John Nichols of The Nation has suggested some “basic standards” for the pro-choice Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have hinted they’ll give Roberts a ‘free pass’ because he seems to be a “nice guy” with a satisfactory past judicial record. Let’s just say that Nichols emphasizes responsibility, on the part of the pro-choice Senators who would (and will) vote ‘yes’ in confirming Roberts and its consequences. Also carefully documenting what the nominee said and “promised” while under oath in front of the committee, and then observing how they actually rule as a Supreme Court Justice. You know, keeping an eye-out for perjury.
[…]Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination that the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the legal standard that long-established court rulings should not be casually challenged.
When pressed, Roberts suggested that only in extraordinary circumstances–when the precedent has proved to be “unworkable” or “difficult to apply”–should the Court even consider overturning settled law.
Since the Roe v. Wade precedent has survived basically intact through three decades of legal and legislative assaults, and since it has not proved to be unworkable or difficult to apply, Roberts has effectively promised the Senate–under oath–that he will not seek as the Chief Justice to outlaw abortion or other reproductive rights.[…]
[…] But Roberts has clearly indicated a position with regard to Roe v. Wade. And that position is that, no matter what his personal opinions, he would not serve on the nation’s highest court as the sort of conservative judicial activist who sets out to overturn established law.
It appears at this point that a number of senators who support a woman’s right to choose will vote to confirm Roberts’s nomination, which in all likelihood will gain the approval of the full Senate. It also appears, from the comments of these senators, that many of them were impressed with Roberts’s performance before the Judiciary Committee–even if they would have preferred that the nominee be more forthcoming in response to questioning from Democratic and Republican senators.
While your correspondent continues to hold to the view that there are more than enough reasons to reject Roberts–beginning with his record on voting rights issues and certainly including his radical pro-business track record–he also recognizes political reality. In recognizing reality, however, it is important to set basic standards.
If and when senators who are supportive of reproductive rights cast their votes for Roberts, they ought make note of the nominee’s statements to the committee with regard to this issue. Get it in the record again. And then add to the record a notation that a nominee who intentionally lies to the Senate must necessarily be subject to impeachment and removal from office.
These senators should also make it clear that, if John Roberts turns out to be the judicial activist that some fear, and if that activism takes the form of an attack on what he has described as “settled” law, then they will move the impeachment resolution immediately. (emphasis mine)
Damn, and here my solution would have been to simply refuse to vote for any Democratic Senator (or anyone else) who would vote ‘yes’ for Roberts’ confirmation. Which I can pretty much count on doing since–sigh–Roberts is due to get a pass from the Senate in about a week, and then we’ll get Dubya’s other nominee. Or for a more extreme (and unrealistic) solution, depending on the mood of everyone else in the pro-choice movement especially dissatisfied pro-choice women, propose that the women of this country who value their reproductive rights and wish to be viewed as autonomous citizens in the eyes of the Law, form their own political party much like the feminist women of Sweden, or perhaps one similar to Canada’s ‘feminist initiative’ party still in progress. As already mentioned that would be the extreme and more than likely would not be successful anyway. But hey, let’s just watch how things turn out with Roberts on the bench…..and for me at least, despair all the while. And on a final note, a hat-tip to the New York Times for publishing a very powerful article about women and abortion–‘ Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly’.
(*PS: Thanks to Amp and Alas reader Samantha for the link to the still-in-progress Canadian ‘feminist initiative’ party site*)
They’d never get a perjury charge to stick, because the accused could always say that he or she believed what she said at the time of the questioning, but changed his or her mind between then and the ruling to the contrary.
It would be almost impossible to get the votes to impeach any Supreme Court Justice because once seated they acted in contradiction to their confirmation testimony.
For one thing, people have a right to change their mind.
Second, at no point did Roberts (or any other Supreme Court Justice nominee before him, as far as I can tell) give an absolute assurance or guarantee on any issue, even stare decis. The Supreme Court has overturned it’s own precedents before, so there’s precedent even for ignoring precedent. You just can’t tie a Supreme Court Justice’s hands before he or she takes their seat.
Here’s what the Constitution says about what a Justice needs to do to hold onto their office: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,. Good luck on getting the House (by whatever margin; it’s not in the Constitution) and 67 Senators to agree that a violation of “good Behavior” has occurred if Roberts votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade, nevermind the more likely case of just modifying the hell of out it. Such an impeachment has never occurred before; those very few Federal judges that have been impeached have committed crimes unconnected with their official duties.
