![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What's at stake? Why should I be angry?
Nov. 6th, 2004 12:54 amOctober 29, 2004
By Leanne Libert, Publications Coordinator
Eight days before the November elections, the Supreme Court announced that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, was hospitalized to undergo treatment for thyroid cancer. Even before Rehnquist became ill, court watchers had been predicting his retirement for years.
In a presidential race dominated by rhetoric of war and terror, this news sends a reminder to voters that this year's election not only determines the next leader of our country, but a president who will appoint at least one, perhaps as many as four, Supreme Court justices—including the next Chief Justice.
These vacancies are virtually guaranteed due to the age and poor health of three other Supreme Court justices: John Paul Stevens, 84, Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71.
The next president will affect the direction of this country for four years, but the lifetime justices he appoints to the Supreme Court will make decisions affecting reproductive rights, civil rights, hate crimes, the environment and the workplace for decades.
Bush Legacy: 200 Lifetime Federal Judges
This country has been witness to a determined effort over the past quarter century to reshape the federal judiciary and restrict individual liberties while increasing corporate power. George W. Bush played a large role in this radical remodeling of the judiciary. His record-setting 200 lifetime appointments stacked the federal courts with ultra-conservative, right-wing justices, demonstrating little respect for the hard-won rights of women in the U.S.
While Bush rarely discusses his plans for the Supreme Court, his appointments thus far leave women with a bleak outlook for the future of the judicial system, and this will only increase if he is elected on Nov. 2.
During the 2000 campaign, Bush named ultra-conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—both prime offenders of women's rights—as the Supreme Court justices he most admired. Both men voted in 1992 to limit abortion access and scale back Roe v. Wade. A narrow 5-to-4 majority managed to keep Roe's core liberties intact. In their dissent, Thomas and Scalia said, "We believe Roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled."
The appointment of one more conservative justice will tip the Supreme Court balance and women could lose what is left of the reproductive freedom granted by Roe, along with 30 years of civil rights progress.
At both the Republican National Convention in September and the final presidential debate Oct. 8, Bush said, "I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law," but the interpretation he hopes for translates into disaster for women.
A Delicate Balance
Many 5-4 split rulings in recent past demonstrate the already merciless conservatism that dominates the Supreme Court.
In Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), the Court voted 5-4 to prohibit individuals and communities from using federal courts to stop actions by their state governments that disproportionately hurt minorities. One vote overturned 30 years of law and practice that allowed such state rules and laws to be challenged under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), five justices allowed the Boy Scouts to continue discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
One vote in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) saved reproductive rights by reversing an abortion procedures ban that would have outlawed most of the safest abortion procedures commonly used after 13 weeks of pregnancy.
And don't forget that one vote on the Supreme Court declared Bush the 43rd president.
Copyright 1995-2004, All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial use. National Organization for Women
(This was printed from http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/102904court.html)
By Leanne Libert, Publications Coordinator
Eight days before the November elections, the Supreme Court announced that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, was hospitalized to undergo treatment for thyroid cancer. Even before Rehnquist became ill, court watchers had been predicting his retirement for years.
In a presidential race dominated by rhetoric of war and terror, this news sends a reminder to voters that this year's election not only determines the next leader of our country, but a president who will appoint at least one, perhaps as many as four, Supreme Court justices—including the next Chief Justice.
These vacancies are virtually guaranteed due to the age and poor health of three other Supreme Court justices: John Paul Stevens, 84, Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71.
The next president will affect the direction of this country for four years, but the lifetime justices he appoints to the Supreme Court will make decisions affecting reproductive rights, civil rights, hate crimes, the environment and the workplace for decades.
Bush Legacy: 200 Lifetime Federal Judges
This country has been witness to a determined effort over the past quarter century to reshape the federal judiciary and restrict individual liberties while increasing corporate power. George W. Bush played a large role in this radical remodeling of the judiciary. His record-setting 200 lifetime appointments stacked the federal courts with ultra-conservative, right-wing justices, demonstrating little respect for the hard-won rights of women in the U.S.
While Bush rarely discusses his plans for the Supreme Court, his appointments thus far leave women with a bleak outlook for the future of the judicial system, and this will only increase if he is elected on Nov. 2.
During the 2000 campaign, Bush named ultra-conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—both prime offenders of women's rights—as the Supreme Court justices he most admired. Both men voted in 1992 to limit abortion access and scale back Roe v. Wade. A narrow 5-to-4 majority managed to keep Roe's core liberties intact. In their dissent, Thomas and Scalia said, "We believe Roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled."
The appointment of one more conservative justice will tip the Supreme Court balance and women could lose what is left of the reproductive freedom granted by Roe, along with 30 years of civil rights progress.
At both the Republican National Convention in September and the final presidential debate Oct. 8, Bush said, "I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law," but the interpretation he hopes for translates into disaster for women.
A Delicate Balance
Many 5-4 split rulings in recent past demonstrate the already merciless conservatism that dominates the Supreme Court.
In Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), the Court voted 5-4 to prohibit individuals and communities from using federal courts to stop actions by their state governments that disproportionately hurt minorities. One vote overturned 30 years of law and practice that allowed such state rules and laws to be challenged under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), five justices allowed the Boy Scouts to continue discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
One vote in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) saved reproductive rights by reversing an abortion procedures ban that would have outlawed most of the safest abortion procedures commonly used after 13 weeks of pregnancy.
And don't forget that one vote on the Supreme Court declared Bush the 43rd president.
Copyright 1995-2004, All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial use. National Organization for Women
(This was printed from http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/102904court.html)