Here are a few justices that could be raised to the Supreme Court, should Dubya choose….
Samuel Alito: Sitting on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he is nicknamed “Scalito”? because of his ultra-conservative, anti-choice views.[1] Alito has concluded that “time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing [a woman] to receive information she has not sought,”? did not qualify as undue burdens on women’s reproductive rights, and he supported the spousal notification provision in Casey.[2]
Janice Rogers Brown: A “loose cannon”? who writes with a “poison pen,”?[3] Brown is currently a justice on the California Supreme Court. She is anti-choice, and widely known as the most conservative member of the court, dissenting in cases to oppose privacy and reproductive rights.[4] Brown twice failed to receive a “qualified”? rating from a state bar commission due to her lack of impartiality and clear bias.[5]
Emilio Garza: Judge Garza of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is also anti-choice, often concurring in cases to state that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.[6] He wrote that “Roe and its progeny, including Bellotti II, have always stood on precarious constitutional footing… after Casey, these cases may not even be constitutional law.”?[7]
Edith Jones: A judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals whose opinions “bespeak a withering contempt for the rights of the riffraff,”?[8] Jones has consistently voted against reproductive rights. She wrote an extremely anti-choice concurring opinion in the case by the original Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, which attempted to reopen that landmark case.[9]
Michael Luttig: As a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, he has written two very anti-choice decisions, one of which upheld a Virginia abortion ban nearly identical to the one the Supreme Court subsequently struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart.[10] He also authored the original decision striking down part of the Violence Against Women Act.[11]
Michael McConnell: He is currently a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which he was appointed by George W. Bush. Before his appointment McConnell denounced Roe v. Wade and endorsed a constitutional amendment reversing the doctrines of Roe and Casey and banning abortion nationwide.[12]
John Roberts: Robers was appointed by President Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As Deputy Solicitor General in George H.W. Bush’s administration, Roberts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.[13]
J. Harvey Wilkinson: Currently a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Wilkinson is a staunch conservative on the most conservative court in the nation. Wilkinson voted anti-choice in a divided decision upholding the Virginia parental notification law.[14]
To sum all of this up…
The Bush Judges: Rolling Back Rights
A revolution is indeed underway in the federal courts. Rights and laws that generations of Americans had come to take for granted have been wiped off the books, and more are at risk. Already courts have struck down anti-discrimination laws, part of the Violence Against Women Act, affirmative action programs, and other guarantees of equal opportunity. Federal courts have limited workers’ rights and weakened environmental protections. And the courts are allowing more and more restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.
None of Bush’s 52 courts of appeals nominees has endorsed the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade, and at least 16 have clear anti-choice records. Furthermore, research has shown that appellate court judges appointed by anti-choice presidents (Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush) are four times more likely to issue anti-choice rulings than judges appointed by other presidents. Taken together, these facts cast serious doubt on the ability of the Bush nominees to provide fair and impartial adjudication of issues involving the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose.
Whew. Scary days are comin’.
Oh come now, PA, next you’ll be trying to convince us that women are people, too.
Don’t forget Bork!
Can you post about puppies now, please?
Not ones that got run over by a truck or anything.
Is (shudder) Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown really that much of a possibility? She was just appointed to the California Supreme Court position a few months ago, after a pitched battle over her nomination.
Then again, we have no power and the president has no shame.
I bet he nominates a woman (Brown, Jones?) then tries to guilt-trip or even threaten opponents (remember the Clarence Thomas nomination?)
Didn’t we just leave this party?
Now we have two questions: a) What is Dubya going to do? and b) What are the Senate Democrats going to do?
Some glass-is-brim-full optimist elsewhere online suggested that Bush might pacify the moderates by nominating a moderate judge to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Conner. That would ensure a nice smooth passage through the Senate and calm the country’s progressives somewhat. It would be a smart and considerate thing to do. There are just two problema. Bush is an idiot. And Bush is selfish.
More likely, he will nominate one of the above crowd, and the Democrats will hold up the vote, or filibuster, or retaliate by slowing Senate business to the type of crawl most often seen when there’s a seven-car pile-up on a busy, under-construction freeway at rush hour.
I’ve just found out that the quorum for the Senate is 51; therefore the Democrats cannot shut down the Senate by absenting themselves in order to create a lack of quorum. Last I checked, they could still filibuster, and of course they can delay things, and draw out discussions, and either the general Senators or the committee members (I’m not sure which–maybe both) could keep calling for changes to be made to various pieces of legislation—if they fail, it takes time; if they succeed, the legislation’s sponsers might withdraw it.
I’m picturing a Republican sponsering some sort of firearms legislation and the Democrats moving to change “firearm” to “water pistol.” Or an anti-abortion bill in which all instances of the word “woman” were replaced with “blow-up doll.”
I don’t know if it will work, or whether the Democrats are interested in being that juvenile. But it’s a funny thought.
Hey Pseudo-Adrienne…
How’s it going????
It should be an interesting couple of weeks to see where this next supreme court fight ends up…
“…the Democrats will hold up the vote, or filibuster, or retaliate by slowing Senate business to the type of crawl most often seen when there’s a seven-car pile-up on a busy, under-construction freeway at rush hour…”
You should only be so lucky. :/
why would anyone in government being against antidiscrimminationor try to reverse antidiscrimination laws?. how will that benefit anyone? surly not the government or business, unless everyone in government hates woman, or blacks or hispanics or whatever?
I understand tho their desire to erode personal rights so they can have more control and get more money from us and to be able basically do what they want without fear of protests or counterarguments, which all sounds like a dictatorship, which is something people have fought against in this country.
that way they can say if you voice a disagreement they can use the patriot act or some other law to shut you up.
RR
Pingback: Fun sites « Ten Thousand Monkeys