Ellington

July 1, 2005/verbatim: In light of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation announcement, Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi, writes:

The best thing that could happen for the unborn would be the passage of a human life amendment to the constitution to protect ALL unborn children. The next best thing would be the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, which circumvented the will of the people by proclaiming abortion a Constitutional right. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the court was overstepping its boundaries. Our forefathers never indicated any intent to allow women to kill their unborn children.

"Abortion should be debated in every state house in all 50 states. Though not all states would restrict abortion; many states, including Mississippi, would certainly protect the majority of the babies now up for abortion!"

"It is very unlikely that any state would leave abortion laws as liberal as they currently are. America,s abortion laws are the most liberal in the „civilized world! The US allows abortion at the total discretion of the woman throughout the full nine months of pregnancy."

"Let the people decide the abortion debate. Get it out of the courts and into the court of public opinion where the American people can see abortion for what it really is. I am convinced that if we would only look at the pictures of what abortion does to the unborn child, we would realize that no person has the "right" to do this to another person."

We can't help but be excited and optimistic about the resignation of Justice O'Conner; however, the conservatives have learned a valuable lesson by this court - a "moderate" will not do. Though the majority of this court was appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., we have seen this court strike down all but a few state laws that restrict abortion including a ban on the barbaric partial birth abortion. If nothing else, a change in the court will likely give the power back to the states and the people.

This is a pivotal point in abortion history and you better believe that after 30 years of death, the pro-life community is prepared to do whatever it takes to create a culture of life in America.

Previous Comments

ID

87364

Comment

Couple of thoughts: One, can't Justice O'Connor enjoy one day, especially the day she announces, her accomplishments and kudos that she deserves without press releases like this. Two, its time for the court to begin clarifying their rulings and being consistent with those decisions. Last weeks E.D. "public good" decision is one. Abortion is another example. Opponents, pro-lifers, can argue that even the Supreme Court ruled slavery legal at one time - a moral mistake, a judgment for the times that was wrong. Also in the same vein, the courts have said a teenager under 18 is mature enough to decide they can get an abortion. Yet, in the recent MO case of the 17 year old that committed murder and was slated for the death penalty, it was ruled that a 17 year old has not matured enough to fully know the ramifications of his actions. Both have ramifications that are huge decisions to make when you are any age, much less a teenager. See the confusion, although maybe they were factoring in that women mature faster and are smarter then men. ;-) I am pro-choice to the extent that I think it should be done by adults over 18 (within a certain time period), in extreme cases, or with parental knowledge if a teenager. Also, clinics should be held to the same standards as a hospital is held too. I forget which state, but the governor just vetoed a bill that would have brought the clinics in line with hospitals after it was revealed that an abortion doctor was eating the fetuses, keeping them in the fridge, just dumped stuff in the garbage at home and had a nasty office. Granted, the bill probably had some other riders attached, I donít know about. But, if this isnít an example of just bad doctoring, I donít know what is? To me this governor let her pro-choice beliefs get in the way of sound medical practices; and, I am sure she could have worked with her legislators to trim any abortion riders she didnít like in the name of good medicine. OK, begin to grill meÖthis is all I gotÖlol!

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-07-01T13:32:39-06:00

ID

87365

Comment

Yeah, it would be nice, however it ain't gonna happen. Every nutcase related to politics is going to go nuts now. Thank god I have those asbestos shares! :D Seriously, I'll settle for someone with more common sense than politics these days. After the last court session, it's becoming evident that they're losing touch with reality.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-07-01T13:40:35-06:00

ID

87366

Comment

Assuming that some women decide not to have their baby for financial reasons, to whom shall we have Terri Herring make the check out to support these children?

Author

Steph

Date

2005-07-01T13:51:03-06:00

ID

87367

Comment

Oh No, Oh No, says Mr. Bill. (remember him?) The internet is so buzzing it just might crash today. And why did Ladd choose the above verbatim for us all to go ballistic , or not, about.. My daughter just asked, well who makes the decisions in the meantime? Of course court is out for the summer, but - this whole thing will absolutely consume this country for quite a while, hearings and all. Meanwhile, what is going to sneak in under the radar? Just a little start of an Iran thing maybe? Not to mention the creation of a domestic spy/secret police. My daughter also asked, why did she do it now? Why indeed. As the first women ever, well I won't start. It's just , well, justices don't usually just up an resign, it's not your regular day job for pete's sake. sorry.

