Podcast Summary
Marjorie Dannenfelser's Change of Heart on Trump's Pro-Life Policies: Marjorie Dannenfelser, once against Trump's presidency, now sees him as the most pro-life president due to confirmations of conservative justices, potentially leading to Roe v. Wade's overturning.
The partnership between President Trump and Marjorie Dannenfelser's Susan B. Anthony List has led to the confirmation of conservative justices, including the potential replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which could result in the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade. Marjorie, who is against abortion, was initially opposed to Trump's presidency but has since been pleasantly surprised by his pro-life policies and appointments. In 2015, she strongly opposed Trump's candidacy, but now sees him as the most pro-life president in history. Despite her initial reservations, she feels optimistic about the mission her organization started 25 years ago. The conversation took place on a historic day as several Republican senators announced their support for confirming a new justice, making it seem like a victory for social and religious conservatives.
A political compromise for pro-life policies: Despite opposing Trump's stance on abortion, a relationship was built due to his firm commitment to pro-life policies during the primaries and general election.
Despite having strongly opposed Donald Trump's stance on abortion during the primaries, you eventually came to build a relationship with him due to his commitments to pro-life policies. This journey was catalyzed by Trump's victory in the primaries, leaving you with a clear choice between his pro-life stance and Hillary Clinton's pro-choice stance. You acknowledged that politics often involves compromises, but you would not have made this compromise if Trump had not made these commitments. Additionally, Trump's stance on abortion became stronger during the general election rather than weaker, which further solidified your decision.
Trump's Surprising Pro-Life Promises During 2016 Campaign: Despite securing the nomination, Trump made pro-life commitments to win votes and kept his promises, aligning with the movement and keeping his word.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made clear and sweeping commitments to pro-life voters, including appointing justices aligned with their views, protecting the Hyde Amendment, signing a 20-week abortion ban into law, and defunding Planned Parenthood. The speaker was surprised that Trump agreed to these commitments, as he had already secured the nomination and typically candidates don't make such promises once they've clinched the nomination. However, Trump saw the benefit of aligning with the pro-life movement and followed through on his promises. The speaker acknowledges that it's unclear whether Trump deeply believed in these positions or if he saw them as a means to an end, but ultimately what mattered was that he took these stands and kept his word.
Making a difficult choice for the greater good: Despite moral concerns, the speaker chose a candidate based on their commitment to important issues and later believed their support played a role in his election.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, the speaker made a choice between two candidates based on their actions and commitments, prioritizing the candidate who they believed would uphold their mission on important issues, despite his past actions that were morally questionable. They saw it as a prudential decision, considering the hierarchy of goods and evils involved. The speaker acknowledged the pain and difficulty of the situation but stood by their choice and continued to support the president's policies. After his election, the speaker believed that their support played a significant role in his victory in key states, and the president acknowledged this as well. The speaker emphasized that the issue of abortion transcended political affiliations and was a concern for people of various backgrounds.
Prioritizing action over precedent for Supreme Court vacancies: The group advocates for swift action to fill Supreme Court vacancies, disregarding historical precedents to ensure desired outcomes
The group prioritizes action over historical precedent when it comes to filling Supreme Court vacancies. During President Trump's tenure, they successfully supported the confirmation of two conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. With the recent passing of Justice Ginsburg, the group advocated for a swift nomination and confirmation process before the upcoming election. They believe that elected officials should fulfill their duties without delay, even if it means going against previous Senate tactics or public promises. Their focus is on achieving the desired outcome rather than adhering to specific historical precedents.
The urgency to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before the election: Political figures emphasize the importance of confirming a Supreme Court nominee before the election due to potential long-term consequences, despite initial skepticism and ongoing discussions on logistics.
The push to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before the upcoming election is driven by the belief that the consequences of delay could significantly impact the political landscape, particularly in the Senate. This argument, made by various influential figures including the President, Vice President, and Senator Mitt Romney, emphasizes the constitutional duty to act now and the potential long-term consequences of inaction. Surprising unity among senators, despite initial skepticism, underscores the importance of this issue. Marjorie Taylor Greene acknowledges her organization's role in the process, but emphasizes the collaborative effort to restore the court's balance on Roe v. Wade. The logistical details, including the timing of the vote and the identity of the nominee, are still under discussion. However, the consensus is clear: action is needed now.
Confident in the Direction of the Movement: The interviewee expresses confidence in the pro-choice movement's direction, regardless of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, believing it will return to the state level and reflect the majority opinion there.
The interviewee expresses confidence in the direction of the movement, regardless of who the president chooses for the Supreme Court, and they do not seem concerned about going against the will of the people if Roe v. Wade is overturned. They argue that the issue will return to the state level, and only laws reflecting the majority opinions in those states will be enacted. The interviewee acknowledges the current polling data showing majority support for legalized abortion but also notes the inconsistency in public opinion regarding abortion restrictions. They believe that people will see the process as a reflection of democracy, rather than a backlash. However, critics might argue that the measurement of the will of the people at the state level could be challenging, especially in states where legislatures may be out of sync with the majority of residents. The interviewee seems to suggest that elections could determine the outcome in such cases.
Democracy and the Abortion Debate: Balancing the Will of the People and Democratic Principles: The speaker believes that democracy is the best institution to gauge the will of the people and have it reflected in the law, despite the ongoing debate and potential for contradictions in public opinion regarding abortion rights.
The ongoing debate surrounding abortion rights and the potential impact of state legislatures on these rights is a complex issue that raises concerns about the role of democracy and the will of the people. While the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade and access to legalized abortion, there is a risk that certain states, particularly those with Republican-controlled legislatures, may restrict abortion in ways that are not in line with democratic principles. However, the speaker believes that democracy is the best institution to gauge the will of the people and have it reflected in the law. If the stranglehold on passing laws reflecting deeply held convictions about life and death continues, it may result in a never-ending battle that people are tired of. The polls indicate that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, but there are contradictions. If the process goes beyond the consensus, there will be backlash, and the democratic process will pick up again. The speaker is not willing to make the false choice of sacrificing the confirmation process for the sake of the Senate elections. They believe that the confirmation process will not hurt the president's or senators' chances of winning. Ultimately, the speaker is not making the decision about whether it would be worth it if the Senate is lost, but they are not willing to make that call.
The importance of changing the Supreme Court composition: Marjorie Dannenfelser emphasizes the significance of a conservative Supreme Court justice as a lasting legacy despite potential political losses.
According to Marjorie Dannenfelser, the fight to change the composition of the Supreme Court is of the utmost importance, even if it means potentially losing the presidency or the Senate. She believes that the long-term value of having a Supreme Court justice with conservative views is a legacy for both the president and the Senate, making all the efforts worth it. This perspective is based on the belief that the current shift in the nation calls for such a change. Despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and its impact on schools, such as Miami Dade County's decision to allow students to return to classrooms, the focus remains on the Supreme Court nomination process.
