In the Oct. 8 issue of The Sower, Prof. Creed wrote a letter to the editor in response to my column on each Presidential candidate’s potential impact on the Supreme Court. Some of his points were valid, but I need to respond to some of his outlandish assertions.
First, Creed accused me of oversimplifying complex issues like abortion and gay marriage. The purpose of my column was simply to compare the substantive differences between Barack Obama and John McCain’s stances on these issues. My article was not about federal funding of abortion procedures; it was about the Supreme Court.
Second, I never at any point wrote that all Republicans are pro-life and all Democrats are pro-choice. What I’ll point out is that, although not all Democrats are pro-abortion, Obama definitely is.
Third, Prof. Creed also wrote that I used a fallacy of logic, slippery slope, when I argue that Barack Obama would affect social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, because I asked a lot of “what if”s. Now, Creed is right; the next President will not necessarily have to appoint any new Justices. Maybe Justice Stevens will still be going strong at 96. So, if Obama never gets the opportunity to appoint any Supreme Court Justices during his Presidency, he won’t have much affect on social issues. But that’s a huge “if.” Considering that the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution, a Constitutional Law Professor is probably the very best authority to ask when you want to find out how the next President’s decisions will affect the dynamics of the Supreme Court. I quoted two, one pro-choice Democrat, and one pro-life Republican, who agree that the next President will have tremendous impact on social issues like abortion and gay marriage by his appointments.
My column was truthful; I reported the facts. My column was thorough; I presented viewpoints from both sides. And considering that it’s an opinion column, it does not violate the journalist’s code of ethics for me to share my opinions.