Author

sunshine

Date

2005-07-01T13:54:32-06:00

ID

87368

Comment

Certainly, it's good cover for the mess in Iraq. Everyone dust off your copy of "The Handmaid's Tale"óthe book, not the movie.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-01T13:56:40-06:00

ID

87369

Comment

sunshine, my guess is she chose now because it is the recess. Also, as I look at video of Rehnquist, she may have wised up and decided she wanted to enjoy a few years before she gets too old up there. He's been sick, he looks lost, and he has bed head in this one clip they use - it's sad! We knew he was going soon, and she had been mentioned too. She is just a bit smarter. Her dissent on the E.D. won her acclaim from both sides. Itís kind of like going out like Michael Jordan after the Game 6 last second shot to win the Championship. My guess is she wants to enjoy some of her life and accomplishments in her twilight. An effect of this will be that the war will take a media backseat as everyone gets their cackles up about who will replace her and the ensuing fight that follows. A lot of issues will be relegated to page 20 of the Times.

Author

tortoise

Date

2005-07-01T14:21:52-06:00

ID

87370

Comment

However, I will add that this may be the most important decision of our lifetimes. It is time to decide what kind of America we're going to be. This is a war in its own right. Them chickens are about to come home to roost; it's going to be time for some of the armchair conservatives, especially the men who like to keep a little extra lady on the side and can afford her abortion if she's gets prego, to decide what they're really about. And Bush's radical nominee will probably be about 25, so he/she will be there for a while. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-01T14:24:34-06:00

ID

87371

Comment

Ladd: You've lost me. I keep re-reading what you wrote and think "But I can think of dozens of armchair liberals who support abortion". As for my guess: I'm thinking Black Female, just to shut up the Senate. That'd be evil. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-07-01T14:39:26-06:00

ID

87372

Comment

My point being, Iron, that a whole lot of conservatives are against abortion as a wedge issueóbut use the privilege when they need to. I know quite a few of those myself. Maybe the assumption is that they will always be able to afford safe "underground" abortions, which is probably true. But I really, really hate hypocrites. As for my guess: I'm thinking Black Female, just to shut up the Senate. That'd be evil. :D Indeed. Even more evil will be intellects like Orrin Hatch, and perhaps even Trent Lott, sitting up there accusing any of her critics of a "high-tech lynching" because they don't have enough respect for African American nominees to afford them the respect of being criticized as equally as anyone else without playing the race card. Twill be interesting.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-01T14:45:25-06:00

ID

87373

Comment

Message from Sen. Patrick Leahy distributed by Democracy for America: (verbatim) This morning, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the United States Supreme Court. This is a momentous time in our nation's history. The next justice will have enormous influence on a woman's medical decisions, the rights of workers and consumers, the civil and privacy rights of us all, the enforcement of our environmental laws, how our elections are conducted, and nearly every other aspect of our lives. We cannot allow the independence of our courts to be threatened by a judicial activist who places personal ideology above the law. The Supreme Court is no place for fringe judges. And the Senate is not a rubber stamp for any president's nominations. Join me in calling for inclusive, thoughtful deliberations during this process: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/norubberstamps The Constitution requires that the President seek the Senate's advice and consent in making appointments to the federal courts. As a Senator and as the Democratic leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I take this responsibility very seriously. America must maintain separate but equal branches of government. Neither the legislature, nor the judiciary, should be subjugated to the will of any president - or to the loudest wing of any political party. In recent years, the President has chosen a path of confrontation rather than consultation with the Senate. I voted against Janice Rogers Brown, a judge quoted telling conservative audiences that the New Deal "mark[ed"> the triumph of our own socialist revolution," and that elderly Americans who depend on Social Security "blithely cannibalize their grandchildren." I voted against Priscilla Owen, a judge who inserts her opinions into the law so freely that President Bush's own attorney general once called her behavior "unconscionable ... judicial activism." Once again, the power to avoid political warfare over a judicial nominee -- this time to the Supreme Court -- is in the hands of the President. The process begins with him. President Bush will decide whether there will be a divisive or unifying process and nomination. If consensus is a goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. I believe that is what the American people want and what they deserve. The President can unite the nation and the Senate with his choice, or he can once again divide us. Join me in calling for meaningful consultation between the President and Senators on both sides of the aisle at: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/norubberstamps

