Alas, a Blog

After weeks of controversy, it seems the filibuster issue has reached an end at the hands of supposed ‘centerists’ of the Republican and Democratic parties. Citing what he felt could be damage to the institution of the senate, CNN reported that Senator John McCain had this to say:

“We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution,” McCain said. “Under the deal, judicial nominees would only be filibustered “under extraordinary circumstances,” McCain said.

McCain said the group of 14 pledged to vote for cloture — an end to debate — for three judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.

Here’s a bit more information on each of the three judges to gain cloture:

Judge Janice Rogers Brown:

An outspoken Christian conservative from the segregated South, she supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.

Brown’s views are also why Democrats have used a filibuster since 2003 to block her confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She’s questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, “No one with these views should be confirmed to a federal court and certainly not to the federal court most responsible for cases affecting government action.”

Brown is said to formulate her opinions “in prayer and quiet study of the Bible.” She’s also been outspokenly critical of philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society “as if God did not exist.” According to Brown, “these are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.”

Judge Priscilla Owen:

Priscilla Owen is, in the president’s words, “a woman of integrity … known to be a fair and impartial judge who strives to interpret the law fairly.”

To her opponents, the 50-year-old Texas Supreme Court justice is a “judicial activist … (whose) record shows a bias in favor of government secrecy and business interests, and against the environment, victims of discrimination and medical malpractice,” in the words of Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Like Brown, Owen is devoutly religious and unapologetically ‘faith based’ in her approach to the law. Some see a kindly sunday school teacher, while others see a vocal threat to women’s rights. It’s speculated that while not specifically targetted at Owen, she was among the judges referred to by Supreme Court Justice Gonzales in his critique of attempted obstructions with regards to the Parental Notification Act:

“To construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism,” Gonzales wrote in the 2000 opinion.

And finally, Judge William Pryor. Pryor has been criticized for being outspokenly ideological and often times naive about the court system, so much as to testify before the Senate an assurance and asserting that innocent people ‘just aren’t executed in the United States’. In a press release by the Congressional Black Caucus and letter written by CBC Chair and Congressman Elijah Cummings, Pryor’s is condemned for a consistently poor record in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, anti-discrimination laws (noteably against gays) and fairness in the criminal justice system.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, Pryor had argued that a state’s criminalization of certain private consensual sex was constitutional. […]

As Attorney General of a State where most death-row prisoners are African American, Mr. Pryor has consistently challenged efforts to ensure fair administration of the death penalty. He supported the constitutionality of executing mentally retarded persons, defended barriers to legal visits for death row prisoners, argued against the State Bar’s possible support of a moratorium on the death penalty, and criticized Congressional proposals to improve the quality of capital representation as unnecessary and likely to lead to “perverse” outcomes. Pryor has been critical of efforts to address racial bias in the administration of the death penalty. […]

Pryor has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” (Id.)

After weeks of worrying about the ‘nuclear option’ initiated by Senate Majority Leader Frist, it seems that a moderate win can be declared by the Republican bulls, at the expense of the long valued belief in a seperation of church and state, and hard earned forward momentum within the women’s rights movement. It remains to be seen whether the revised Supreme Court will mirror the incompetence and backward mobility that has been consistent in the Bush Administration, but it seems we can rest assured that danger lies ahead.

Anyone want to start a betting pool to see what progressive ideas are attacked first – women’s, environmental, wages, gays or privacy?

In closing, perhaps a change in the lyrics of Onwards Christian Soldiers could be done to mark the uncertain days ahead:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
At the sign of triumph civil rights doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your condemnations raise.

Laws that require female minors to seek parental notification before obtaining an abortion are being debated before the Supreme Court. Some are calling for exceptions to the law to be made in case the girl’s life and health is in danger, according to this Washington Post article.

Amid intensifying controversy on Capitol Hill over judicial appointments, the Supreme Court today took on another abortion-related case.

Specifically, the court said it would consider whether laws requiring parental notification before a minor can get an abortion must make an explicit exception when the minor’s health is at stake. More broadly, the case concerns the standard to be used by courts when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.

[…]

At issue in today’s case is a New Hampshire parental notification law that did not make an exception to protect the health of the minor and was therefore struck down by the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which cited what it considered an unbroken line of Supreme Court precedents on the subject.

A major issue in the case is the standard to be used by the courts when reviewing such controversies.

The attorney general of New Hampshire argued that a law such as New Hampshire’s must be upheld unless a challenger meets the difficult burden of showing that “no set of circumstances exists” under which it would be constitutional.

Abortion rights advocates believe that few, if any, challenges cold survive such a test, which, in any case, has been rejected by most appeals courts.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of Northern New England, which challenged New Hampshire’s law, argued that the operative test is the less formidable one established by the Supreme Court of whether the law places a “substantial obstacle” or “undue burden” on the right to an abortion for any woman.

Forty-four states have “parental notification” laws, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court insofar as they allow judges to “bypass” notification when they consider it necessary.

Today’s case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood , raises the question of whether these laws, to pass constitutional muster, must explicitly mention protection of the health of the woman as one of the reasons a judge may skip parental notification.

In its last major abortion decision in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state laws banning so-called “partial-birth abortions” must provide an exception to protect the mother’s health.

The court will rule in its next term on today’s case.

My problem with parental notification laws is the fear that they could lead to more “notification” and “consent” laws being passed, ( such as needing the husband’s or boyfriend’s consent first) in an attempt to squash a woman’s right to choose completely, and deny her right to privacy. As if pregnant and scared teenage girls don’t have it hard enough as it is. They’ll be shamed by society whether they continue the pregnancy to full term, or abort anyway. It’s the wonderful Catch 22 all women must endure in this country when it comes to our reproductive health and choices.