And then there were five…
After last week’s buzz about Rehnquist’s possible retirement, today has brought an interesting new development. While it has been widely known that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has made it clear she intended to retire prior to 2008, and likely prior to December of this year, she has apparently handed in her resignation to the White House this morning:
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court and the key swing vote in some of the nation’s highest-profile cases, announced her resignation Friday.
In a letter to the White House, the moderate conservative, said she will step down when her successor is confirmed.
Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, she is now retiring at age 75. O’Connor was the first woman US Supreme Court Justice and while a staunch Republican supporter, has been considered among the moderate’s of the Republican camp. As one of the 6-3 majority in most pro-choice issues, the news comes as a shattering blow to women’s rights, the likelihood of a nominee that is absolutely anti-choice extremely likely, if not an absolute. In a related post, the potential nominee’s were discussed last week when the speculation over Rehnquist’s retirement was occurring.
Perhaps the most ominous words that loom on the horizon are the words of President Bush, himself who said this with regards to his nomination considerations:
On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates “who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.” [emphasis mine]
At any rate, there goes the neighborhood folks. Welcome to the Big Top, circa 2005.
Bush’s statement on its face is a non-statement. Is anyone looking for a Supreme Court Justice who will not “faithfully interpret the Constitutiona and laws of our country”? I don’t find this idea “ominous” in itself.
It’s what’s going on in Bushie’s pea brain that worries me.
Yeah, Kim. Why do you find those particular words ominous?
She finds them ominous because there are two warring interpretations of the word “faithful”. Do ya mean faithful to the text, or faithful to your idea of what the Constitution ought to be?
Clarence Thomas is very faithful to the text of the Constitution. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is very faithful to her idea of the concept of the Constitution.
Big distinction.
As I understand it (having listened to Sebastian Holsclaw over at Obsidian Wings on this topic often enough) it’s because there is an anti-choice meme that Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided, as there is no Constitutional right to privacy.
If Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, it would be a dark day indeed for any woman who might need to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in the US, and for all those who are truly pro-life.
*Makes several loud, keening noises that do not translate well into the English phonetic alphabet*
Goddess! NO!
Well, she’s served the Court well for a long time, lived up to the title Justice (unlike some people I could name), and she deserves a break. Bless her.
Problem is, now the Right is going to control all three branches of government. Judge, Jury & Executioner sound familiar?
Damn damn damn damn damn!
Goddess grant that freedom be ever like the Sun,
To rise again after setting;
Goddess grant that freedom be ever like the Moon,
To wax again after waning;
Goddess grant that freedom be like the Earth,
Making new life for itself out of death;
Goddess grant that freedom be like Her,
Everlasting and Just.
Goddess grant that freedom be ever like the Sun,
To rise again after setting;
Goddess grant that freedom be ever like the Moon,
To wax again after waning;
Goddess grant that freedom be like the Earth,
Making new life for itself out of death;
Goddess grant that freedom be like Her,
Everlasting and Just.
Wow, that’s really pretty. Where did you get it? Did you write it?
To a certain segment, a “faithful” interpretation is one that chooses “faith” over what the Constitution actually says. I’m gonna throw up–that was total dog whistle speechifying.
Better you should shelve those prayers and get to work on that Underground Railroad instead. I’m guessing that Bush could nominate Kissinger or that guy who wrote the “Left Behind” series for Justice and the Democrats would just roll over– after the appropriate period of fake resistance, of course. :/
What scares me is that I understand Karl Rove is in on the selection of the new nominee. Rove, who has stated that he plans to do whatever it takes for the Republican party to be in power, is not necessarily looking for a wise “constructionist.” Instead, he and others want Bush to pick someone who can play along with the Republican party. We may in fact get another Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. Kiss the rights of individuals and women goodbye.
I’ve received about five different “alert emails” from NARAL Pro-Choice America, N.O.W., and Planned Parenthood. I signed all the “tell your senators to not vote for anti-choice nominees,” and all that activism stuff. Of course I’m just one person but still…
“Better you should shelve those prayers and get to work on that Underground Railroad instead.”
I’m sure the pro-choice organizations have something similar to that in mind, already.
I’m fairly certain their aren’t anti-choice nominee’s. At best, with regards to women’s reproductive rights, there seems to be Gonzales, who is a stinker with regards to civil liberties (he wrote the Gitmo justifications).
Pingback: Technosailor » What’s Wrong With That?
Susan,
Yes, I wrote it. If someone else had, I would have mentioned them. This article needed a little bit of optimism.
