Senator Frist is determined to roll women’s rights and racial civil rights back a couple of decades via to extremist conservative judicial nominees–both female and one African-American. Frist and his comrades are insidiously playing the race and sex card in hopes hitting the Achilles’ heel of the Democrats who regularly promote the advancement of women and people of Color. However it isn’t about the sex or race of these judicial nominees, instead it’s their politics. And the Democrats battling Frist’s minature regime are once again proving that they are indeed for women’s rights and racial civil rights. These two female judicial nominees are anything but proponents of women’s rights and racial civil rights, which the Democrats have already pointed out by looking at their track records as judges and their own words. These two women prove that sometimes certain women and African-Americans can be their own sex’s and race’s worst enemy and actually roll back their rights, rather than preserve them. The National Women’s Law Center certainly were not impressed by their track records and see them as a danger to women’s rights and racial civil rights.
[…] Senator Frist has made it clear that he plans to use two female nominees as the triggers for the “nuclear option,”? and in an attempt to turn the truth on its head, some of his colleagues have suggested that those who oppose these nominees are opposed to progress for women. One of his Congressional allies said last week that opposing these nominees risks “reversing decades of progress for all females,”? and Senator Hatch has called it a “slap in the face”? to American women to stop nominees like this.
The true slap in the face to American women would be the confirmation of nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. As you have heard from previous speakers, these nominees’ records demonstrate that they are hostile to many of the basic legal rights that American women cherish. Their willingness to use their positions as judges to impose their agendas on the cases they hear has real implications for real Americans, especially American women.
You have heard that Justice Priscilla Owen’s sympathies lie with big business rather than with consumers. Let me give you one example. A woman was raped in her home by a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman. She sued the manufacturer who made the vacuums and the distributor, who failed to check the salesman’s references and so did not discover his history of improper sexual conduct, including an arrest for indecency with children. Justice Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, joined two dissents arguing that the manufacturer should not be held responsible for the negligence of its distributor, even though it required its vacuums to be sold door-to-door. Justice Owen would rather have shielded the manufacturer from liability than protect real women, like the victim in that case, from being attacked in their own homes.
Let me turn to Janice Rogers Brown. Justice Brown has demonstrated hostility towards the New Deal, that era that brought us Social Security and minimum wage laws, calling it a “socialist revolution.”? As you heard, as member of the California Supreme Court Justice, Justice Brown recently questioned the longstanding legal rule that prosecutors cannot discriminate against African-American women when choosing juries. Imagine the world that would exist if Justice Brown’s opinion had carried the day. If an African-American woman were discriminated against at work because of her race or her sex and she brought suit against her employer, her employer could remove all the African-American women from the jury pool, leaving the plaintiff without a jury of her peers and without any legal recourse. In another case, Justice Brown argued that the continued use of obscenities and racial slurs against Latino employees in the workplace was protected by the First Amendment. Justice Brown’s proposed legal rule would be devastating to women and people of color, who for far too long have been subject to the worst forms of harassment at work, who now have the law on their side ““ no thanks to Justice Brown.
Majority Leader Frist has said that these nominees deserve confirmation votes, votes by the way they do get in the form of the Senate votes to end debate on their nominations. In fact, what American women deserve is federal judges who respect their hard-won legal rights. It is important to have a judiciary that is diverse, with more women on the federal bench. But it is wrong to confirm judges ““ male or female ““ who cannot even get the 60 votes, and who will roll back our rights far into the future. Women need the protection of the filibuster ““ the nuclear option targets their legal rights.
All of us long to see a diverse Judiciary that represents the true face of the country, but one that will also preserve our rights, and not roll them back. Believe me, as a biracial woman I would love to see more than just a bunch of old white men occupying all the benches in the land, but I would still like to have judges that will preserve my rights. These two judicial nominees are a threat to women’s rights and racial civil rights. We are our own worst enemies at times. Oh, the tragic irony.
Thanks for clarifying that diversity of opinion is unacceptable for women and minorities who happen to be up for judicial positions.
Perhaps these two female judicial nominees care about protecting and upholding the Constitution more than enforcing “rights” created for various groups. I know I’m going to get a lot of shit for that, but it’s disingenuous to say that this isn’t about the race or gender of these candidates. Pseudo-Adrienne (yeah, my name’s Adrienne too), you’ve made it abundantly clear that any female or minority who doesn’t toe a liberal party line is unwelcome in the “diversity club.” So apparently feminism isn’t about helping women and minorities succeed: it’s about helping women and minorities succeed, but only if they believe as you do.
