Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation from the U.S. Supreme Court, and George W. Bush’s impending nomination of someone to replace O’Connor as a justice to the court, makes for big news. When she joined the court in the early 1980s, she was considered relatively conservative, but the right-wing drift of the court since then turned her into a relative moderate, applying a brake to the nuttiest notions of the Rehnquist-Thomas-Scalia wing of the court. George W. Bush doesn’t like brakes much.
At this point, we don’t know exactly who Bush will nominate to join the Supreme Court as a new justice, but we can be pretty sure that she or he will favor the rights of corporations over the rights of people. It’s a safe bet that the nominee won’t have lost much sleep agonizing over racial, religious or sexual discrimination. The nominee probably will think that the government’s promotion of particular interpretations of Christianity is a good thing. The nominee won’t consider the right to choose to extend beyond Blockbuster. And she or he will most likely regard protection of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights to be as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.
In his news conference yesterday, George W. Bush made his timetable clear: he wants to have a new Supreme Court justice confirmed before the next term of the court begins on October 1. With a few weeks at either end of the process for procedural matters, that leaves, in effect, just two months for introduction, testimony, consideration and voting regarding a nominee. That’s not a timetable long enough for thorough contemplation. What is Bush’s rush? What doesn’t he want us to see? What doesn’t Bush want us to find out about his nominee?
The right wing of American politics is well-funded and well-organized. They’ll be out in full force, with all the energies of the government apparatus employed to push the nominee through before America’s citizens can take a deep breath and say “wha?”
The thoughtful majority of Americans doesn’t have as much power or as many focused resources as the right wing. That means we’ll have to work harder and be as prepared as possible ahead of time. The important thing to do is to hit the papers, the airwaves and the streets with a stunning wave of opposition right away, one that will derail the Bush speedy train and give us all some time to consider the actual qualifications and positions of a nominee. During the short window between the announcement of O’Connor’s resignation and Bush’s announcement of a new nominee, what can you do? Well…
1. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper (find yours here), and call in to your local radio show, to lay out your expectations for a supreme court nominee: pro-choice, defender of civil liberties, constraining of corporate power, curbing government proselytization efforts, combating discrimination. Use your limited voice in the mainstream media to counter the talking points of right-wing pundits, who are going to try to convince the American public that any nominee who can spell his or her name and who hasn’t killed anyone while on the bench is A-OK.
2. Write your Senators and communicate the same standards.
3. Take it directly to your peers. Chances are, Bush’s nominee is going to be unacceptable to you. Chances are, Bush is going to announce a nominee at the end of next week or right after that. So get out your cardboard and markers and get a sign that says “Confirm? No!” ready to post in your window or on your lawn. We’ve made T-shirts, bumper stickers and buttons with the same firm anti-confirmation message available here. Order them now and be ready to set the terms in the debate as soon as the debate begins.
Look, maybe Bush will surprise us and nominate a liberal or a moderate to the court. I think it’s more likely for pigs to fly, but I may be wrong. In that case, you can ditch the stickers and buttons, put away your lawn sign, and call your Senators to recommend confirmation. But it doesn’t take an Accuweather forecast to tell which way the wind is blowing. Get prepared for a big storm now.
Hey yeah, let’s get Alberto Gonzales in there! He’s hispanic, so anyone who opposes him will be labelled a racist.
And what is Gonzles? A liberal or a conservative?
Zero, you’re right that Gonzales was backed in his Attorney General bid by Hispanic cultural groups (such as National Council of La Raza) who made it explicitly clear that they would not support politicians who opposed Gonzales.
This kind of allegiance is not limited to ethnicity, but also occurs along lines of religion, occupation, political party and geographic residence.
I’d prefer to see a Bush nominee considered on the basis of his or her ideas and experience. I will certainly do that myself. But I think, given Bush’s history, it’s fair to guess that he’ll give us a real stinking turd of a nominee, and to prepare now for that eventuality rather than be caught off guard. That’s why this post.
I hope y’all saw the sarcasm.
I think he’s liberal, as in liberal doses of death for everyone.
He’s pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, and pro-torture. This guy was Bush’s legal council when Bush had 152 people executed in Texas. Despite the recency of his Attorney General appointment, I think he’ll be billed for either this chair or the one that’s sure to come whether we yell or not. Yes, preparation needed.
Bush didn’t have 152 people executed in Texas you dumb-ass. Tell me how he did this dumb-ass.
Hmmn, another dumb and uninformed liberal comment. Especially since the state was controlled by democrats…
Zero,
Don’t worry, I caught the sarcasm.
With Gonzales was acting as Bush’s legal counsel in Texas when Bush was the governor (and as such the state’s chief executive and final arbiter of capital punishment cases), is there a record of memos documenting Gonzales’ performance in reviewing the legal matters in the cases of the 150 men and 2 women?
This is, of course, a rhetorical question. Those who are interested in Zero’s point may want to read The Atlantic Monthly’s review of the Gonzales memos, available in a third of these 152 cases.
So Zero, what’s your take on the Gonzales memos and their importance to the Supreme Court nomination process?
I suppose Gonzales should have replaced the gruesome details of what Mr Washington did with the facts of his own abuse and mental state.
What failed Mr Washington was the state of Texas and it’s pathetic and inadequate mental health system. So before you point a finger at one person for your own political manipulation, you should point it at the 144 years of Democratic control of the state of Texas.
First, for those that do not subscribe to The Atlantic Monthly, there is a commentary at Findlaw which quotes parts.
My take? He will likely be put into position. Based on various poll data I’ve seen (here’s a fat list), the numbers reflect an American public who both supports the death penalty, and understands that people get wrongfully convicted. These memos have been around since before this man got his current post, and will probably have little influence. I hope not! But that’s what the numbers say.