Court Fight: It's More Than Left vs. Right

"A nation's success or failure in achieving democracy is judged in part by how well it responds to those at the bottom and the margins of the social order.... The very problems that democratic change brings--social tension, heightened expectations, political unrest--are also strengths. Discord is a sign of progress afoot; unease is an indication that a society has let go of what it knows and is working out something better and new."

Those are not the thoughts of a great civil rights leader, nor of a prominent progressive reformer.

They are the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the "swing" vote on the US Supreme Court, who on Friday announced that she is stepping down.

O'Connor joined the Court as an ideological conservative and, for the most part, served as such. But, as the above quote from her 2003 memoir, The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice, suggests, the first woman to serve on the nation's highest court was a conservative of the modern age.

Her nuanced stances on issues such as abortion rights--she defended the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion as "a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce"--distinguished her from the Court's conservative judicial activists, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (To get a full sense of what is at stake, see the list of 5-to-4 decisions where O'Connor cast the deciding vote, which follows this piece.)

With O'Connor's exit, the Court will move in one of two directions. No, not right or left. With O'Connor out, the Court will either go backward or forward.

If President Bush nominates and the Senate confirms an activist soul mate for Scalia and Thomas, the Court will not simply become more conservative.

It will move back toward the days before Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower used their nominations in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s to wrench the judicial branch out of a dark and undistinguished past. Those selections made the Supreme Court a functional branch of government, rather than an obstructionist defender of an often corrupt old order.

People for the American Way President Ralph Neas put it best when he said Friday, "A Scalia-Thomas majority would not only reverse more than seven decades of Supreme Court legal precedents but could also return us to a situation America faced in the first third of the twentieth century, when progressive legislation, like child labor laws, was adopted by Congress and signed by the President but repeatedly rejected on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court."

Neas understands his history well. The contemporary image of the Supreme Court as a defender of civil liberties and civil rights, and an ally of progress, is one that developed over the course of the twentieth century. It was not always so. And there are no guarantees that it will remain so.

As such, this is not merely a battle over a Court vacancy, nor even over the balance on the bench.

If the Court moves backward to the bad old days, so too will the nation.

With a Court guided by a majority determined to reverse the progress made on issues ranging from reproductive freedom to privacy rights, affirmative action, church-state separation, environmental protection, consumer safeguards and worker rights, Neas warns, America would return to a time when the judicial branch took as its mandate the preservation of the status quo against the march of social progress.

"A Supreme Court with additional justices who do not meet consensus standards could radically rewrite our nation's fundamental definitions of justice," says Neas.

In so doing, it could also rewrite our sense of time. Instead of living in 2005, Americans could find themselves dragged backward to those nineteenth-century days when the Supreme Court was the nation's primary barrier to social and economic justice. ****************************************************************

People for the American Way has compiled a list of 5-to-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O'Connor was the decisive Justice. Here are some of the decisions that the group says are in danger of being overturned:

1. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): Affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.

2. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004): Said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.

3. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002): Upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.

4. Hunt v. Cromartie (2001): Affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.

5. Tennessee v. Lane (2004): Upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled.

6. Hibbs v. Winn (2004): Subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.

7. Zadvydas v. Davis (2001): Told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person.

8. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001): Affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports.

9. Lee v. Weisman (1992): Continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.

10. Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003): Maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.

11. Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996): Said key antidiscrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates.

12. Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001): Upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits.

13. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003): Upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties' use of unlimited soft-money contributions.

14. Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): Overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion.

15. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005): Upheld the principle of government neutrality toward religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

Comments (47)

1. I think this is one issue Democrats are united on. Just like grass roots democrats joined together to ensure Howard Dean became the president of DLC, grass roots democrats can join together to ensure that Senate Democrats take a hard stance against the imposition of right-wing judges. What do you think the point was of the fight over the nuclear option?

   Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/01/2005 @ 1:30pm

2. Oh great. A bridge to the 19th Century.

   Posted by proudlib at 07/01/2005 @ 2:13pm

3. It is important to take the advice of Nichols and speak in terms of forward or backward, not Democrat or Republican or Conservative and Liberal. These are divisive, obsolete, misleading dichotomies. I am as ashamed of as many Democrats in Congress as Republicans. This entire Congress, and the two which have preceded it since the Supreme Court appointment of Mr. Bush, have to have been three of the most grotesquely irresponsible and cowardly Congresses in American history. Yet there are men of integrity there - in both parties. If we use our language to divide them at this moment of crisis, we will get precisely the Supreme Court we deserve.

