Saturday, May 17, 2008
What's next for abortion, gay rights and post-9/11 civil liberties? Activists and scholars debate the Supreme Court's future.
Jul 1, 2005 | Nan Aron, president, Alliance for Justice
Will President Bush reach out across the aisle and pick a candidate who enjoys broad Democratic support? That nominee would be easily confirmed. But if he nominates a candidate whose record suggests that the court would move in a more radical direction, far from the mainstream and jeopardizing the progress America's made, then I anticipate a fierce battle.
The Alliance for Justice is extremely concerned that, given his track record, President Bush will nominate a judge hostile to women's rights, the environment and consumer protection.
Choosing a Supreme Court justice is the most important act of a president. All the nation will look to the White House to see what President Bush will do. We urge him to do what his predecessors in the White House have done -- nominate a consensus candidate with the support of the other party. In so doing his nominee would sail through confirmation, benefiting both his party and the country for decades to come.
If he names a candidate who would shift the ideological balance of the court, putting individual rights in jeopardy, we anticipate that [these] extraordinary circumstances would justify a defeat.
Cass Sunstein, Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, Law School and Department of Political Science, University of Chicago
This will be an extremely intense and probably ugly battle ahead. O'Connor has been an old-style conservative -- one who believes in tradition, in respect for the past, and in incremental change. Many modern conservatives reject incremental change; they think the Constitution has been badly misinterpreted and that it's time to right old wrongs. The filibuster deal is completely off, I think.
The Bush administration isn't monolithic, but key issues that will shape the battle include the president's power to fight the war on terrorism, the right of privacy, gay and lesbian rights, separation of church and state -- that's a really big one -- federalism, abortion, gun control, property rights and affirmative action. I think the Bush administration will seek a reliable, even staunch conservative -- one who isn't likely to be unpredictable.
As far as who Bush might pick, Michael McConnell [currently a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] is very conservative -- and also superb, principled and judicious. He's much more conservative than O'Connor, but he'd be a fine choice. For liberals, there are lots of worst-case scenarios, unfortunately!
Barry W. Lynn, executive director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Todays announcement by Sandra Day OConnor potentially opens the door to the greatest change in the courts direction in modern history. Although OConnor was a conservative justice, she often saw the complexity of church-state issues and tried to choose a course that respected the countrys religious diversity.
Religious right leaders are obviously going to throw their weight around. They expect the next Supreme Court seat to be filled by a justice in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. They don't want any surprises, or "one more Souter," as they sometimes say.
The so-called compromise over the filibuster is troubling. The Senate followed that deal by rubber-stamping three of the administration's most outlandish judicial nominees. Two of them, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, are major threats to the separation of church and state. It is my hope that the filibuster is still a viable option in the face of a nominee with a record of hostility to the First Amendment principle of church-state separation.
I think President Bush would like a Supreme Court that would turn back a number of civil rights advancements and weaken the separation of church and state. The administration realizes that an important constituency, its religious right base, is clamoring for greater influence on the Supreme Court.
Our organization opposed the nomination of Michael McConnell to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We would likely join with other public interest groups in opposing his nomination to the Supreme Court. Not only is he wrongheaded on church-state issues, but he also harbors contempt for Roe vs. Wade.
It would be disastrous for all Americans if this administration gets the opportunity to fill more than one vacancy on the Supreme Court. With O'Connor's retirement, that's now a likely scenario, and it's highly disconcerting.
Nancy Keenan, president, NARAL Pro-Choice America
The shape of this nomination will be determined by President Bush -- will he unite the country by consulting senators from both parties and finding a consensus pick, or will he try to force a hardcore conservative through on a partisan vote? If he chooses the latter course, it would certainly fit the definition of a "special circumstance" that would warrant a Senate filibuster. Certainly, senators should not give their assent to any nominee who can't demonstrate a commitment to personal freedom, or who won't answer questions about such basic constitutional questions as the right to privacy.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision to retire from the Supreme Court marks a significant moment for the values of individual freedom and the right to privacy that are core principles under Roe vs. Wade. We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, standing her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way. When it comes to reproductive freedom, her tenure has been one of narrowly averted disaster. At key junctures when a woman's right to choose could have been lost entirely, she kept Roe alive, but at a significant cost for many of our most vulnerable women. Now that she has retired, stakes are high -- and NARAL Pro-Choice America is prepared to defend Roe vs. Wade against anti-choice nominees.
The radical right has been trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade for a generation, and they are looking to President Bush to get them to that promised land. There's no question it's their top priority -- and one that he has shared throughout his political career. But if he chooses that route he'll have a fight on his hands with the 60 percent of Americans who disagree.
Roberta Combs, president, Christian Coalition of America
We believe that we have already seen a prelude to what is on the horizon. The liberals have shown during the nomination process of the lower court nominations that they are going to fight with all their vigor on the Supreme Court fight. All over Washington in the next couple of weeks there will be "war rooms" that will be set up on both sides to fight and support the president's nominee.
This is going to be the most powerful fight ever in the history of the Supreme Court nomination process and we will be ready. The Christian Coalition of America has set up our own "war room" around the country. As of last week, CCA has formed the National Judiciary Task Force. In the next few weeks, we will have a state chairman in every state in the country. The main goal of the task force is to be prepared and ready with our grass roots to make certain President Bush's nominee is confirmed. We will have thousands of petitions, make phone calls to every one of the 50 senators and have rallies in support of the nominee in every state.
As we see it, the key issues the Bush administration will have in mind when making nominations are overturning Roe vs. Wade, allowing the Ten Commandments and crhches in public places, and overturning the Massachusetts decision allowing same-sex marriage.
The best-case scenario is that Janice Rogers Brown will be nominated and confirmed. She is an American Cinderella story. She was raised in the segregated South by sharecroppers and rose to become a state Supreme Court judge in California. She is a minority by being a woman and an African-American. Justice Brown is very qualified and would do an excellent job. The worst-case scenario would be the confirmation of someone who does not uphold the Constitution and legislates from the bench.
Ben Brandzel, campaign director, MoveOn PAC
Now that Justice O'Connor has resigned, our members and the American people know that some of our most basic rights and freedoms are on the line in a very real way. O'Connor is a very respected and, in many circles, beloved justice, which ensures there will broad engagement in finding the right replacement for her. But also, we know that the balance of the court is really in the air, and could be shifted dramatically by the wrong nominee. So the priority of our campaign and our members' energy around defending their rights couldn't be higher. We're anticipating a sustained and intense campaign to protect our rights if Bush's nominee is not in the same vein as Justice O'Connor.
Let's look at Bush's Patriot Act, when Bush exploited people's mourning after 9/11 and gave the federal government unchecked powers to spy on our private records, communication and even our homes.
Or the way Bush used the Schiavo tragedy to score political points by violating our most basic individual right, the right to make our own private family decisions.
When Bush nominates a new Supreme Court justice, the American people will insist that our senators do what it takes to protect our rights -- it's that simple. And I think that's exactly what the Senate will do. They know that people won't tolerate an extremist nominee, just like they didn't tolerate the president's outrageous meddling in the Schiavo family tragedy. Republicans learned a hard lesson about following their radical leadership into disaster, and Democrats saw that they can stand up for our rights and win.
A filibuster may be necessary to stop a nominee who poses an extraordinary threat to our rights. If that happens, we trust the 14 senators who signed the compromise that ended the "nuclear option" will keep their word. The public has been against the "nuclear option" from Day One. If it comes down to that fight, I know the American people will win, and our rights will be preserved.
Get Salon in your mailbox!
