European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - July 28, 1990, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 column the stars and stripes saturday july 28,1990 . Rosenthal Souter should be what is the one thing everybody wants to know about judge David Souter of Wearen a Why what he thinks about abortion of course a whether he believes it is a right or a  is the one thing the Bush administration is telling us would be crude and improper to ask Souter Why what he thinks about abortion a this makes perfect sense if you happen to be president Bush trying to get a critically important and delicate appointment through the  As the conservative replacing a Liberal in a closely divided court judge Souter would have a Central role in decisions that will affect the Law and life of the country a the same thing really. So Bush elected on an anti abortion platform is doing his Job Well. As he sees it his Job is to get through the Senate a nominee conservative enough to persuade the anti abortionists that he will vote their Way but whose record is Short enough to leave an area of doubt that would allow pro abortion senators to vote for him. Every politician knows that is the game. But to get the nomination through Bush and the people around him have to put on a straight face and act As if they never thought much about the abortion Issue when they selected Souter. Abortion who said that word to help him out the Bush administration can count on a slew of lawyers and politicians who will argue that to question Souter on abortion would Force him to make judgments about issues confronting the court before he has a Chance to study the specifics a unfair unfair nonsense. It is perfectly possible for a judicial nominee to outline attitudes toward an important area of the Law without being boxed in about the specifics of a Case through which a judge is supposed to come to decision. If a nominee declines to do this it is because he id More interested in votes than in reasonable self disclosure. So it is Pieti Stic self serving nonsense to insist that it would be naughty to ask questions about abortion. The judge will not Tell us understandably How he his views on would Yote on a specific Challenge to Roe is. A Linly Tell us in there is a constitutional right to privacy As pro Choice people insist or whether it is a night that can be overridden legislatively. But whether we Are for the right to abortion As i am or against it we All know two things. One is that almost everybody in the country has a Strong opinion about it. It would be an insult to sout amp a to believe he does not. No he won t Tell us Flat out because that would risk his Job. We do not expect a supreme court nominee to be straightforward about one of the most important Public issues of the Century. Isnit that strange and sad the second thing we know is that abortion cuts too deep into How a person sees the world into deep deep concepts of morality religion and social decency for most people to change their minds. Yes but supreme court justices Are not supposed to be a most  Wade. But he can certainly Tell us whether he thinks thing about the supreme court is that Many justices a not All a do change their minds while they Are on the Bench. The dignity and responsibility of the Job does bring new intellectual receptivity to some justices and they Are the ones the country should look for. I do not believe Souter would have been chosen if there was not a heavy Chance that he would vote to overturn Roe is Wade the Issue May come up before the presidential elec Tion and Bush would be awfully embarrassed if his first supreme court Choice voted against the Republican platform a and the passionate beliefs of so Many of his supporters a a a but the White House could be wrong and so could i. Souter May astonish everybody including himself by changing his mind. So i Hope he is asked if and How he himself has changed. Judge what changes of judicial mind do you Admire most if any could you name a few cases where you have changed your first Legal instincts any suggestions for constitutional amendments judge have you picked up any new interests since you left Law school you like Reading and music. Judge what composers and writers do you find no longer to your taste and which new ones have you suddenly found interesting senators ask questions about change and the judge a after the questions on abortion. C new York Tima Tom Wicker . Can 9t pass the fiscal in War on poverty i tier a in a n. A m Quot in the War on poverty a Ronald Reagan often said a poverty  that used to be just Reagan Ite overstatement. But under president Bush poverty can hardly lose. Earlier this month Bush a Domestic policy Council decided that he should embark on no new programs or strategies to reduce poverty in America instead a White House official remarked jovially the administration would a keep playing with the same toys. But let s paint them a Little  the Council really wanted to help another compassionate staff Man said but concluded that a there were no  things we should be doing that we weren to doing that would  nothing obvious when across the Street from the White House the homeless Are sleeping in Lafayette Square a and when in most american cities they re clogging the nighttime streets when in the Shadow of the Capitol dome the poor rummage through garbage cans for something to eat nothing they should be doing when 32 million americans Are living in poverty when 39 percent of them Are children under 18, White Black and other nothing that would work when the life expectancy of Black men in Harlem is lower than that of men in Bangladesh when Black family income in 1987 was Only 56 percent of Whites the biggest Gap since the 1960s? Bush s Council did have before it a few programs mostly developed by outside experts of course that less responsible men might have considered Worth trying a for instance an expanded tax credit for the working poor. And since 5 million american women Are supposed to receive child support payments but Only half of them Ever receive the full amount the Council mercifully considered a National Standard of child support with Federal supplements to payments by absent parents. But the outcome of such misplaced concern was foreordained. As an administration official remarked a we realized we did no to have any Cash. It was fun to think about these things but for the time being we concluded that we done to want to do anything new that we should just make things work  of what fun they must have had. Indeed before settling Down patriotically to the grim reality of the bankruptcy and helplessness of government in a nation barely Able to afford $404,566 average annual family income for the richest 1 percent of the population in 1988. The Council did decide to Shine up one of Reagan a toys of that year a Reform he wisely designed to encourage welfare recipients to find jobs. The Council did not say what jobs nor specify other Reagan initiatives that might be polished a for instance those that resulted in 19.7 percent of american children under 18 living in poverty in 1988. Done to think the Council was merely callous. Officials were Well aware they said that a major a investment in children would have a big payoff in the Long run. The trouble was that such an investment a unlike say Money spent on the strategic defense initiative a was a not Likely to show an immediate  and though the family planning clinics that the Council thought about proposing might Well have reduced teen age pregnancies they would also a Cost Money and might be seen As a encouraging  not on George Bush Swatch 6 s perhaps among things to be made to a work better Are the farsighted Reagan Bush policies that have led to astonishing changes in . Family income. Why tamper with a system that caused the average family income of the poorest 10 percent of americans to fall 10,5 percent Between 1977 and 1987, while the average family income of the wealthiest 1 percent Rose 74.2 percent in the same years Bush a Domestic Council knows a Good thing when it sees it. But no a glitzy splashy High profile new programs like Lyndon Johnson a u r , a a Verty it need apply. After All that High profile approach Only reduced the infant mortality rate by 33 percent Between 1965 and 1975, and among Blacks from 40.3 percent to 24.2 percent. Scarcely Worth doing. And where one in five americans once had endured poverty by 1980 All Johnson s glitzy efforts Many of them continued by Richard Nixon Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter had reduced that figure to Only 1 in 15. Only 44 percent of poor households a less than half a had been raised above the poverty line by 1972. Clearly Bush and his men believe another such Victory and we Are undone. C Nea York times f