, who had been hired by William Pryor in his campaign for Alabama Attorney General, prodded Pryor to lead the effort to remove Roy Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court when Moore refused to move a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama judicial building over which he presided.

I made the point that, with rare exceptions, those being mentioned as likely Bush nominees have flaws, in many cases having declared the view that Roe v. Wade is "settled law". By contrast, Roy Moore is 100 percent solid on every issue from abortion to sodomy to the Ten Commandments. He is thoroughly knowledgeable in Constitutional history and rejects the Darwinian evolutionary view of the Constitution as a "living" document. Who in America is better suited to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, indeed, to serve as Chief Justice than Roy Moore? Those who wish to help Judge Moore can call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 or their U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121.

  Support Growing for Roy Moore | July 11, 2005

Support for former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to be named to the Supreme Court of the United States is growing daily.

Here follows the text of a Petition which has been widely distributed by The Conservative Caucus:

Petition to George W. Bush
President of the United States of America


some Supreme Court Justices are consistently unfaithful to the plain text of the U.S. Constitution, and


the Supreme Court needs more Justices with the perspective of Anontin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and fewer pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Justices such as David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg,


I hereby petition President Bush to nominate to the Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore, who has already demonstrated his understanding of and fidelity to the U.S. Constitution.

Respectfully  Signed:_____________________________________

Already 85,000 Americans have signed this Petition and mailings promoting Roy Moore for Supreme Court have been sent to some 725,000 families.

If you agree with TCC’s campaign urging President Bush to nominate Roy Moore, please read the Petition and e-mail your signature of support to Art Harman, our Webmaster.

  Gonzales vs. the Constitution | July 8, 2005

One of Alberto Gonzales’s disqualifying statements is that "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is".

He neglects the provision in the Constitution which makes clear that the Supreme Court is under the Constitution and not over it.

Article VI clearly states "This Constitution, and the Law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

This point is further reinforced by the language in Article III which makes clear that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be limited by Congress.

Gonzales has always associated himself with the view that Roe v. Wade is "settled law".

  Supreme Court | July 1, 2005


For immediate release
July 1, 2005

Contact: Charles Orndorff


Vienna, VA. "President Bush should nominate former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in the U.S. Supreme Court", Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, said today. 

"Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment by Ronald Reagan was a foreseeable disaster," Phillips continued. "As I pointed out in 1981, Mrs. O'Connor was a pro-abortion member of the Arizona State Senate and a liberal judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was chosen because of her gender and a desire to attract to the GOP the support of feminists. 

"Judge Roy Moore also has a track record. He is a rock-solid defender of the right to acknowledge God, a foe of sodomy and abortion, and a critic of the ‘legal positivism' embraced by David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Steven Breyer. 

Phillips concluded: "Roy Moore is the best choice that President Bush could make." 

TCC, founded in 1974, is a public policy action group committed to restoring the Republic by limiting the Federal government to its delegated, enumerated Constitutional functions and returning American jurisprudence to its Biblical Common Law foundations.


Visit every day for the latest commentary, news and action items in support of restoring our Constitutional Republic

To support the many important projects of The Conservative Caucus with a donation, please call 703-938-9626 or use your credit card. Thank you.

Howard Phillips' Constitutional Government Blog is a Project of

The Conservative Caucus *
450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626
Visit our main website for a wealth of issue and action resources
Webmaster: Art Harman

Copyright © 2005 The Conservative Caucus, Inc.  All rights reserved.