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-07-01T15:28:25-06:00

ID

87374

Comment

thanks for that optimistic message from Senator Leahy. We can compromise - I suppose we'll be lucky if we can do that. And ok, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200506/063005a.html he's not too bad. opposes CAFTA , sort of. Perhaps I am too wary (as in, did he support the war? his reaction to the Pres. message was not , hmm http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200506/062805b.html all that thrilling. Does anyone know his voting record? ) The no rubber stamp site is cute but we need more than that. http://www.democracyforamerica.com/local/states.php?state=Mississippi Point is, sigh. we need to hold these mostly white mostly guys feet to the fire. It's time. I will look at Leahy's record , I'm just saying , it's easy for some to say the right thing for a bit. We have to keep on their, um we have to focus.

Author

sunshine

Date

2005-07-01T18:17:53-06:00

ID

87375

Comment

p.s. right, the site does not work.

Author

sunshine

Date

2005-07-01T18:20:00-06:00

ID

87376

Comment

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200506/062405.html ok, he wants increased sunshine (FOIA), a good guy. I think.

Author

sunshine

Date

2005-07-01T18:24:22-06:00

ID

87377

Comment

According to CBS News, O'Connor retired in order to take care of her husband, who has Alzheimer's, and to spend more time with her children and grandchildren. See the video here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/01/supremecourt/main705678.shtml

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2005-07-01T19:58:56-06:00

ID

87378

Comment

Terri Herring is RIGHT! the courts have NO BUSINESS dealing with people's rights! this needs to be OUT of their hands and in the hands of the people. a majority vote in different regions HAS to be the best way to create a uniform system of protected rights!

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-01T22:14:15-06:00

ID

87379

Comment

Damn it todd! you guys don't have a Sarcasm Font on here. you should install one.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-01T22:14:24-06:00

ID

87380

Comment

This could get scary, and The Handmaid's Tale might not be far from the truth. If Bush gets the opportunity to replace Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens with justices like Luttig, Roberts, McConnell, etc. (he's already batting 2 out of 3 and Stevens is 85), then Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Not may. Will. So will Lawrence v. Texas, and every other constitutional ruling based on the right to privacy. Even conservatives, I think, would be shocked at the rulings that would come out of a flush-right Bush Supreme Court. But if he nominates a relative moderate like Gonzales to replace O'Connor, then it might not be so bad. Remember that six of our current Supreme Court justices are Republican appointees, and all but Rehnquist and Stevens are post-Roe, so the fact that Bush is a Republican doesn't make him dangerous. The fact that he's a Republican with a Republican Senate majority (something no president since Eisenhower has had) makes him dangerous. There is no system of checks and balances. Our hope basically rests in the hands of the Senate's nine or so moderate Republicans, because if it comes down to the nuclear option, Bush will need their votes to deploy it. And he didn't quite have those votes last time around. If 100,000 voters in Ohio changed their minds, conservatives would be talking about how the two vacancies will probably put an end to anti-gay marriage laws. Now we could be looking, instead, at a ban on abortion, the reinstatement of sodomy laws, and the Ten Commandments in every Bible Belt courthouse. Bush will probably pleasantly surprise me, because surely there's no way he could do as badly as I expect him to do. But as I reflected on Pope Benedict and the possibility of Chief Justice Luttig earlier today, I had the sobering thought that the great conflict of the 21st century may well be Christian fundamentalism versus Islamic fundamentalism, with everybody else caught in the crossfire. Yeah. Surely this will look better in the morning. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-07-02T00:07:35-06:00

