Judicial Watch
Sotomayor! Sotomayor? Sotomayor.
Yesterday, Alan Colmes’ new show, strategyroom.com, caught up with me as I was running from meeting to meeting in the rain, and asked me to talk with them about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination especially related to her reproductive rights decisions. Here’s the video segment, where you’ll see the right-wing guest Wendy Long, acknowledging that the Republicans probably wouldn’t support any Obama nominee. Alan had some great examples of how the issues of empathy and personal life experiences have been used in the past to argue for SCOTUS nominees that might surprise you. Take a look:
For the President’s Suggestion Box: Nominate a Woman
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’s lonesome being the Court’s only woman. The New York Times pointed out that President Obama will have no lack of highly qualified women to consider when filinghis first vacancy because of the stunning advances women have made in the legal field during the past generation. This Guest Post is…
Read MoreJustice Ginsburg’s Right About Roe, Wrong About Solution
Several people have e-mailed me today to ask what I thought about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about the Roe v Wade decision in today’s New York Times.
“The court bit off more than it could chew,” Justice Ginsburg said in remarks after a speech at Princeton in October. It would have been enough, she said, to strike down the extremely restrictive Texas law at issue in Roe and leave further questions for later cases.
“The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question,” she added. “The law was in a state of flux.”
Roe shut those developments down and created a backlash that lasts to this day.
“The Supreme Court’s decision was a perfect rallying point for people who disagreed with the notion that it should be a woman’s choice,” Justice Ginsburg said. “They could, instead of fighting in the trenches legislature by legislature, go after this decision by unelected judges.”
It’s also old news that Ginsburg believes, as many others have said over the years that the Court’s decision in Roe leapfrogged over public opinion that was heading in the prochoice direction anyway, so they should have just waited for the legislative process to work.
Read MorePartial Truth Decision
“[The] partial birth abortion ban is a political scam but a public relations goldmine…The major benefit is the debate that surrounds it.”
So said Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, a militant anti-choice group that blockaded abortion providers, in 2003.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court’s Gonzales v Carhart decision upholding the federal abortion ban is based that pubic relations goldmine. It is a travesty of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.
Indeed, the travesty of language around abortion is so pervasive that even Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the Court’s majority, in addition to using the term “partial birth abortion”, also used the term “abortion doctor” repeatedly in the ruling. Why did he not simply refer to doctors as “doctors”, or if ob/gyns call them “ob/gyns”? If another surgical procedure were under scrutiny, would he have he referred to “tonsillectomy doctor” or “hysterectomy doctor”? Of course not. But those who want to take away a woman’s human right to make her own childbearing decisions entirely have for so long used the term “abortion doctor” as an epithet that they have succeeded in getting even the highest court in the land to use their language.
Read MoreHarriet Miers: Is the Right protesting too much?
Last week, I happened to see a lawyer who runs an association of women judges and has a long history of national leadership in the legal field. She basically knows everyone who is anyone in the legal profession. I asked her what she thought about Miers.
“Well”, she replied in all seriousness and after some thought, “she’s not a monster.”
This hit me like a ton of bricks–that in this era of hard-right conservative grip on our nation’s political institutions, “not being a monster” could be a qualification for the highest court in the land—the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the Constitution, the nine men and women who decide how laws can intrude upon or enhance our lives, our liberties, our fundamental civil rights.
Read MoreHarry, Sam, and the Incredible Vanishing Woman
Here’s what I’ve been thinking lately. What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court nominations?
The cartoon got me thinking. The one with President Bush looking at a free-falling Harriet Miers and saying something like “Somebody had to take the fall, Harriet”, and Miers in mid-air smiling and saying something like “You’re still the very best president that ever was!”
Except for her legal career and the fact she never married, Miers is the very archetype of the 1950’s ideal woman: deferential to men yet cheerfully ready to do their bidding, self-effacing, focused on the minutiae rather than the big problems of the world, a little dowdy in her dress as appropriate for her age, churchgoing. She’s the perfect back-to-the future woman precisely because it can be said that she is professionally accomplished but still has those traditional hierarchical family values that the right-wing loves so much.
Read More