   Posted by jbetterl at 07/01/2005 @ 2:56pm

4. Posted by jbetterl at 07/01/2005 @ 2:57pm

5. The Democrats know what Jr. is gonna try (he has never compromised, not even after winning less votes than Gore); time to dig in, fight it out. Let Jr. ram a hack down the Senate's throat. After a few crucial decisions, the electorate will see what putting an ideologue in office really means, and maybe--just maybe--the revulsion will result in something other than a Republican victory in the next two, three election cylcles. Sometimes it must get worse before it can begin to get better.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 3:34pm

6. The process over the nomination of a replacement for Justice O'Connor will establish the grounds for a greater battle: The nomination of the successor to Chief Justice Rehnquist.

   It's just begun.

   Posted by jkrogman at 07/01/2005 @ 3:34pm

7. I might risk receiving sharp criticism for saying this, but I really do hope President Bush is smart and consults with Democrats in choosing a nominee. Now the likelihood of this actually happening is admittedly small, but one can still be hope for the best.

   I think what is most important is that we are realistic about our choices here. Democrats and Progressives are not going to get our candidate of choice under President Bush. . . but the vacancy must still be filled. So, this leaves us with applying pressure on the administration to pursue a "principled" conservative. I recognize this might sound euphemistic, but David Corn is right that cavalier usage of the word "extremist" is only counterproductive and will not bring any additional and needed dimension to, what looks to be, a remarkably contentious debate. There are principled conservatives out there like Justice O'Connor who are certainly more digestible than a Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

   This will be a tough fight, but if Democrats and Progressives are intelligent in their criticism, we might just be able to bring about a tolerable if not desirable replacement.

   Posted by hhemwm at 07/01/2005 @ 4:38pm

8. Has Jr. ever demonstrated any form of restraint, compromise? The nomination of Bolton to the UN, Janice Rodgers Brown to a bench only exemplifies what is to come. Time to stand up, grow a spine, Democrats.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:14pm

9. The most dangerous assault on our liberty has not occurred as a result of the Patriot Act, but the decision by a liberal, anti-libertarian majority to deny us our right to property. The recent eminent domain case was decided by the liberals on the court. It was a more libertarian conservative like Clarence Thomas who stood against it. While the Left has been paranoid about fanciful invasions to public libraries, the liberals have given the government the right to seize our homes on the behalf of rich private interests and town governments.

   Posted by RonS at 07/01/2005 @ 5:22pm

10. Rons, the liberals on the court are not leftist. There's a big difference between the two (just as Jr. is a rightwinger, not a conservative).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/01/2005 @ 5:45pm

11. Lone bright spot: unless I misunderstood it, O'Connor's resignation is not effective until her replacement is CONFIRMED. Isn't this a good thing? I mean, won't this mean that at a bare minimum, Dems can afford to stand their ground without fear of having the "obstructionist" epithet hurled at them?

    And RONS.....oh puh-leeze. Are you so desperate to find a way to indulge in garden-variety liberal-bashing that this is the length you have to go to on this post??

    Posted by mewsician at 07/01/2005 @ 5:51pm

12. And as for Bush doing any compromising.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Right. I'll take THAT bet.

    No, the only voices of restraint that have a hope of being heard are those in the GOP ranks - so many of whom face re-election next year and beyond (unlike Dumbya). If there is the smallest flicker of hope, it rests with them - THEY are going to have to be the ones to press for him to nominate someone who won't ignite a firestorm of controversy. I think many GOPs in Congress are getting wary of inflaming the public further with hot-button divisiveness. Of course, their idiot leader may well ignore their wishes altogether, and then they'll be forced yet again into the unenviable position of having to buck either the White House or the voting public. But who knows. Maybe a John McCain or an Arlen Specter will surprise us. Hope springs eternal....

    Posted by mewsician at 07/01/2005 @ 5:59pm

13. MTSPENCE: I did not say that the justices were leftist.

    Posted by RonS at 07/01/2005 @ 6:09pm

14. Maybe American farmers will be able to grow hemp again.

    Posted by rob.olywa at 07/01/2005 @ 8:33pm

15. Is there an acceptable candidate?

    Posted by Donna & Joh at 07/02/2005 @ 11:16am

16. "Is there an acceptable candidate?"

