{"id":1851,"date":"2005-09-20T08:05:57","date_gmt":"2005-09-20T15:05:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2005\/09\/19\/callin-a-bluff-and-asking-for-some-standards\/"},"modified":"2005-09-20T08:05:57","modified_gmt":"2005-09-20T15:05:57","slug":"callin-a-bluff-and-asking-for-some-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=1851","title":{"rendered":"Calling a bluff and "basic standards""},"content":{"rendered":"

John Nichols of The Nation<\/em><\/strong><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

[…]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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.[…]<\/p>\n

[…] 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. <\/strong><\/p>\n

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. <\/strong><\/p>\n

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. <\/strong> (emphasis mine)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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<\/em> for a more extreme<\/strong> (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<\/strong><\/a>. 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<\/em> for publishing a very powerful article about women and abortion–‘ Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly’.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

(*PS<\/strong>: Thanks to Amp and Alas<\/em> reader Samantha for the link to the still-in-progress Canadian ‘feminist initiative’ party site*)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,27,111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion-reproductive-rights","category-elections-and-politics","category-supreme-court-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1851"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1851\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}