Posted on 07/06/2005 5:39:29 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The unexpected resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner creates a vacancy that, once filled, can radically shift the court to the right on social issues. And that can ultimately spell disaster for such issues as affirmative action, women’s rights, civil liberties, the death penalty and employees’ rights.
O’Conner, the first Supreme Court appointment made by Ronald Reagan, was the court’s swing justice, with her vote helping constitute a 5-4 majority on many important issues. Court watchers had expected ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to retire after this session – and that’s still a possibility – but he was expected to be replaced by another conservative, meaning the 9-member court would remain evenly divided, with four liberals, four conservatives and O’Conner darting back and forth between each camp.
However, the resignation of the court’s swing voter means that George W. Bush’s first court appointee could instantly shift the balance of power, creating a conservative majority.
This appointment will force Bush, who has tried to have it both ways on some issues, to choose between his rhetoric of compromise and cooperation and his pledge to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court’s most conservative members.
To understand O’Connor’s impact, all one has to do is examine some of the 5-4 Supreme Court decisions. She cast the deciding vote in:
Grutter V. Bollinger, affirming the right of universities to use affirmative action in admissions;
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, maintaining legal funding for the poor;
Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran, allowing people enrolled in HMOs to seek a second medical opinion;
Hunt v. Cromartie, upholding the right of states to consider race as a factor in redistricting
...and Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Athletic Association, affirming a lower-court decision that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating intercollegiate sports.
Even before O’Connor announced her decision, the battle lines were drawn and multi-million dollar campaigns had already been launched. Progressives were campaigning to persuade the public –and President Bush – that only mainstream jurists should be appointed to the lifetime appointments on the court.
Conservatives were eager to avoid a defeat similar to 1987 attack that blocked the elevation of Judge of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and the narrow (52 votes) and bitter confirmation of Clarence Thomas in 1991, formed Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of conservative Christian organizations.
Even more important, they set in motion a campaign aimed at making sure the next Supreme Court selection will consistently side with conservatives. Upset that Justice David H. Souter, a Reagan appointee, consistently votes with the more liberal wing of the court, conservatives have developed a rallying cry: “No more Souters.”
Bush’s conservative base is pushing for a strong conservative who will not disappoint them.
A research paper by People for the American Way observes: “…Right-wing activists have turned their harshest fire not on the Court’s more moderate justices but on two conservative justices who frequently forge majorities on the most important cases before the Court – Justices O’Connor and Kenney. A number of far-right leaders have harshly criticized these two Justices, going so far as to call for their impeachment.
“In an April newsletter, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson called Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “the most dangerous man in America,” and demanded that he be impeached “along with [Justices] O’Connor, Ginsberg [sic], Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.”
Despite such radical views, White House officials have acknowledged that they are sharing the names of several potential nominees past Dobson and other conservative group for their review.
Some Senators are urging Bush to select a nominee who will enjoy broad bi-partisan support. They note that Sandra Day O’Connor was approved 99-0 in 1981, Anthony Kennedy, 97-0 in 1988, David Souter 90-9 in 1990, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 96-3 in 1993 and Steven G. Breyer 87-9 in 1994, the last time there was a vacancy.
So far, Bush does not seem to be striking a conciliatory tone. “The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of,” Bush said. “The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote.”
Whether the nominee gets that kind of reception, will depend on whether Bush is able to break the hold the Far Right has on his administration and nominate a mainstream candidate acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans.
George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. He appears on National Public Radio (NPR) three times a week as part of “News and Notes with Ed Gordon.” In addition, his radio commentary is syndicated each week by Capitol Radio News Service.
These guys are clueless.
Black leaders like Dr. Thomas Sowell, are keenly aware of the need to preserve the Constitution itself for our posterity. Black writers like this author are supremely ignorant of that challenge. Therefore, writers like this have no clue as to what kind of Justices we need, to preserve the Constitution. (Hint: It isn't another O'Connor.)
Congressman Billybob
Funny that he left out Antonin Scalia, who was approved 98-0....
You're right. We can't afford another O'Connor
Thanks for your always brilliant comments, John.
Char :)
Thank you for your opinion. Now Bush should nominate whoever he wants.
Precisely the "RIGHT" comment to this clueless author!
Thanks, popdonnelly!
Char :)
Judge bork was on the radio today.
He was talking about the ratchet effect.
When republicans control, they let respect for stare decisis protect status quo. When the left controls they move more to the left. When the right controls the new more left position is kept instead of being eliminated.
We need to accept the fact that in order make any shift in the court balance to mean anything we need judges who are ready to undo the left wing crap.
Bump. Thanks for this post.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisons when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.