Glad you like it. Thanks!
I can pray and work on an Underground Railroad at the same time.
Maybe there’ll be some sort of underground reproductive health care network if Roe gets overturned? I’m almost scared to post that now! I’ve been stewing over what the Right might start doing once it has more power and doesn’t have to worry so much about public opinion (except that of the Religious Reich)—warning labels on HIV-positive people? Homosexuality re-declared a mental disorder, and doctors legally obligated to order “treatment” for it? Paganism denied status as a real religion, and thus excluded from First Amendment protections? Maybe I’d better stop–don’t want to give them ideas.
Three and a half years ’til we get a new president. Hopefully the rest of the Justices can hold out until then. And hopefully the new resident of the White House will be able to wrap his or her head around the concept of nominating qualified people.
What will George do? Well, what has he done? Condi? (At least she is smarter then he is… not really that hard.) Let’s see Rummy, Chertoff, Margaret Spellings, Elaine Chow, Alberto Gonzales… YIKES!
“who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.”? (Gulp. how about faithfully seeing what damage their decisions can do to people and their families?)
Whatever we do, this is for keeps. I am far less worried about terrorists, then 25 years of Janice Brown on the bench; less about the middle class and more the margins with no voice. The left had better let folks in leadership know that this is where we show there is a difference between the two… not clear enough in recent elections. It cannot be enough to be Bush bashing, (though he is such a good target) we must explain why it is important to everyone that the court not lean so far to the right that it falls over and crushes us. We may have to rethink our goals. There is no chance of him appointing a centrist, but we can pressure for someone closer to O’Connor if the left uses a united and reasoned voice. In this struggle it would be a victory. (To think I was afraid of Reagan’s agenda…)
Blessings.
“…Three and a half years ’til we get a new president…”
Yeah, that ought to be enough time to start a Feminist Party. What are we waiting for again ? Somebody remind me, because I’m pretty sure it’s not for Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman to ride in on a white charger and save Roe. :/
What are we waiting for again ?
Votes.
Aw, you’re cute, Robert. Odds are if women’s right to vote were put up to a vote tomorrow, it would be a close call and a possible loss. Doesn’t make women’s rights wrong.
Aw, you’re cute, Robert.
Damn. I’m going for ruggedly handsome; kind of a Lloyd Bridges in Battlestar Galactica (“The Living Legend”) meets Robert Redford theme.
“Cute” means that I’ve overdone the pancake makeup again. Time to let a little more craggy out of the baggy.
Odds are if women’s right to vote were put up to a vote tomorrow, it would be a close call and a possible loss.
Shhh! That’s our secret plan for W’s third term, after Bork, Coulter, and Brown join the court and find that the voters’ right to privacy and choice override the plain text of the Constitution.
Doesn’t make women’s rights wrong.
A feminist party is a great idea. I’ll give you money. Please split the left in two and create a massive bleeding wound. Pretty please.
Well, two reasons really. First, I’ve heard speculation that it was a clear message being sent to the fundamentals with regards to faith based politics. Second, I find it extremely hard to look at the statement charitably when he’s already shown he will attempt to interpret and modify that very same constitution based on his faith (read: marriage amendment & abortion issues). He has made it clear that he feels religion DOES have a very real role in politics, including the constitution.
So either they can faithfully (as in loyally) interpret the constitution in the spirit it was meant, or they can faithfully (as in religiously) interpret the constitution to fit with a Christian agenda. Is there honestly any question for anyone as to which of these possibilities Bush would choose, and if he was in fact sending a message, does that not bear both scrutiny and concern?
Let’s face it; if what we are worried about is party unity, we’ve lost already. I am so sick of the two party winners take all (they are going to do what they want when they are elected) sort of BS that I could… I have been having this debate for years. (My cohort tells me, “not during a war.”?) We need a third party of Social Democrats, Socialists, Feminists to get the discussion off of whether Al is tough enough and to prove it he is OK with the death penalty kind on nonsense. The grand dad of Dems, Roosevelt did not come up with the Social programs, it was the Socialists who got one million votes in the 30s that forced the issues that people were starving onto the forefront. (It was stupid infighting that got them split into as many factions.)
Let’s worry less about splitting the left, and refuse to settle for the lesser of the two. The world is dying for a message, not the bashing that has come to be the mode of campaigning. We have the message, the rich get richer and you think it is independence? How about healthcare for your kids with asthma so you don’t go broke because they took away your plan at work in the latest negotiations? Hey, what kind of negotiating could you do if healthcare weren’t an issue?