ID

87381

Comment

Tom, sodomy was more fun when it was illegal anyway... ;-) jp!, I agree, we need to create a sarcasm tag and also a 'drink' tag.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-07-02T08:03:46-06:00

ID

87382

Comment

Stevens, while the oldest on the court, is VERY active and lucid. he's got clerks hired into the next 2 years and seems very happy w/ his job by all accounts. I don't see him going until after bush. Rehnquist going seems MUCH more likely, but replacing him would be less problematic as he'd likely be replaced by someone willing to vote along similar lines. Replacing O'Connor (a true swing voter) with a hardliner may swing the court hard to the right for years to come.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-02T09:19:03-06:00

ID

87383

Comment

Rehnquist said the other day that he "will miss" O'Connor, and he's hired clerks for 2005-2006. That suggests to me that rumors of his death have been greatly exaggerated. And in Rehnquist's case it basically would be death--he's a widower, his job is his life, and there's no higher position than chief justice. So I'm hopeful that Rehnquist (whom I've seldom agreed with, but always liked) will stay on. O'Connor, for her part, had not hired all of her clerks--which everyone interpreted to mean that she had left slots open so that she could pick up some of Rehnquist's when he retires. Now we know the real reason. Well, God bless her. She was a great justice. Stevens very well could serve into his nineties; I wouldn't mind that a bit. I was in a foul mood yesterday. If Rehnquist retired and Bush replaced him with a wingnut, it would be a push on most social issues--Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are the three true conservatives on the court, and we'd still have three true conservatives afterwards. But with the retirement of O'Connor, we're looking at four true conservatives--which means we're a swing vote away from an abortion ban, among many other things. I don't like it. We're not going to see very many 6-3 rulings coming from this court if Bush replaces O'Connor with somebody like Luttig; virtually every ruling of any importance would be 5-4. That said: If O'Connor is the only retirement this year, we'll probably be okay. Anyone selected in 2008 will be a moderate, because a culture war battle in the middle of an election year would hurt the Republican presidential candidate's chances. Anyone selected in 2007 will deal with a different Senate makeup; if two or three seats shift blue (Santorum is trailing by 14 points and several other Republicans are retiring, so that seems likely), then the nuclear option is no longer an option. And 2006 is a Senate election year--are purple state Republicans really going to want to push the nuclear option to get a social conservative on the Court? So this is the only year Bush can really count on putting someone like Luttig on the court, and he may not even want to do that if he's replacing O'Connor rather than Rehnquist. My suspicion is that Bush will want to put another woman, or a member of an ethnic minority, on the court. NONE of Bush's far-right replacements for Rehnquist fall into that category--they're all white men. My guess for O'Connor's replacement, and you heard it hear first: Janice Rogers Brown. She's a socially conservative African-American woman from California, and she's on the DC circuit court of appeals, which has been used before as a stepping-stone on the way to the Supreme Court. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-07-02T15:43:34-06:00

ID

87384

Comment

wasn't brown just appointed elsewhere to the federal bench?

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-02T23:39:15-06:00

ID

87385

Comment

Yep--DC circuit court. She isn't even officially on it yet. She was one of the potential "nuclear option" appointees, but the Senate approved her after the compromise. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-07-03T00:19:04-06:00

ID

87386

Comment

Janice Rogers Brown. She's a socially conservative African-American woman from [Alabama who is a former California Supreme Court Justice], and she's on the DC circuit court of appeals, which has been used before as a stepping-stone on the way to the Supreme Court.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-04T16:17:40-06:00

ID

87387

Comment

Duly noted, Buck. Thanks. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-07-04T16:45:13-06:00

ID

87388

Comment

exactly. this is going to be, i think, a real turning point on the court. it will be a right winger, and likely in the Thomas vein (a minority, woman, or both) and conservative. i think there are some major issues next session and this court will likely move if the dynamic is there to do so. one cannot underestimate the power of members of the court to move one way or another (those that are not ideologues. we tend to think of politicians as this way or that. right or left and thank god most aren't such ideologues!).