Wrong. But anyway…
“Imagine the world that would exist if Justice Brown’s opinion had carried the day. If an African-American woman were discriminated against at work because of her race or her sex and she brought suit against her employer, her employer could remove all the African-American women from the jury pool, leaving the plaintiff without a jury of her peers and without any legal recourse. In another case, Justice Brown argued that the continued use of obscenities and racial slurs against Latino employees in the workplace was protected by the First Amendment. Justice Brown’s proposed legal rule would be devastating to women and people of color, who for far too long have been subject to the worst forms of harassment at work, who now have the law on their side ““ no thanks to Justice Brown”
That world already exists, certainly in my corner of it. And it doesn’t always matter what party puts the judge on the bench.
In criminal cases, DAs remove Black and Hispanic jurors with impunity. The DA’s are taught to do this without directly using race. For example, social workers(mostly women, especially women of color) and postal employees(a lot of whom are people of color particularly African-Americans) are fair game for removal, although some remarks made by an unapologetic DA and his supervisor got the National Postmaster up in arms.
The judges either allow this or do it themselves FTMP. The ones who don’t get boycotted and blackballed by the DA’s office. Our most infamous example, Vilia Sherman, a white woman appointed by Pete Wilson(gov.) kicked the sole Black juror who was a holdout for the death penalty in a case involving a Black man on trial for killing a white man. She put the entire jury through an inquisition, saved the worst for this guy and kicked him off calling him a racist.
His crime was commenting on how difficult it must have been for the defendant as a Black man to have not had a father in his life.
But Davis(dem. gov.) put some bad ones on too. Some of us tried to put some good candidates on a list for him to possibly appoint b/f he left office after being recalled, but he still went with some pretty repugnant pale males.
Civil, lol, it’s just as bad. The n-word is free speech in the workplace, you know. Smearing feces on a work truck used by a Black employee is free speech as is hanging nooses, spraying KKK and hanging Black dolls.
People always seem so shocked when men of color and women of all colors play the same game as the white male candidates. However, the difference here is that they weren’t invited to the pre-game meeting to come up with a list of rules to follow. Not to let them off the hook for their actions, but it’s the JUDICIAL SYSTEM and all its attachments that’s in place that’s the real problem, not as much the individuals asked to join it. It’s not fair, it’s not just. It’s racist, classist and elitist. With rare exceptions, anyone asked to be a part of it gets tainted, no matter what their intentions may be or have been.
What an ironclad refutation!
Care to try again?
I’ll try this one last time, Junior, as I really don’t get involved in my own post’s discussions but clearly you can’t read and don’t get it so I’ll help; civil rights are apart of the Constitution and as judges they have to uphold those. Their track record as judges proves they support otherwise. It doesn’t matter their party association or personal ideology, as I’ve seen conservative judges uphold the Constitution even if it was something they didn’t want to do because it went against what they personally believed or whatever. These judges have not proven they are capable of doing that–upholding the Constitution and civil rights, even if it’s a particular article they personally disagree with. And I’m sure “liberal” judges do the same–uphold the Constitution even if it’s a part they personally disagree with. I would “blast” anyone who would throw out and piss on the Constitution, and rule unconstitutionally in order to promote a personal view.
Now go quibble with others, Adrienne. I’m finished explaining myself to someone out to create nothing more than petty, juvenile mere disagreements, based on nothing but a personal disliking of a certain side of the political and ideological spectrum, and not anything of substance. And I’ve seen and heard better. I have no problem with debates and disagreeing, but only when it’s actually based on something more than mere disgreement and a petty disliking for your opponent’s ideology. I approve of comments from the conservative posters on this blog all the time because there’s an actual argument behind them (and I hold “liberals” to the same standards, as does Amerpsand). Yours–anything but. But do keep commenting anyway, fine by me, I don’t care. I like comments period. I won’t get involved with this post’s comments and discussion after this unless hell breaks loose and I have to moderate.
The thing is that this is our *lives*. This isn’t some abstract issue that can be ignored. We are the ones being sacrified so that someone can further their career. They can do whatever they want, but there are consequences for their actions. If they abandon their communities, we are free to abandon them. I don’t see why we have to support people who are allied against us? If they don’t want to uphold basic human rights for everyone, not just white males, why do we have to be for them just because they look like they are in our community? If they want to play the ‘colorblind’ card we’re free to be colorblind and withdraw our support.
I agree with your post Shannon.
I’m just so jaded on the legal system in general.
Hardly unprecedented. This is part of the motivation of nominating Thomas, for example — you can tar opponents as racist, overlooking the extremism or lack of qualifications of the person being discussed. It’s an insult to all the really powerful black judges and lawyers out there, as is this characterization of, say, Priscilla Owen as somehow the last great hope of women in our country.
bleach!