    Sure.. Janice Rogers Brown.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/02/2005 @ 11:52am

17. All,

    There are many acceptable candidates out there. The questions then become, a)Is President Bush willing to select a broad consensus candidate or b)Is President Bush going to select a rightwing activist hack, and c)If President Bush selects a rightwing activist hack do the Senate Democrats reject such a nominee and d)If the nominee is filibustered by the Democrats will Bill I can make medical diagnoses by watching TV Frist resurrect the Nuclear Option and finally e)To avoid the Nuclear Option does the (dis)loyal opposition fold its tent, cave in, and allow a rightwing activist hack to join Scalia and Thomas in undoing decades if not a century or more of progress?

    Stay tuned! Same Bat Time Same Bat Channel!!!

    Posted by POSEIDON at 07/02/2005 @ 1:14pm

18. An acceptable candidate is a competent candidate. Do we even know what constitutes competency any more?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/02/2005 @ 1:26pm

19. In order to know what constitutes competency you must first have a grip on the constitution of reality. And since Bush has a grip on neither the Constitution or reality I would be seriously surprised if he is capable of appointing a nominee who is in touch with the reality of this nation and world at this time. I think Mr. Nichols makes a good argument...the real danger is that we will continue down the slippery slope back in time and end up with a court more interested in suppressing change and reversing growth than hearing out the voices of new possibilities.

    Posted by kraigah at 07/02/2005 @ 1:36pm

20. Kraigah, point well taken.

    Right now there is a desire to stand athwart history yelling "STOP!" But when has this ever worked?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/02/2005 @ 1:52pm

21. That is why we must do more than yell "STOP!" The faint voices of resistence that we have barely heard beneath all the babble from the neo-con machine have begun to sound tired. It seems as though there is very little in the way of visible inspiration or audible common voice to raise real dissent. So we faintly yell, stop. I think the greater question is, where is the hope for the future that will get us started in the first place? I certainly don't see that hope coming from politicians whose primary goal, in most cases, is to keep their seat of power or gain a higher one. So wher is the hope? Where are the prophets of our age?

    Posted by kraigah at 07/02/2005 @ 2:12pm

22. What we need is someone who can articulate that vision of hope because encouragement is vital to getting people to change their situation. I hope someone can come along to express this hope but I also know that we have an obligation to motivate ourselves to do the work of finding positive change. The vision and message of a leader is often the thoughts of many other people who were talking and did not know that anyone was listening. Perhaps we are the ones who will articulate that view because we "will it" to happen?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/02/2005 @ 2:23pm

23. HHEMWM, I appreciate your insights on leadership, vision and articulation. (One thing Bush has certainly done well is to exploit the thoughts of people around him for the purpose of his own agenda.) I do agree that we have an obligation as citizens of this nation and citizens of the world to promote, proclaim, and live out justice and transformation whenever and wherever possible. Zero commented above that "the battle is lost before it is fought," in regards to any choice that Bush will make for the next Justice. He may call himself a cynic or a realist, but I believe that this kind of fatalism is what got the dems in the position they are now in with the filibuster and nuclear option. The mistake we see over and over again from the "progressive" politicians is that they react and enter a defensive stance whenever Bush and his architects throw out a bone with a string attached. Karl Rove's comments about conservative's vs. liberal's reactions after 911 was a perfect example of how dems have repeatedly entered the defensive stance. How many dems "demanded" an apology? It is time that we start demanding change instead of demanding apologies.

    Posted by kraigah at 07/02/2005 @ 2:51pm

24. In other words, maybe it is time that we get serious about demanding the beginning of impeachment proceedings for Bush! It only takes one senator to start the process. There has to be at least one courageous soul left on the hill.

    Posted by kraigah at 07/02/2005 @ 3:05pm

25. What is evident to me right now is that we have a definate problem with defining the meaning of words that we use in order to have a dialogue. What is a "leftist"? What is meant by "progressive" and who are they? Liberals? Whats that mean, and where are they? Seems to me that that folks who really are liberals are trying to hide or dodge the label and hide under the term "mainstream". Whats that? A recent Zogby pole pointed out that the majority of respondents who identified themselves as either Democrat or Republican preferrd their elected representatatives to seek compromise over meeting the needs and opionions of their base. If this is true, what would a campaign that appeals to this look and sound like? In order to win would we see candidates that presented themselves not as a person reresenting certain goals, values and objectives that they believed in and would protect and support but the best comropmiser the most astute deal maker behind closed doors? I hope not but in watching the likes of Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Liberman to name a few its difficult to think otherwise.