But, like I’ve said before, this isn’t the critical one; it’s the O’Connor replacement that will make a critical swing in the Court.
P-A wrote:
Why can’t you watch Roberts on the bench and found an American version of the Canadian group at the same time ? Of course, the Canadians have one up on us, because their system is already parlimentary, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t make election reform part of a feminist platform, as well.
I keep reading all over feminist blog land that Democrat feminists are angry, that they’ve had it, that they are going to walk. Unfortunately, almost nobody believes that, including me. The tired saw about the “circular firing squad” or whatever is going to be whipped out right on schedule, just in time for mid-terms and for the next DLC hack being crowned for 2008. You’ll all fall in line, like you always do. RonF points out that O’Connor’s replacement is the real key to massive changes in how the court rules. Do Democratic feminists think that will stop their leaders from playing football a la’ Lucy VanPelt yet again ? Because I don’t. What exactly are you waiting for ?
Since “reframing” is all the rage right now, unless we’ve moved on to something else that I haven’t been informed of yet, I’d like to propose a couple of reframes of my own:
Tell the next clown who trots out this “circular firing squad” guilt-trip mantra to cram it up his pious nose. The trouble with this image is that it’s phony. The liberal-left spectrum does not form a circle, it forms a ladder, much as does the average corporation. Not everyone who shows up even gets issued a pea shooter, much less heavy artillery. When dealing with an overly hierarchical organization, there’s no need to accept a metaphor that fails to acknowledge the existence of the hierarchy.
Also, don’t put up with anyone telling you that you’re “splitting,” “spoiling,” whatever. Tell them it’s been split up and spoiled for years, and that you’re simply acknowledging what everyone with functioning senses has known all along. When they tell you, “You’re hurting the Party,” tell them that the Party has been hurting you for years, and that it’s high past time you returned the favor.
You hit a lot of interesting points, alsis. I definitely think that Democratic feminists need to do more to have their voices heard in the Democratic party, and work for more change. A lot of us shouldn’t be afraid to say as you said, “well the party has been hurting us for years,” and keep pushing our leaders (and elect more pro-choice feminist leaders and encourage women in general to run for office more often). The Democratic party is due for a little house-cleaning, and whatever comes out of these confirmation hearings–both with Roberts and the next nominee (and even the ’06 elections)–and how the Dems will vote, will be a clear indication to us as to what needs to be done and what are our options as far as political parties goes (or even forming new ones).
I haven’t entirely ruled out a feminist or progressive women oriented party yet. My only worry would be the “success” of it.
“What exactly are you waiting for ?”
Someone who’s a charismatic genius when it comes to rallying large numbers of dissatisfied people–ie: pro-choice women, progressives, liberals, feminists, etc.,–together when it comes to forming new political parties. Because I sure as hell don’t have the credentials, intelligence, or charisma to be a ‘founder’ of anything. And who would listen to a 20-year-old college kid anyway? I can be an activist, blogger, send emails to my Senators and Reps, and clamor on about my dissatisfaction, call for our voices to be heard far more often then they are now, and be ready and willing to join *the new movement* should it ever occur. May sound cowardly (and it is) but that’s my current situation.
But I am all for “hurting” the Dems–politically–if it will wake them up and get them to pay attention to us more often.
Alsis, right on about the Dems. Third parties can work, and grass-roots can work, and we’ve got the Internet. Howard Dean and Ross Perot have proved men can do it – so we just need a woman who’s willing to take point. Here’s a short list for discussion purposes:
Janet Napolitano
Ruth Ann Minner
Kathleen Sebelius
Jennifer Granholm
Christine Gregoire
Lucy Baxley
Sally Pederson
Beth Edmonds
Carol Molnau
Catherine Baker Knoll
Barbara Lawton
Marisara Pont Marchese
Diane Denish
Beverly Perdue
Audrey A. Lamyssaire
Johnette Ruffner-Ceaser
I would have suggested Kathleen Blanco prior to Hurricane Katrina.
P-A, this might be the generation gap speaking, but I have absolutely zero hope that the Dems can be “taken over,” “reformed from within,” etc. This so-called “takeover” has supposedly been imminent during my entire career as a voter, and as far as I can tell we have nothing to show for it but Billy rescinding the Global Gag Rule and an occasional speech from Jesse Jackson at the DNC. We’ve sat through a second stolen national election helmed by yet another clueless stuffed shirt who arrogantly rolled up the anti-war movement, wrung money out of it, stuffed it into his back pocket, and never looked back. All this without so much as a whimper from most of that movement in the process.