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-04T18:46:00-06:00

ID

87389

Comment

Alberto Gonzalez, our current Attorney General, has been mentioned quite a bit as a potantial Supreme Court justice and would obviously be our first hispanic justice. The neo-cons hate him, though, as he would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade (supposedly). The best I can hope for is a moderate conservative, which could point to Gonzales.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-07-04T20:21:11-06:00

ID

87390

Comment

I wonder if he'd actually try to put someone that rabid on the court. I agree with Tom and the others, however and back Brown. He seems to consider his appointees on the basis of compatible politics rather than any other reasons. Now, the point to remember now, is that once on the court, all bets are off. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-07-04T20:32:43-06:00

ID

87391

Comment

i say they go for a dead to rights Conservative--no moderation please. why anything else? they aren't concerned about rules fights in the senate. they want the button pushed (nuclear option) and they want their way. what has been otherwise in this administration? Hell, they made up a reason to go to war with the wrong country! i think they want someone that doesn't come off in rulings or writings as a jerk (i know, i know, Bolton), but is utterly guaranteed to overturn Roe v. Wade and roll back gay rights. You realize abortion issues and gay rights are coming up in the fall? the religious right will lose their minds if they don't get what they're looking for right now. do not be fooled, they see THIS as the moment 3 decades in coming to finally switch the tide. i'm not so sure it won't happen.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-05T00:25:17-06:00

ID

87392

Comment

Gonzales would be a good choice, but he hasn't been attorney general for very long and I think Bush offered him that spot with the idea in mind that someone else would get the "Rehnquist spot" this year when there's a clear Republican Senate majority and no elections to worry about. That leaves Bush with a moderate ace up his sleeve that he can play if there's an election-year vacancy in 2006 or 2008, or if the Republican majority shrinks. But the theocrats hate Bush's ace; there's an old joke making the rounds that Gonzales is Spanish for "Souter." The more I think about it, though, the more I wonder about Brown. She hasn't technically heard a case on the DC circuit yet, and that might disqualify her for now. She could be a viable player if Rehnquist retires next year. Ironghost is right about all bets being off when the justice actually joins the Court, by the way. The beauty of life appointments. Seven of the current Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees and assumed to be anti-Roe, but four of those seven--Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter--all turned out to swing the other way. Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia are the three anti-Roe justices (though Thomas is mellowing out and could be a potential swing vote down the road), and Ginsburg and Breyer, the two Democratic appointees, have offered few surprises (though Breyer seems to be getting more conservative with age). Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-07-05T01:06:37-06:00

ID

87393

Comment

"Gonzales would be a good choice, but he hasn't been attorney general for very long and I think Bush offered him that spot with the idea in mind that someone else would get the "Rehnquist spot" this year when there's a clear Republican Senate majority and no elections to worry about." --------- Don't forget the amazing (lack of) Judicial experience Thomas had when he was nominated. The right will lose it, and have threatened to withdraw party support if they don't get their way. You know, if they don't here/now, there is no reason to expect them to ever get their way, so i understand...but what do they do? form a fundie-Green(type) Party? I'm just not seeing what in Bush's history would imply he wouldn't go for a far right wing justice. Also, i agree that all bets are off once you get the judge on the court, but don't think that being GOP meant hardcore anti-abortion. Pres. Ford is pro-choice, for example. abortion didn't get fully integrated in the GOP until Reagan. (you may recall Bush 41 was Pro Choice until after the 1980 primary when he 'switched' to be on the Reagan ticket).

Author

jp!

Date

2005-07-05T07:51:19-06:00

ID

87394

Comment

jp, Good point, but the overall thrust of what I was saying still works. O'Connor (pro-choice), Scalia (pro-life), and Kennedy (pro-choice) were Reagan appointees who were all assumed to be anti-Roe; Thomas (pro-life) and Souter (pro-choice) were Bush 41 appointees who were assumed to be anti-Roe. That's five of the seven. Of the other two Republican appointees (both Nixon's), Rehnquist is pro-life and Stevens is pro-choice, so Stevens is the only current Republican appointee of the pre-Reagan/pre-Falwell era to support Roe. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-07-05T14:42:22-06:00