    I do not wish to sew gloom and defeatism only to point out that we have a problem here on "the left" with defining words and it hurts our ability dialogue and strategise or even understanding what we are talking about. The discussion here about the supreme court I think points this our. I do not know what to do about it either.

    But, hell, happy 4th anyway. Hope we will all be spending it taking time out to enjoy orselves a little.

    Posted by Rosalinda at 07/02/2005 @ 3:07pm

26. That's very true, Rosalinda. My question to the floor then, since we shall assume that the Great White Father will be giving the nomination to one "base" (his corporate familiars) or the other (his ideological ones)is what to do about it. I hate to say it, but I think Rons brought up a a point worthy of discussion if only obliquely and by accident. Regarding the eminent domain case in New London (in my dismal home state of Rowlandicut) - it seems to me that our biggest problem is that we have this whole raft of spineless, useless folk lining the congress and courts upon which we feel obliged and forces to pin our hopes, never mind that even our smallest hopes are too heavy for them to carry and the pin would likely just kill them. Our so called liberal justices, our so called liberal representatives and senators have done so little for us that I can't see why we should give them any support. They've moved from the merely defensive to the holding on for dear life. They've lost the ability to lead and everything they do has been guided by the principle of not being the nail that sticks up, not drawing attention to the fact that they are still in office, and not drawing attention to the fact that they are not a republican. I may be biased in this, since I come from the state that brought you Bleedin' Joe Lieberman. You're welcome. Poseidon, I think you're right about 2006. The dems are hoping that the administration will anger the people enough that everyone will vote for fill-in-the-blank over the republicans. Maybe they are, but they won't vote for a fill-in-th-blank that isn't filled in, and why, indeed, should they? Republican congress seems to want to send us back to the guilded age, the administration would, I think, like to bring us back to the late middle ages, complete with the plague, crusades, that era's public sanitation, and the inquisition just over history's horizon. Serfdom doesn't suit me, but we could really use some, any, alternatives.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 4:13pm

27. The world (including those of us here in South Africa) is watching, and we are more disturbed every day by the actions of your government. Do not allow O'Connor's retirement to become another opportunity for Bush to shove fascism further down Americans' throats. Do something!

    Posted by Safrican at 07/02/2005 @ 4:16pm

28. There is another problem that I don't know if you guys have noticed in your daily lives. One of the major reasons why I've started writing here is because my friends have refused, often violently, to speak of politics, some since last November and some since 2000. They're demoralized. The "Wake me When it's Over" sticker comes to mind, as well. I'd love to go to sleep, though I know if I do, it'll never be over.

    Our options right now do not seem very good. 1) continue to support the leaders who treat us like a treat my dog after he's chased a rabbit through the poison ivy patch, those few we still have, those even fewer that stand up and say anything, and those none that say something useful. The hope here is that someone gets a spine that connects to their brain and ears that hear what we've been saying.

    2) Say to hell with the system, let those people in office go hang and spend our time on the street while Bush and his toadies and familiars erode our constitution, alienate our allies, invade other countries and consolidate their power to the point of a totalitarain state. The hope here is for, I guess, another revolution.

    Neither option looks at all good to me, and neither hope looks like anything on which I'd be willing to stake my country and my world's future.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 4:27pm

29. In the darkest days of Apartheid we knew what America stood for. Not the America of Reagan, and Bush 41, and the CIA. We knew what your America stood for. You were part of our motivation, you showed us what we could be. I'm sure this seems juvenile to you, but the fact is that the US was a beacon to us. I struggle to believe that the beacon to the world has been laid low by one frustated televangelist.

    Posted by Safrican at 07/02/2005 @ 4:52pm

30. Safrican, That doesn't sound juvenile at all. It may be that you will one day be a beacon for us, all that you accomplished and against what odds. I think it may be soon.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/02/2005 @ 5:14pm

31. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is much more liberal than the majority of Americans, not having undergone the rightward shift reflected in the White House and Congress. The Republicans have won the last three national elections and are entitled to appoint Supreme Court justices who reflect conservative judicial philosophies. This is the result of the democratic process: if Democrats cannot win elections, they will remain marginalized players on the national stage largely relegated to obstructing Republican initiatives without offering any affirmative competing agenda. This is a bad place from which to sway the ever more cynical voters in the middle of the spectrum.