I’ve wavered before since 2000, even hoping in 2002 that maybe the supposedly new and novel split in the previous Presidential race might have taught the Party leaders something. I was a fool. Not enough angry voters bolted in 2000 to do anything but send a message to their leaders that could be spun any which way depending on the spinners’ agenda. I even hoped in 2004 that if I were just a “team player” and pushed for Kucinich (supposedly that’s why so many rejected “the other guy,” because he refused to be a “team player”), maybe something would get done. Nothing got done. Most of the people who made the “team player” argument in the first place eschewed Kucinich for Dean, ignoring that the latter’s actual record in office is pretty much Clinton with a down-East accent. Image was more important than action. Kucinich’s first loyalty was to the Party machine and his place in it. When push came to shove, all else was window dressing and came off at his leaders’ command. Never again. I’m finished with it.
If you are for inflicting hurt and making people pay attention to you, I don’t think alliances with 3rd parties or the founding of a new one should be put off much longer. Charismatic leaders are a mixed blessing in any case. Steinem took heat for years over her more or less default position as media-friendly “leader” of the feminist movement, though now she seems happy enough with the showbiz aspect of it all.
“Success” can’t merely be measured by the endurance of a Party or even how many votes it pulls in. Suffrage in the U.S. was most assuredly the product of a 3rd Party. So were a host of other reforms that our supposed allies are now busily helping Republicans throw out. If we sit back on our haunches for much more of this shit, we’re probably going to end up re-fighting the suffrage battle all over again as well.
“If we sit back on our haunches for much more of this shit, we’re probably going to end up re-fighting the suffrage battle all over again as well. ”
And we Third-Wavers are woefully unprepared to handle something like that, or even going back to the dark ages of pre-Roe and even pre-Griswold. Believe me, I understand the frustration of Second-Wavers who look at us and say, “what are you doing?! why are you just sitting there?! wake-up! not all of your rights are immune!”
We are being too complacent and pre-occuppied with this mindset that “oh we’ll never loose our rights, we’ll never go back to pre-Roe days, the guys we vote for in Congress would never stand by and let our rights go down the toilet.” Wrong. With all of the scary crap the Congressional neocons, the Bush Administration, conservative Republican state-legislators, the fundie-Christians (who’ve gotten into bed with the neocons in power), and the *Democrats* (aiding the Rightie-wingnuts all the way) are doing, oh it *is* a possibility that women could loose some of their liberties and rights in the coming years, and we could go back to the dark era of pre-Roe. Or even pre-Griswold.
No argument here that we need to snap out of it and get to *work*. Of all the things we can hold responsible for the rolling-back trend of women’s rights and progress, our failure to do *something* more to better prevent it is one of them.
“Suffrage in the U.S. was most assuredly the product of a 3rd Party.”
That can serve as inspiration for those of us who haven’t entirely ruled out the 3rd party option. And it is good to hear the “generation-gap” speak. Sometimes you need a lecture from “veterans” who have more life-experience and wisdom when it comes to these things.
Heh. At 39, I’m a little young to be 2nd Wave, and probably too old to be cutting edge. Anyway, fifteen years ago, I was nowhere near as knowledgeable on feminist issues as the women I’ve met online and IRL in the last six-odd years. I had the “correct” opinions, joined a few of the right orgs and all, but mostly I was just phoning it in. I’m trying to do a little better now. :/
Obviously, whether we’re talking busy students juggling degrees or underemployed art-farts ( :D ), most of us don’t have the time or resources to drop everything and call for our own version of Seneca Falls. One thing I wonder, though: If you contacted some of the Canadians who are working on the Feminist Initiative, maybe you and some other Americans could figure out some way to do an online version of a conference. I definitely think we have a lot to learn from the sisters outside the U.S. if we’re going to break out of the stifling two-party mold.
Of course, the Canadians have one up on us, because their system is already parlimentary.
alsis39, I’m curious as to what you mean by this?
Lee, the example of Kathleen Blanco is instructive. It’s one thing to find someone who’s charismatic and electable. But once they get in office, they’re going to have to be able to lead and govern, which is an additional skill set not always found in good candidates.
Take the example of Illinois. We elected a black female Senator a while back. This was viewed as a great step forward. But it became a big step backwards, because she turned out to be a quite ineffective Senator and was plagued by personal scandals that she couldn’t handle at all. It’ll bea while before the citizens of Illinois will vote for someone based solely on gender or race for a while. If you’re going to put someone up as a candidate, make sure they’ve got the skills to actually do the job they’ve been elected to.