Let’s think about just 25% of women getting the message and showing up for equal pay and benefits? Let’s take SSM and make it a civil liberties issue and not a religious issue, if the church don’t want to marry them, let the JP, lot’s of folks get married outside of the church, why should this be any different? We have the votes, what we need is the message that we will use them to advance the issues that are going to make a difference. (Not some stupid war that is wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars that could be spent on the homeless, abandoned and abused.)
If Roe is the best argument they can come up with for a Judge, we can clobber them on a dozen other reasons and show them for what they are. It is shameful we have been co-opted and don’t even know it, we have the issues, we simply have to step out on faith to talk about them, and quit reacting to their fear based manipulations.
Kim, I am a Christian, and it is not an agenda that reflects my faith. GW understands power, the SSM amndment noise is aimed at the judiciary, look at the timing. Lump SSM fear into judicail fear and you get a swell of scared people that want whoever GW and Rove says is going to keep the GLB folks from being given rights by the judges. It needs to be legislated, that takes the issue out of the courts. (Look at Spain.)
Blessings.
Thank You, Rock. I think that Robert is mistaken to assume that feminist issues would be the sole province of card-carrying Lefties (either my definition of the term or Robert’s). A party that made women’s issues front and center of its platform, rather than ghettoizing them as “special interests,” would have the potential of galvanizing millions of people who can’t see enough difference between the Donkey and the Elephant to bother voting.
We’re already wounded, and have been for years. Keeping quiet about how painful that is doesn’t seem to be stopping our supposed allies from finding opportunities to pour more salt in the wounds every chance they get. Otherwise, Democratic feminists wouldn’t be relying on a pro-life Whip to help save them from a pro-life president. :(
Nice post, Rock. I worry at times that I come off as hateful of Christianity, when that simply isn’t the case. The issue for me is that spirituality is deeply personal and unique to each individual and doesn’t have a place in our legislation when we have a country that’s very beginnings were based on the notion of freedom spirituality that didn’t automatically match everyone elses. I don’t have a problem with individuals spirituality influencing their decisions and life, but I do have a problem with the individual spirituality of others attempting to influence my life and my decisions.
The rest of what you were saying does indeed resonate!
Alsis;
I was yammering on in the car today at Matt and Amp about being ticked off that I had been called a ‘special interest’, in that I was a woman. At the same time, it struck me as humorously ironic that such a statement in and of itself is an admission of the inherent inequality of women, despite the repeated attempts of people saying ‘but what else needs to be done, women are equal!’
It’s kind of weird, isn’t it, Kim ? Women get to be a “special interest” and yet we are not “the important stuff” at the same time. Bah. >:
I don’t have a problem with individuals spirituality influencing their decisions and life, but I do have a problem with the individual spirituality of others attempting to influence my life and my decisions.
This is a particular hobby horse of mine. Your first group are people who have faith; your second group are peple who have religion and they act out of need to compel obedience, not belief (which, of couse, cannot be forced). The irony is that the first group is more likely to actually change other people through the quality of their own behavior and ideas. I certainly have been much more affected by Reinhold Neibhur than James Dobson.
Typo Errata:
Neibuhr
AndiF,
The likes of Reinhold Neibuhr and his brother, Merton, Berigan, Peterson, Teresa, Crossan, Yancey, Lewis etc are incredible thinkers and doers of the Christian faith. Unfortunately combined they are probably less known then Dobson. (Maybe not.) They have and continue to influence my walk very much. Unfortunately Dobson has a greater affect in that as an Evangelical every time the Fundamentalist tag is dropped on me and others who do not share his views, we still all get rolled together.
The left can become an avenue where people of faith can gather and share that love and compassion we know, mine from Christ and others as they understand it. However rhetoric that blankets people of faith does little to warm them to feeling welcomed. I know it is hard when Christ the liberator (He came to set the captives free.) is used to club people with legalism and judgment, but that is not the fault of the faith, but those that just don’t get it.
There is an excellent magazine called, “The Christian Century.”? It is nothing like Christianity Today or other pop religious mags. I would recommend looking at it sometime or visiting the web site. It is progressive in nature as our faith should be, (in my opinion.) and speaks to the Neibuhr crowd. We are out here; we just don’t have a real home.
Blessings.
I can understand the sentiment behind this, but to me, the warm feeling of being welcomed in a political fold should be despite religion, not because of it. That isn’t to say that the unique perspectives shouldn’t be appreciated, but by approaching it as a despite, it doesn’t set a heirarchy on the perspectives as one being better or more legitimate than another.