    In my opinion, Democrats will risk losing the filibuster option altogether by being reduced to 40 or fewer Democrat Senators after the 2006 midterm elections if they filibuster virtually any of the potential Supreme Court nominees believed to be on Bush's short list. Bush can easily prevail if he appoints a hard right conservative already cleared by this very Judiciary Committee such as Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown. Democrats cannot filibuster either one without losing credibility in the eyes of the public because both Owen and Brown necessarily passed the "extraordinary circumstances" test permitting a Democratic filibuster under the compromise agreement signed by seven Senators from each party.

    If Democrats and liberal advocacy groups continue to attack nominees viciously without having a "smoking gun" (as is the case with John Bolton), the swing voters may become so alienated that the Democratic Party may be relegated to impotency for the next generation.

    The same dynamic may apply if liberal opponents of Bush's nominee(s) resort to melodramatic scare scenarios. Voters recall previous Democratic scare scenarios which never materialized despite the happening of the feared event. So the "cry wolf" parable circumscribes significantly Democrats' short-term options unless Dems are willing to roll the dice and risk this nation effectively becoming a one-party democracy. If that ever happens, Democrats and liberals will have only themselves to blame for repeatedly insulting the intelligence of the moderate American voter.

    Posted by grithstole at 07/03/2005 @ 01:10am

32. When I read John Nichols bio (fighting racism, homophobia and organizing workers) I realized why the Left lost the last election. Somewhere, the politically correct zeitgeist has gathered about itself a constellation of ideas which the Left thinks all fit together. I don't think workers in Detroit who see their factories close and open up in Mexico are particularly concerned that the new Mexican workers who took their jobs are ONLY earning $4.00 a day. I think they are upset that their jobs were outsourced in the first place. And I don't think these workers are particularly happy or supportive of illegal immigrants coming into their schools and sitting next to their children in the second grade without any command of English. . . and, pardon my political incorrectness, but I don't think these workers (who want lives, hope, living wages, medical insurance, and a house they can afford) are particularly predisposed to liking and supporting gay marriage. They think its 'unnatural' (about 54%) and pardon that old expression "perverse." So one day, it would be nice to see the Left actually represent the working poor and not try to amalgamate these contradictory constitutencies together. Rich upper middle class kids who see themselves as liberals see a connection between gay marriage, the needs of the poor, and 'undocumented workers' but, the connection is coming from a rich-kid mentality. It does not originate from the streets, and it does not represent the needs of America's poor. . . and that's how a truck driver from Detroit can listen to Michael Savage and vote for a Republican idiot while the left sits back and says "Gosh what happened! Someone needs to represent American workers, to know what these workers want, and to continue to pretend that these folks who were born in this country are really terribly upset that Indonesian children are making shoes (that they used to make) and aren't getting paid enough or that they are all ready to go out and march in a parade with transsexuals in their quest for greater human rights are absolutely nuts. It is a leftist fiction that these people all belong together. They do not. The left is trying to force them into a unity.....and that's why the left keeps losing ground in this country. Time for Harry Truman and let Alan Alda start his own political party in someone else's backyard. jk

    Posted by jerrykroth at 07/03/2005 @ 08:46am

33. JERRYKROTH,

    I want to thank you for what I believe is your well thought out and heart felt opinion. It says a whole lot about what certain folks really think. There are many who think just like you. I thought after reading your post...where have I heard this before? What does this sound like? Oh yes...the national socialists workers party! Remember them? The Nazis?

    Enough Said.

    Posted by Rosalinda at 07/03/2005 @ 11:42am

34. i think that a lot of this talk about defining liberal/left/whathaveyou is a giant waste of time. we all know what a lowercase d democrat is. look for and support those who push, argue, promote, and fight for democracy (these criteria are not arbitrary). but as a tactical matter, our friends in the Democratic party ought to, FOR ONCE, spell out in specific and practial terms what it would mean to have another scalia on the bench. but of course they will not as they are nothing more than slaves to the corpoate $$ that got 'em there. so cowardice? stupidity? maybe, but i'm inclined to believe that they simply don't give a crap. none of them.

