In an editorial that generally argues the similarity of McCain’s and Obama’s policy positions, the editors of the L.A. Times choose liberal orthodoxy over fact in this passage:
McCain, though, is an outspoken abortion opponent who wants to see Roe vs. Wade overturned and would appoint Supreme Court justices who share that view. Obama is pro-choice.
First of all, there is no guarantee that McCain “would appoint” a Roe opponent, when the Senate will be dominated by Democrats.
But even as a discussion of aspirations, the statement is without factual foundation.
McCain has said that he wants to appoint justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. As I recently explained, there is no basis for believing these justices will vote to overturn Roe.:
There are, as we speak, two clear votes for overturning Roe. And Roberts and Alito aren’t either of them.
In the most recent major abortion decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence that stated his opposition to Roe:
I write separately to reiterate my view that the Courts abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.
He was joined by only one Justice: Antonin Scalia. To the disappointment of Roe opponents, Justices Alito and Roberts pointedly refused to sign on to that concurrence.
The editors’ statement might have been an accurate statement as applied to George W. Bush, who wanted to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. But even he had to settle for Alito and Roberts — and that was when Republicans held the Senate.
The editors’ claim is a scare tactic, nothing more.