Rock,
I should clarify that I’m not a Christian nor am I interested in becoming one. (In fact, I don’t wish to belong to any religion.) I do have, however, a deep appreciation for people of faith. But thanks for the thoughts.
Kim,
My feeling is that religion should never be a part of politics. I don’t want anyone bringing their religion into political discourse ever. That’s when it becomes about compliance to a specific view. But I think it is entirely different when people’s beliefs lead them to take part in political activities. I feel fairly confident, for example, in thinking that Martin Luther King’s faith led him to take the actions he did. King wasn’t trying to get anyone to accept his religious viewpoint; heii was using his faith as an inspiration for his thoughts and actions.
I think we’re on the same page here, Andi! Wouldn’t it be great if whoever takes O’Connor’s place agree’s with us? :)
Kim,
It certainly would be but I suspect neither one of us is going to hold our breath.
But just once when a dem is accused of not being religious, I would like them to make the distinction we did rather than trotting out their sunday school attendance card.
Some other stuff that might be of interest vis-a-vis a Women’s Party, or the ability for women to more readily carve ourselves out a place in a 3rd Party:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wm_029200_politicalpar.htm
“…U.S. third parties have been in the vanguard in embracing the feminist goals of suffrage and national officeholding. At least six parties, including the Populist, Progressive, and Prohibition parties, preceded the major parties in support of suffrage and equal-pay legislation. Of the female candidates for president (12) and vice president (46) appearing on a national ballot since 1920, all but one were nominated by third parties. Parties of the Left, in particular the Socialist Workers Party, have been most open to a woman on the ticket. More than a dozen women of color were nominated between 1980 and 1992.
Exclusively women’s parties have also been formed or considered. The Equal Rights Party offered the presidential candidacies of Victoria Claflin Woodhull (1872) and Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (1884, 1888) as a means of raising gender and ethnic issues. For example, the platform of 1884 advocated equality and justice for all regardless of sex, color, or nationality and supported full citizenship for Native Americans. In 1989 the national conference of the National Organization for Women (NOW) agreed to explore the possibility of forming a new political party that would be more responsive to the issues of women’s rights, racism, homophobia, the environment, peace, and social justice. The resulting Commission for Responsive Democracy, after two years of regional hearings and meetings, announced in 1992 the 21st Century Party, the Nation’s Equality Party, with Dolores Huerta as its chair. The national NOW conference has endorsed the concept of the party, but it is unclear whether this group would operate as a political party by contesting elections or act as a social movement/interest group as has the National Woman’s Party…”
Of course, we all know that NOW’s aspirations toward a Women’s Party proved to be a paper tiger the minute there were subject to a little vitriol from the proto-Kossies back in the 1990s. That wouldn’t preclude another organization with more guts and less dependence on the DP’s purses from jumping into the breech, if they wanted to.
I understand the concern for religion in politics I am equally concerned with state sanctioned religious positions other than it is OK for them to be. I personally cannot separate my world view from my faith; therefore my political positions are determined largely by my faith. This is the “warmth”? I spoke of. For my mom it is a sense of justice as she is a non believer, (her words) and her compassion is an expression of other beliefs within her. The point I was making is that wherever the compassion for others comes from, it ought to be welcomed in the left, as we hold a position of Social Justice. (As opposed to the get all you can and to heck with everyone else stuff.)
I believe AndiF’s statement about MLK is correct; he was motivated largely from his sense of calling and faith in God’s will and wisdom in the struggle for civil rights. It was his context to a lot of folks benefit. The same for Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, John Paul, and Daniel Berigan, who has spent many months in jail for resisting military violence, poverty, human rights and nuclear proliferation in Christ.
Religion in and of itself is not a threat to the political process. There needs to be room for all belief systems that express themselves in respect for others, to be free to live without coercion in a safe and compassionate community. If that is achieved by the brotherhood of communist philosophy, religion, or faith in the innateness of our human nature so be it.
I have never made the receiving of my actions predicated on anyone knowing the source of my motivation; it is not material to the offering. However, I cannot offer a drink of water outside of my faith in serving humanity in Christ’s name; if that makes me ineligible to work with you in politics that would be a terrible shame.
Treating people fairly and in love as a matter of ones faith, should not be an impediment to being a Justice either.
Blessings.
alsis39,
Good stuff, going to the site to see the rest. Thanks.
Pingback: What’s Wrong With That? | Technosailor.com