NOW Urges Senate to Block Owen Nomination: The Sequel

NOW.org ^ | 5/1/03

[Libloather]

NOW Urges Senate to Block Owen Nomination: The Sequel
May 1, 2003

"Today, Senate Democrats have taken the first step to block another extremist Bush judicial nominee," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen was rejected in 2002—but Bush put her nomination forward again in blatant disregard of the Senate's advice and consent role."

"We've seen Judge Owen use the courtroom to further her narrow beliefs and ideals, going so far as to virtually re-write laws rather than fairly interpret them," Gandy said. "The last thing the Fifth Circuit needs is more judges who can't leave their political ideologies at the door." For example, Owen supports "stricter interpretation" of the state law that Bush signed requiring women younger than 18 to inform their parents before obtaining an abortion.

"Owen's penchant for judicial activism may have earned her two nominations from Bush, but it should not win her a seat on the Court of Appeals," Gandy said. "No matter how many times Bush nominates her, Priscilla Owen continues to be unfit for a lifetime seat on the court that is only one step below the Supreme Court."

"NOW thanks those senators who have held strong in their commitment to oppose unworthy Bush nominees," Gandy said. "Women's right supporters across the country encourage senators to continue taking their advice and consent power very seriously. The nomination of Priscilla Owen must not be approved by the full Senate."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: REBECCA FARMER, 202-628-8669 ext. 116

[Libloather]

"We've seen Judge Owen use the courtroom to further her narrow beliefs and ideals..."

Women can have narrow beliefs and ideals?

[George from New England]

I don't remember reading anywhere in our founding documents that the president's nominies have to be approved by the leader of the NOW!

[goldstategop]

Women can't be pro-life and as good looking as Ann Coulter and Rachel Marsden. That terrifies the NOW NAGs. You'll remember Rush Limbaugh's famous aphorism that feminism is simply a means for ugly women to make headlines in this society.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"We've seen Judge Owen use the courtroom to further her narrow beliefs and ideals, going so far as to virtually re-write laws rather than fairly interpret them,"

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Gandy, see Roe v. Wade. There is certainly a lot of projection going on in liberal Lala land these days. I'm loving the way they are sticking their foot in it about the President's aircraft carrier landing!

[goldstategop]

Its OK for liberals to rewrite the Constitution but its verboten for conservatives to restore it to its proper understanding? I thank NOW for the service of straightening me out on how liberals and feminazis see judicial philosophy.

[solo gringo]

Most of the now members i have seen thier face will stop an eight day clock.The envy beautiful and smart women like P.Owens.

[solo gringo]

The=They.

[votelife]

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[votelife]

bttt