    Posted by dabar at 07/03/2005 @ 5:10pm

35. Wonderful book out there: THE COURT DIVIDED. The real threat ahead is that there's a hostile supreme court that happens to hate Congress. And, they want to go back and remove Congressional "excesses." Thomas, for one, wrote eloquently about this in one of his dissents. He said the word "commerce" had a different meaning in 1780, than it does, today! First off, our Founding Fathers also believed in Manufacturing and Agriculture. And, this was NOT included in COMMERCE. (They couldn't even agree on a Federal Bank, in the beginning! And, the War of 1812 drew its funds from industrialists; because Jefferson refused to sign onto the Federal Bank. And, it left this country SHORT. Again, Jefferson believed real wealth was in LAND. Not in "paper.") So look to this to be something the average citizen doesn't know. BUT THE SENATORS ARE WELL AWARE THAT IF THEY PUT A "CONSERVATIVE" UP ON THE BENCH, to join Scalia and Thomas, the Congress would LOSE a lot of its powers. (So I don't think it's gonna happen. I think we'll see Gonzales. Because that's a wonderful way to grow the GOP outwards towards the voters. In order to attract more voters into the tent.) What will the Right WIng Conservatives do? They'll scream. And, the scam artists among them will continue to raise the money they need to challenge Roe. Roe keeps getting challenged. And, so far, it keeps HOLDING as the LAW OF THE LAND. But there's a possibility to could, someday, just be milking a dead cow?

    Posted by Carol_Herman at 07/04/2005 @ 01:55am

36. While I absolutely SUPPORT marriage equality--(CIVIL marriage, NOT forcing ANY church to recognize gay marriages)--I think that JERRYKROTH makes points that people on the left need to look at. WHO the hell is standing up for the working-classs, working poor and poor in the U.S.? NO ONE. Certainly NOT the Democrats as a Party; individual Dems do stand up--including the openly GAY Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), by the way! as well as the "presidentially un-electable" Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). There's a LOT of COMMON GROUND to be tilled and the Demsocratic Party is NOT going for it--their LAME aristocrat Kerry sure DIDN'T. So-called 'ordinary workers" cross lines of race, gender and sexual orientation and are all struggling over BASICS: job security, homeownership(or just affording a place to live, paying 50% or more for a roof!), decent education for their children k-12 and whether college is affordable to expand their own job propsects or their childrens' future ones;universal, single-payer healthcare, quality/affordable childcare--NONE of these issues have been taken on by the Democrats in any meaningful way. We desperately NEED a revitalized labor movement that';s INCLUSIVE--meaning it;s NOT just for white, heterosexual men--sorry JERRYKROTH, you'll at least have to concede that EVERYone has a right to SOME things--that is the above mentioned issues. But, such a movement has to look for COMMON ground on which to fight. Lakof's "reframing" needs to be used re:the "hot button" issues: liberty, 'pursuit of happiness", government NOT inytruding into the most INTIMATE decisions of our lives, PROTECTION for religious freedom--which means NOT IMPOSING RIGHTWING FUNDAMENTALISM ON ALL--but, allowing ech person to follow THEIR faith on the 'hot button' issues that the rightwing has commandeered as "moral" The democrats could be asserting the BEST of America's ideals---being that beacon that the South African pointed to America once being. Personally, I find her country far mroe inspiring than our own right now. Finally, the Dems treated presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich with total DISRESPECT--yet, the very progressive Congressman continues to be RE-elected in his far more CONSERVATIVE district. Why? People KNOW what Kucinich STANDS FOR. While some of his positions (pro-choice, supports gay marriage) are ones they DON'T agree with, they ALSO know that Dennis Kucinich fights like hell FOR working people's needs--since he comes from the working class and still lives in the $25,000 home he bought in 1972. The Democratic Party could learn something from Kucincih's example.

    Posted by Lydia at 07/04/2005 @ 6:44pm

37. Good! I hope we get another Scalia. Equal rights for all, EVEN poor white kids!

    Posted by Paulya at 07/05/2005 @ 09:52am

38. John

    Nice piece ...

    Here's The Garlic's take on it today ...

