WASHINGTON, July 1 - Around 9:30 Friday morning, C. Boyden Gray, founder of the Committee for Justice, a conservative group that is a leading ally of President Bush, was sipping coffee at his Georgetown residence and confessing mild frustration to a reporter for The New York Times about the waiting game for a Supreme Court retirement. Suddenly he got a text message and expressed that emotion rare for stage-managed Washington: surprise.
"An O'Connor resignation was not one we took seriously," Mr. Gray said, rushing out the door to begin deploying his troops.
At the abortion rights group Naral Pro-Choice America, organizers were sending e-mail alerts to 800,000 activists within 15 minutes after the announcement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation. "Don't let Bush take away your choice!" they declared.
On Capitol Hill, senators of both parties quickly made their way to the floor and the galleries for a morning of speeches and briefings, hailing Justice O'Connor and trying to frame the debate to come - Democrats stressing a need for consultation and consensus, Republicans emphasizing a need for a fair process.
By midday, nothing less than a national political campaign had begun.
The retirement of Justice O'Connor, a moderate who has been a crucial vote for a constitutional right to abortion, began a struggle with incalculable political implications - for the interest groups, for the parties and for the president.
"This is the pivotal appointment," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What I find that is so ironic is how so few people even realized how pivotal this moment could become. This issue was rarely even raised in the 2004 elections--perhaps one question in the debates between President Bush and John Kerry. And even that question was washed over for the supposedly bigger fears of terrorism. It was only a matter of time before justices Sandra Day O'Conner, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Baeder Ginsburg, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would all step down. O'Conner has now retired. Rehnquist is battling cancer. John Paul St is one of the oldest members of the court. It is only a matter of time before more slots start to open on the bench. The conservatives have always know this and have been planning for this day since Roe verses Wade. And now they are about to get their wish--and they are singing in praise. According to the Times:
"Today marks a watershed moment in American history," declared Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of the conservative Focus on the Family, "the resignation of a swing-vote justice on the Supreme Court and the opportunity to change the court's direction."
Lest there be any doubt about the high expectations of religious conservatives, Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, declared, "For President Bush, social conservatives and the senators they helped elect, the moment of truth has arrived."
When a guy like Dobson is gleefully wringing his hands at stacking the Supreme Court with hard-lined conservatives who would start their own activist legislation from the Court on social issues, you have to wonder where are the Democrats to hold the line against this assault? Why didn't they pound this issue on the American public rather than succumbing to the GOP's manipulation of terrorism in the 2004 presidential election? The issue has always been there--the problem is that the Democrats, liberals, and the American public have been asleep to this. Again in the Times:
Liberal advocacy groups found themselves confronting what they had feared and warned about since the 2000 election: the prospect of a Bush court. They called on the president to nominate a consensus moderate, someone ideologically and judicially close to Justice O'Connor. But they were preparing for something else.
The moment of truth for the Religious Right has arrived. They are going to put pressure on Bush and Karl Rove to select a hard-lined conservative to move the court far right--and overturn abortion. They believe that is their payback for getting Bush both elected--and re-elected. Whatever warnings about the Religious Right's stacking of the Supreme Court by liberal groups have been ignored. And now, the Democrats have been shut out of power in both Congress and the White House. There is no reason for Bush not to work for the Democrats. He could place a hard-liner similar to a Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he probably would get his nominee confirmed. It may completely destroy the Senate in the process, but Bush could stack the court with hard-lined conservatives. For moderates, liberals, and independents who value the social toleration of values and mores, it is time to get active.
Otherwise, the Bush and the Religious Right will turn this country back to the 1830s.
2 comments:
The most moderate nominee we can hope for is Abu Gonzales, which is a pretty sad commentary on the current state of affairs. What he has going for him is unfailing loyalty to Dubya, his high fuck-you factor (which Bolton proves Bush is very fond of), and his ethnicity, which allows the Republicans to play the race card if/when the Dems try to block him.
Of course, being pro-torture isn't nearly conservative enough for Bush's base, so I'm not 100% sure it'll happen.
In terms of strategy, I'd like to see the Dems point out various critical cases where O'Connor was the swing vote, and give Americans some idea of what a world with a reliably conservative Supreme Court would be like. I don't think the Dems are going to be able to get much traction unless they scare the bejesus out of the electorate and thus put some pressure on the moderate Republicans.
Eli: I'm not even sure that Alberto Gonzales is even a moderate. I know that the hard liner conservatives have been pissed at Gonzales' name bandied about on a short list, but that doesn't mean that the Democrats should accept this nomination. Gonzales is a political hack with his unfailing loyalty to President Bush. And yes, as we both know, Bush rewards those who are unfailingly loyal to him.
We neeed a justice who is not only moderate, but an independent thinker. I don't want a Gonzales as a justice sitting on a court bench making decisions on the basis of loyalty to Bush rather than through reasoned judgement. But I know that's what we'll get.
The Democrats are going to have to fight Bush on this nomination process. They are going to have to remember that Rove and Company may try to bait-and-switch tactic of submitting a hard-lined candidate over Democratic protests, then withdrawl the nominee and submit a "stealth candidtate" with a vague record to look into (or submit Gonzales). The Democrats are certainly going to need to scare the public by showing how crucial O'Conner's decisions were in many of the 5-4 cases. The positive aspect is that we are seeing a mobilization of liberal groups ready to fight this battle.
This is going to be a bloody civil war brewing.
Post a Comment