The NY Times and the Supremes

Monkeyleg

New member
Read this. Read it again. Then again. And then remember what this November is all about. Underlines are mine.

IN AMERICA / By BOB HERBERT

High Stakes
Voters may not pay much attention to potential Supreme Court appointments,
but interest groups sure do. And the
_National Rifle Association, the right-wing
religious organizations, anti-abortion zealots and other _extremist wanderers of the nation's far-right terrain_ are praying that George W. Bush becomes president and gets to appoint two or three more Clarence Thomases or Antonin Scalias to the court.

There are no more liberals on the Supreme Court, just moderates and conservatives. And one important decision after another has been determined by a slender 5-to-4 majority.

Last week, in a 5-to-4 decision, the court struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that allowed victims of rape, domestic violence and other crimes "motivated by gender" to sue their attackers in federal court. The Times, in an editorial, said the ruling "left women more vulnerable to gender-motivated violence." The headline on the editorial was "Violence Against the Constitution."

Voters who care about civil rights and civil liberties, about abortion rights or _gun control_ or campaign finance reform, about protecting the environment or protecting the cherished liberties _enshrined in the First
Amendment_ -- such voters would do well to pay close attention to the possible makeup of the Supreme Court in the very near future.

Many of the rights and liberties that Americans have come to take for granted over the past few decades are now _in the cross-hairs and well within range of the right-wing extremists._ The next president will likely appoint two or three new justices to the court, and possibly four. (Three of the current justices are 70 or older.) And Mr. Bush has made it clear that he favors justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, the court's two most right-wing members.

People for the American Way, a progressive policy group in Washington, is out today with a new study, called "Courting Disaster," that takes a close look at the opinions of those two justices. It's chilling.

The report noted that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are "eager" to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion; that their approach to the financing of election campaigns would make campaign finance reform "all but impossible"; that they took such an extreme position on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that four of their fellow justices determined that 28 previous Supreme Court rulings based on that law would
have to be reconsidered if their view had prevailed; that they would prohibit the use of affirmative action, "even where it is shown to be carefully constructed to remedy past discrimination"; that they "would have made cigarette companies virtually immune from most lawsuits by completely forbidding any suits accusing the companies of intentional fraud and deliberate concealment of cigarette dangers"; and so on.

Last week's decision on the Violence Against Women Act affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., one of the most right-wing courts in the nation. The Fourth Circuit opinion was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who is frequently mentioned as a
potential George W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court.

The report from People for the American Way does not pretend to be a nuanced analysis of the complex fight for control of the Supreme Court. It is narrowly focused on the _extremist_ positions staked out by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, and the way life in the United States would be altered if
those positions were to prevail.

Ralph Neas, the group's president, said, "Two or three new justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would lead to a reversal of decades of Supreme Court precedent in civil rights, reproductive rights, privacy, separation of church and state, worker and consumer rights, environmental protection and more."

The right wing knows what's at stake. The report notes that Gary Bauer, speaking to a Christian Coalition gathering last October, "exhorted the crowd" with the following comments about the court:

"Abortion ought to be over. Gay rights ought to be blocked. School prayer ought to be back already."

Two more appointments would do it.

********************************

Make no mistake: they're going to use abortion as a wedge in the Supreme Court issue, but the first casualty will be the 2nd.

All in favor of voting third party, please think twice. We need three or more Scalia's
on the Court to keep our guns.

Dick
 
One might be tempted to say to Bob Herbert, "And your point is...?"
 
Back
Top