    Conservatives Threaten Taco Bell Boycott, Justice Weekends Economic Message To Bush If Gonzales Placed On High Court

    Blog: The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel Post: Tuesday 5 July 2005 Link: http://puregarlic.blogspot.com

    Peace JTD

    Posted by JTD at 07/05/2005 @ 10:30am

39. Democrats were in a tough place with the "nuclear option" agreement even before a Supreme Court vacancy occurred. If they had allowed Bill Frist to force the filibuster issue into the full Senate for a vote the outcome would likely have been that Democrats would be in a no-win situation no matter what. Since confirmation would only require a simple 51-50 majority with Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote, the filibuster as the last means for checks and balances against the absolute power sought by the Republicans would have been gone forever.

    Saving their filibuster opportunity for the Supreme Court was, and still remains, a huge gamble. It is a gamble because Bush can put forth any of his previously Democratic-filibustered appellate court judges for his Supreme Court nomination and then say, "Well, you just gave them your go-ahead to be installed on the federal circuit court so now why are you objecting?" That's a fair enough charge, given the fact that these "objectionable" judges have now passed the Democrats' qualifications test.

    For the next soon-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee, the Democrats must now come up with much higher standards for objecting to a Bush judicial candidate since they themselves agreed to the vague definition that they would not block any judicial nominee except under "extraordinary circumstances." And that's the Catch-22 scenario they're in.

    Once again, the cacophony of the screechy, tolerance-for-none Religious Right will demand that Frist launch the "nuclear option," which will effectively eliminate the Senate filibuster and any chances for future discussion or debate.

    My prediction: Game, match and set -- a huge win for the Right Wing and their religious fanatics who are cashing in their chips for elevating Bush into the White House for another four years.

    If the Democrats are to have another chance at gaining back any vestige of the once-effective checks and balances against the dominion and abuses of the Republican absolutists they will have to wait at least until November 2006.

    Posted by richards38 at 07/05/2005 @ 5:23pm

40. Jerry,

    You said:

    " And, pardon my political incorrectness, but I don't think these workers (who want lives, hope, living wages, medical insurance, and a house they can afford) are particularly predisposed to liking and supporting gay marriage."

    Amen brother, you just keep on preaching! If the Democrats changed their stance on issues such as these, I would support them. I think they have a much better plan in terms of jobs, reduction of government waste, worker rights, and conservative government spending than Bush-and-company, however above all of these issues regarding money and jobs comes morality. As long as the Dem's support gay marriage, pro-choice etc, I will be forced to vote Republican, as I just can't morally justify abandoning what my faith teaches me in right and wrong when it comes to the social issues.

    I therefore agree with your theory that the lumping of all of these "progressive" issues together is what causes Dem's to continue to loose national elections.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/06/2005 @ 1:31pm

41. Gosh, how awful it would be if a Bush nominee were to drag us back to the bad old days when it wasn't constitutional that government could take away our homes and give them to rich people just because they wanted it. I sure hope the democrats can save us from that. After all, don't we progressives, like Ginsburg, Souter, et al., believe that property rights are just a form of selfish material grasping? Better everything should belong to the government from square one and then we can let our enlightened leaders tell us what to do. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. (PS. JERRYKROTH makes excellent points, ROSALINDA's response that everybody who doesn't agree with her is a Nazi is so typical of the "Hey let's respond to ideas with insults!" mentality I see everywhere on the left. Nuff said!)

    Posted by jeck at 07/06/2005 @ 2:07pm

42. There was a very interesting poll result recently, and it shows that the public saw the judicial filibusters for what they really were: just a political ploy (after all, if those judges were so darn awful, then why did they compromise and let them in?) Here is the poll (Gallup):

    "How likely do you think it is that the Democrats in the Senate would attempt to block Bush's nominee for inappropriate political reasons: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?"

    Very Likely 58% Somewhat Likely 28% Not Too Likely 6% Not At All Likely 6% Unsure 2%

    86% of the public feel the Democrats are going to fight the nominee on inappropiate political reasons! Not good for the Democrats. If they do fight as people expect, then they can expect to alienate even more people in this country and become an even greater minority. If they don't fight, then many of the far-left who consider the court to be their personal playground may just abandon the party or be less enthusiastic about helping them win re-election.

    An additional note: William A. Galston, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, probably put the Democrat's views towards the court best when he said recently, "Beginning in the 1950s, the Democratic Party convinced itself that, especially on social issues, the principal vehicle of advance would be the court."

    Posted by lburwell at 07/06/2005 @ 2:28pm

43. JERRYKROTH, and LYDIA,

    You both make some great points. I would like to put them in a different way. I have always felt that the Democratic Party has limited its appeal to the broad spectrum of America because they are so consumed with putting people into groups. They then pick a small issue that appeals to each group (gay marriage is a perfect example), and then try to cobble all these little issues for each group together into a theme, and it doesn't work. Meanwhile, the Republican Party's philosophy has always been to pick big issues where they can get a broad support across the board, regardless of what "group" they may belong to. If the Democrats want to get back into the majority, they need to start thinking like JFK, who advocated across-the-board tax cuts (in today's jargon "tax cuts for the wealthy"), because he knew that the tax cuts, and their positive effect on the economy, would benefit everyone, not just members of a particular group.

    Posted by lburwell at 07/06/2005 @ 3:06pm

44. Jeck, surely you jest when you wrote, "Gosh, how awful it would be if a Bush nominee were to drag us back to the bad old days when it wasn't constitutional that government could take away our homes and give them to rich people just because they wanted it." After all, the 5-4 decision was a result of the majority Republicans who tipped the balance in this case.

    It's also easy to quote all sorts of polls supporting or rejecting a particular viewpoint. For example, a poll showing 86% think Democrats would filibuster a Bush appointment inapproriately certainly makes it look like Democrats are the bad guys, when in fact over 97% of all Bush's judicial nominees have been approved. Not exactly an obstructionist opposition.

    But, since some hang their hats on polls at any given moment in time, let's put the shoe on the other foot, and to be fair, let's use the latest Gallup numbers starting with the June figures and working back to early June:

    6/29-30/05, Approve 46%, Disapprove 51%; 6/24-26/05, Approve 45%, Disapprove 53%; 6/16-19/05, Approve 47%, Disapprove 51%; 6/6-08/05, Approve 47%, Disapprove 49%.

    Cut it any way you want but the MAJORITY of Americans DISAPPROVE of the way G. W. Bush is governing. The latest Zogby poll shows an even greater spread between approval/disapproval. The latest numbers from June 27 to June 29 show Bush's approval at 43%, disapproval at 56% and 1% unsure. That's a 13%-point gap, even larger than Gallup. So, the truth is, the majority of Americans disapprove of the job G. W. Bush is doing. As some have put it, "nuff said."

    Posted by richards38 at 07/06/2005 @ 3:21pm

45. Reid just told the AP that he thought Gonzalez was qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The man who called the Geneva Conventions quaint, who advised the president on how to do tortures! What a slap in the face to the people of America and the world. When will liberals and the Nation writers who support the Democrats begin to understand what is really going on???

    Posted by rvs-convener at 07/06/2005 @ 3:25pm

46. Richards38,

    You said: "Cut it any way you want but the MAJORITY of Americans DISAPPROVE of the way G. W. Bush is governing."

    I don't think anyone disputes that. Although I voted for him, and still generally support his administration, I certainly disagree with several of the things Bush has done in running the country. However the questions posed by Jerry and Lydia would be could Kerry and the Dem's really do it any better; particularly when it comes to uniting the obviously divided Red/Blue states on issues such as Supreme court nominations, gay marriage, abortion rights, the war in Iraq etc.

    I think most all Americans believe in common principles like corporations should not exploit workers, workers rights; war in general is a bad thing etc. The myth that republicans are all rich white guys is just that, a myth. Many middle class, hard working family men like myself voted for Bush mainly due to his social agenda, and have no vested interest in how profitable Halliburton becomes or the stock market in general. Most all Americans agree frivolous government spending needs to stop etc. It's the issues that divide us that need to be addressed, and although you may complain about how Bush handled these issues, the question again is are you really that sure that Kerry and the Dem's would handle it any better? I don't think they would and that played a crucial part of my reasoning for casting a vote for Bush.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/06/2005 @ 4:11pm

47. A blog I'd like to see:

    This is David Corn.

    I've always been a fan of Presidents Bush. Bush 43's two appointments, along with democracy in the middle east, a national energy policy, and a pack of dead muslim terrorists are his great legacies.

    Thank you, Mr. President and sorry about all that liberal grief we gave you.

    Sincerely yours, David.

    Posted by Jr. at 07/06/2005 @ 4:50pm