nabeepchen.comlogo

Vital Signs and Remedies for a Full Spectrum World
by Roxanne Nelson

1 July 2005

More on the Supreme Court

Yes, I know. You don’t have to tell me. MoveOn is a biased group. They don’t like Bush or his friends, and are not afraid to say so and speak out.
And in the case of fearing what Bush might try to put on the bench of the Supreme Court, they are right on target.

From MoveOn:

The only clear indication from Bush about who he might nominate is that he intends to follow the example of his two “model” judges—Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. These two have weighed in from the far-right fringe for decades, and another judge in their mold could shift the balance on the Court significantly.

Below are just a few examples of landmark cases where Scalia or Thomas voted against O’Connor to try to strike down core rights and freedoms. In many cases if they had one more vote they would have succeeded.2

Worker’s Rights: Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which protected the right of workers to care for newborn children or gravely ill family members.

Women’s Rights: United States v. Virginia, which allowed women to attend all publicly funded schools. (C’Connor was not on the Court at the time of Roe v. Wade, but has opposed Scalia and Thomas on reproductive freedom issues in such landmark cases as Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

Church and State: Locke v. Davey, which ensured that states could not be required to fund religious training.

Environmental Rights: Friends of the Earth , Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., which protected citizens’ rights under the Clean Water Act to sue against the illegal dumping of mercury and other toxins.

Civil Rights: * Dickerson v. U.S., which upheld the “Miranda” guarantee that people accused of crimes are read their rights. * United States v. Fordice, which protected the rights of those still suffering from the effects of state-enforced racial segregation. * Grutter v Bollinger, affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies.

Civil Liberties: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which blocked the government from indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges, an attorney, or any basic rights.

On Capitol Hill, today’s resignation unleashed a swarm of right-wing fringe groups and corporate lobbyists pushing for a nominee who will favor narrow prejudice and greed over the rights of the American people.

If we can deliver 250,000 signatures and comments by Tuesday, we can make sure the voice of ordinary Americans can compete with this swarm and tell our senators to stand up for our rights.

All of the Supreme Court cases mentioned above were very important ones, and several directly related to our health and wellbeing.

MoveOn has a petition if you want to sign, which calls on our Senators to do what it takes in the crucial weeks ahead to protect our rights.

— roxanne @ 4:35 pm — Comments (0)

Women Take Heed…

Some of the most frightening news yet. Bush is going to find a new Supreme Court justice. Sandra Day O’Connor has announced she is stepping down and vacating a seat on the bench. Oh Sandra, why oh why couldn’t you wait just another three years? Must you vacate a seat while the Bush is in the oval office?

This is the chance he has been waiting for, to put an ultra-conservative neocon into the Supreme Court. And undoubtedly try to chisle away at all sorts of rights, but most prominently, reproductive rights for women. And notice I say women, because men are largely unaffected by these laws. Sure, they may get hit with a paternity suit, but that’s minor compared to how the Bush dream affects women.

From the SF Chronicle:

President Bush, facing a momentous battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, said Friday he would pick a candidate in a timely manner and urged the Senate to give his nominee “fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote.”

The White House said it would be at least a week before he decides. More than a half dozen candidates are under consideration, an administration official said, and Bush will review names during a trip to Europe beginning Tuesda

Bush wants his candidate to have a fair hearing and receive fair treatment. Well, is he going to come up with “fair candidates” as in those committed to upholding our Constitution and not some distorted form of zealous religious fervor? Is he going to pick a candidate based on a judicial record of fairness and intelligence, or a record of issuing judgments which deny women their reproductive rights, blur the separation between church and state, and that promote the desires of special interest groups?

Looking at the people that Bush has selected to fill other posts, including judges, cabinet members, and his most recent folly, Bolton for UN ambassador–I think we know that answer. And we have every reason to be afraid. Let’s just hope that the Senate is now sufficiently sick and tired of Bushisms, and will block any hideous candidates that he tries to put on the bench.

— roxanne @ 3:41 pm — Comments (0)