One of the most important considerations in the upcoming election is
how the candidates see the president’s duty to protect all Americans.
And who they consider to be covered by the definition of “all
Americans”.

That encompasses more than homeland security, health care reform,
free trade agreements, immigration and foreign policy. It not only
includes….but starts with the right to live in America, with the emphasis on live.

The fact is that the president has a limited but
substantial and broad-based role in protecting life and defending the
most vulnerable in society. Here are five examples of why it matters
that the president is pro-life:

And they are listed and spelled out there in a clear and concise summary.

Implicit in them, I think, is a sixth: the president’s ability to
name justices to the Supreme Court. An activist court can radically
change the laws of the land and the fabric of society for generations.
The judicial philosophy of the president will determine that.

Here’s some insight into one of the three leading contenders.

When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice
of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama
argued that the role of a justice is to favor the “weak” over the
“strong.”

Besides being wrong (that that’s the role of a justice), it’s
clearly incoherent with Sen. Obama’s refusal to protect the weakest
among us, the unborn children.

But about his perception of a Supreme Court justice’s role…

Obama expressed disappointed that when he interviewed
John Roberts he could not get the judge to reveal more of his personal
feelings. “Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional
politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper
feelings,” Obama said. “That is not how he is trained.”

Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama
should have listened more carefully to the judge’s testimony in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not
consider who is “weak” and who is “strong” in a case, or consult their
personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts
and the law.

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply
them,” said Roberts. “I will decide every case based on the record,
according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my
ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and
strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

We need a president who understands the job description with that kind of clarity.