One conservative writer noticed something odd during recent public comments from former President Bill Clinton, leading him to question whether Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have committed perjury during her 1993 Senate testimony.
The comments came as Bill and Hillary Clinton joined Ginsburg for an appearance at Georgetown Law on Wednesday night, where they revealed some interesting tidbits about Ginsburg’s ascent to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, The Washington Post reports.
Clinton needed a pro-abortion justice
During the conversation, Bill Clinton recalled: “Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose. I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade.
“[Ginsburg] knew this perfectly well, that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who was simon-pure, which I had said I thought was important,” Clinton went on. “But I was fascinated by a — either an article I had read or something I had read on Justice Ginsburg saying that she supported the result in Roe v. Wade but thought Justice [Harry] Blackmun should have decided the case on the equal protection clause not the right to privacy.”
He added: “And I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no affect: ‘This is what I think, this is why I think it,’ and she made a heck of a case.”
Ginsburg’s Senate testimony
This last admission rang warning bells for Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank.
In a piece for National Review, he noted that during Ginsburg’s sworn testimony to the Senate in 1993, she was asked:
Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee (including but not limited to a member of the White House staff, the Justice Department, or the Senate or its staff) discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully.
“It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me,” Ginsburg wrote in her answer.
She insisted: “No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question.”
Uh oh…
But Whelan noted that Clinton publicly admitted that he spoke to Ginsburg about her thoughts on Roe v. Wade, and that she was aware of the political pressure he was under to protect it. “In short, Clinton sure seems to be saying that Ginsburg lied to the Senate,” Whelan concluded.
ABC News’ Devin Dwyer also found Clinton’s comments unusual, noting that no other recent presidents “have publicly admitted” to asking potential SCOTUS nominees about their views on Roe in private.
No bites?
Surprisingly — or perhaps not so much — other mainstream media reporters seem to have pointedly ignored Clinton’s comments in their coverage, Whelan noted in a series of tweets on Friday.
Somehow this @scotusreporter WaPo story on Clinton/RBG event https://t.co/FeNOnF6y1I makes no mention of Clinton’s remarks on discussing Roe with RBG. Astounding. https://t.co/SpACRsvbcs
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 1, 2019
Expect to hear a lot more about Roe v. Wade during the coming months — it’s a major abortion case that could have far-reaching implications is on the Supreme Court’s docket for the next term, and the left is very worried. But thanks to President Donald Trump’s nominations of conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, there’s finally hope for life.
No comments: