Blog for Choice: Supreme Court Archives

May 6, 2008

McCain to Give Speech on Judges

Today around 10 a.m., Sen. McCain is scheduled to give a speech at Wake Forest University on judges. Many reporters have received advanced copies of the speech, so here are a bunch of links where you can read their impressions:

Wall Street Journal: McCain Speech to Shed Light On Judicial Philosophy

Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic): What McCain's Speech Isn't About

USA Today: McCain criticizes Obama for vote against chief justice

The Hill: McCain courts right wing

Associated Press: McCain to give speech on judicial appointments

Jonathan Martin (Politico): McCain's message to conservatives on judges and DNC pushback

In response to media reports on Sen. McCain's prepared remarks, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America released the following statement:

"John McCain's voting record reads like a Who's Who List of right-wing activist judges who are hostile to the constitutional right to privacy and want to allow politicians to interfere in our most personal, private medical decisions," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "McCain's support of anti-choice judges will be one of many reasons voters, especially pro-choice Independent and Republican women, will not cast their ballots for him in the fall."

It is all too clear why McCain is speaking about judges on a day when most voters are focused on the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. We all know that he gets points with the right-wing organizations, but he can't afford to use this rhetoric when trying to reach the pro-choice Independent and Republican women he needs to win in the fall. Hopefully the media won't let him off the hook on this one.

Click here to read more about McCain's anti-choice record concerning judicial nominees (scroll to the bottom of page 1).

Posted by Molly at 9:55 AM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2007

Fertilized eggs unite?

This is just bizarre.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday to allow a proposed 2008 ballot initiative to proceed that would extend certain rights to fertilized eggs. Huh? NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado Executive Director Kathryn Wittneben said it well:

“Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal -- but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion. If that’s not misleading, I don’t know what is.”

It really is ridiculous. Check out more info on the decision here.

Posted by Jessica at 10:42 AM | Comments (0)

April 18, 2007

The Supreme Court decides women's health is irrelevant

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America has this to say about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban:

"Today's decision shows Bush's appointees have moved the Court in a direction that could further undermine Roe v. Wade and protections for women's health. The door is now open for politicians like George W. Bush to interfere even more in our personal, private medical decisions. The Court has given anti-choice state lawmakers the green light to open the flood gates and launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion, without any regard for women's health."

Click here to read more.

Posted by Jessica at 10:20 AM | Comments (30)

March 21, 2007

The Horrifying Honaker Nomination

by Sharon Breitweiser, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wyoming

Talk about a blast from the past… President Bush is at it again, this time in my own backyard. I swear, nothing this administration does surprises me anymore, yet somehow I was still shocked when I heard the latest news.

It turns out that earlier this week, with the blessing of anti-choice Sens. Craig Thomas (R-WY) and Mike Enzi (R-WY), President Bush nominated Rock Springs lawyer Richard Honaker for a federal judgeship in Wyoming.

And, boy, do I know Richard Honaker…

In my boxes of files from past legislative sessions, elections, and legal battles, I found example after example of Honaker’s blatant anti-choice bias. Yet he seems to consider his anti-choice record to be mere youthful exuberance. The man who once led an effort to outlaw abortion in Wyoming is now trying to downplay his own radical agenda. “As a state legislator,” he now says, “I took positions on a lot of legislative issues and public policy issues, and one of them was on the abortion issue. That was my role at that time…But my role as a judge would be far different.” In other words: Don’t worry your pretty little head, I’m going to change my anti-choice ways. Riiiight.

So, when an Associated Press reporter called for a quote, I didn’t know where to start! Should I start with the list of anti-choice legislation he championed in the state legislature – such as the “Human Life Protection Act,” a bill he authored that would have outlawed almost all abortion? Maybe I should highlight the major role Americans United for Life played in developing his “Human Life Protection Act?” The group even paid for his trip to Chicago, where they advised him on how to advance this legislation! Or maybe it would be better to focus on his role with the “Unseen Hands of Prayer Circle PAC” – the group that was formed to try to push an abortion ban through the ballot process after it failed in the legislature? Honaker even represented the extreme anti-choice group before the State Supreme Court and succeeded in getting the measure on the 1994 statewide ballot – but fortunately, Wyoming voters overwhelmingly rejected the Honaker abortion ban by a 61-39 percent margin.

Of all the Americans qualified to sit on the federal bench, this is whom George Bush picks?!?!?

Honaker’s nomination now goes to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee – so we’re watching closely to see what happens next. But it just goes to show: Despite the electoral gains we made last November, President Bush can still nominate whomever he wants to these crucial judgeships – and, if confirmed, they serve lifetime appointments!

Not surprisingly, the leader of Wyoming Right to Life, Steven Ertelt, is giving Bush a gold medal for the Honaker nomination, as evidenced by this statement: “Because of his pro-life views and past efforts to protect human life, it's obvious that Richard Honaker joins with attorneys on both side of the abortion debate who understand that Roe v. Wade was an example of unadulterated judicial activism and that the role of the courts to is interpret the law -- not make it up as you go.”

So, Richard Honaker receives kudos from two extreme anti-choice senators and a radical anti-choice group, and there are countless documents exposing his leadership in efforts to outlaw abortion. Nope – no anti-choice bias here!

Posted by Blog for Choice at 12:33 PM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2006

Supreme Court decision takes away tools to protect women from violent anti-choicers

The Supreme Court ruled today in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women that the federal racketeering and extortion laws can’t be used to stop anti-choice extremists from obstructing access to clinics, damaging property or using violence.

This case has been going on since 1986, when the National Organization for Women (NOW) brought a class action suit against anti-choice groups that had been violent and threatening in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America says that the decision “takes away a legal resource doctors, clinic employees and women could have used to protect themselves from the violent acts of these extreme anti-choice demonstrators.”

We can’t forget that violent protests are not a thing of the past--just in the past year there was an attempted firebombing at a Louisiana clinic and one incident of arson in Florida.

Posted by Jessica at 3:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Quick Hit: USA Today editorial tells it like it is

Today’s must-read is the USA Today editorial, Emboldened, abortion foes attack 'Roe' head-on. I dare you to find a more terrifying headline concerning choice. (Though that fetus tree story will always hold a special place in my heart.)

I’ll leave you to read the whole piece, but this is the line that stuck with me:

Unless checked, the process South Dakota is starting could lead to the most draconian rollback of personal liberties in U.S. history.

Posted by Jessica at 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 21, 2006

Supreme Court will hear “partial birth” abortion case

The Supreme Court has announced that it will consider the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which has already been struck down in California, Nebraska and New York.

Considering the new Bush-friendly make up of the Supreme Court, I’m absolutely terrified.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito.

Supporters of the Act claim that it simply bans a certain procedure used in late-term abortions. Yeah right.

Nancy Keenan sets the record straight:

"The two main reasons Courts have struck down these bans are: their broad language could ban abortion as early as the 12th week in pregnancy, and they lack exceptions to protect women's health. Medical groups, including the American college of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose the federal ban.

Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger."

Posted by Jessica at 12:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 31, 2006

Senate votes to confirm Alito

If the Alito nomination teaches us anything, it's that we have to take back the Senate. Senator Obama of Illinois said it best this weekend: "There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections."

That's our plan - it's getting the numbers back on our side in the Senate and electing pro-choice senators wherever we can.

What are your ideas for getting this done?

Click here to read the statement by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan on the vote.

Posted by Blog for Choice at 12:24 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

January 26, 2006

NY Times calls for filibuster of Alito

Wow. NY Times is getting a little hardcore: Senators in Need of a Spine.

Today’s editorial calls out Dem senators to fight against Alito, someone “whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress.”

The editorial argues that even if there’s no chance of winning, now is the time to fight for principle.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Burn! Make sure to read the whole piece.

Posted by Jessica at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 25, 2006

Alito vote: not looking good

For us, that is. Sigh.

The Associated Press reports that Alito has already won enough commitments from senators to ensure his confirmation.

As of late Tuesday, the federal appeals court judge had enough vote commitments for confirmation a simple majority in the 100-member Senate with 50 Senate Republicans plus Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska publicly saying through their representatives, in interviews with The Associated Press or in news releases that they would vote for him.

Say it ain’t so!

Posted by Jessica at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 24, 2006

Nancy Keenan responds to Alito vote

NARAL Pres. Nancy Keenan issued the following statement in response to today’s 10-8 Senate Judiciary Committee vote in favor of Samuel Alito:

"The eight members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who opposed Samuel Alito's nomination stood up for the American values of freedom and privacy. We hope their colleagues follow their lead as the full Senate now considers whether to confirm Alito for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. For senators who value privacy and freedom, the only option is to vote no.”

No joke.

In related news: Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) released a statement today saying he would vote “no” on Alito. Sen. Nelson has voted for Bush’s judicial picks 96 percent of the time (including Roberts), but says that Alito’s “many legal writings, judicial opinions and evasive answers both at his hearing and in our private meeting, convinced me he would tilt the scales of justice in favor of big government over the average person.”

Posted by Jessica at 2:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sigh.

From the Associated Press: Alito nears win in partisan committee vote

Posted by Jessica at 12:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 18, 2006

Ayotte decision a stark reminder of anti-choice attacks

Nancy Keenan had this to say about the Ayotte decision handed down today:

"The Ayotte case is an example of how lawmakers at the state and federal levels are continuing to exploit every opportunity to take away our reproductive freedom – even while Roe v. Wade stands. Today, we are issuing our 15th annual report summarizing women's access to healthcare nationwide and exposing the persistent threat facing reproductive freedom across the 50 states.

"While it is certainly heartening that the Court did not use this case to overturn specific precedents that protect women's health, this decision does mark a departure from prior cases. In the past, abortion restrictions that did not include protection for women's health would have been struck down in their entirety. After today's decision, that is no longer the case."

Click here for the decision and here for a release from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Posted by Jessica at 4:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Supreme Court rules on New Hampshire parental notification case

From then Associated Press:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, steering clear of a major ruling on whether such laws place an undue burden on women.

The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion rights.

Justices said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.

An appeals court must now reconsider the law, which requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.

More to come...

Posted by Jessica at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 17, 2006

Vote on Alito set for next week

Too scary. The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Alito’s nomination on January 24, sealing the deal for the future of women’s reproductive rights.

Yeah, I’m not too freaked out. Take action now!

Posted by Jessica at 12:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 12, 2006

Alito dodges questions on Roe, privacy rights

You know, I keep hearing kudos from Republican senators on how forthcoming Alito has been. Maybe I’m missing something. Seems to me Alito has been more evasive--particularly on questions concerning Roe--than even Roberts was.

I’m even seeing some news headlines about Alito keeping an “open mind” on abortion. But what does that mean?

The Boston Globe reports that legal specialists think Alito hasn't given up anything on how he feels about choice. He certainly hasn’t reassured anyone that his views have changed since he wrote in 1985 that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

For example, Alito has declared that he believes in a right to privacy -- but cited a different kind of privacy than the Supreme Court has cited in recognizing abortion rights. After being asked about privacy for the first time, Alito immediately brought up the Fourth Amendment's protection against having one's home searched, not the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty.

Both amendments create protections sometimes referred to as ''privacy rights," but only the 14th Amendment is relevant to abortion, said Richard Fallon, a Harvard professor of constitutional law. The Fourth Amendment protects only people's personal space, while the 14th protects their liberty to control their personal lives.

Pressed for his views about the kind of privacy right that relates to abortion, Alito repeatedly demurred.

Sneaky, sneaky. But very smart.

Alito did the same dance around questions on Griswold:

When Alito was asked about the contraception cases, he offered no objection to their ''result." But he also avoided endorsing the legal reasoning behind the cases -- that people have a privacy-based right to control their reproductive lives.

So really folks, let’s not call Alito’s ability to word his answers carefully “forthcoming.” Because he’s been anything but. Alito has not distanced himself from his previous anti-choice statements. He is dangerous for choice, and dangerous for women.

Posted by Jessica at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 11, 2006

Alito Mischaracterizes Key Reproductive Rights Case

The latest analysis from NARAL:

Today, under questioning from Senator Dick Durbin, Samuel Alito testified that stare decisis – respect for precedent – was "the beginning and the ending point of the analysis in the joint opinion" in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade. This is false. Alito further testified that Roe was different from other cases that he was willing to say were correctly decided, because the other cases were decided based on constitutional rights found in the 14th Amendment. Alito’s answer is telling – he did not endorse the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, that a woman’s right to choose is also grounded in the 14th Amendment, clearly leaving himself room to vote to overturn Roe without being inconsistent with his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Check out the full report.

Posted by Jessica at 5:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Republican pro-choice group opposes Alito

Check it out:

The Republican Majority for Choice (RMC) regrettably announces its opposition to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

RMC is an organization whose core mission is to protect the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade and to represent the millions of Republicans who strongly support this right. After much research and analysis of Mr. Alito’s own record and statements on this issue of individual freedom it is clear that he is an advocate for further restricting this right.

Judge Alito seems by all measures to be an experienced and capable jurist, but one who is out of step with mainstream Americans on the issue of abortion and maintaining the legal right to choose.

Good stuff. Let’s face it--Alito hasn’t quashed anyone’s fears about his very obvious anti-choice stance. Alito has not distanced himself from his previous statements on Roe and has been nothing but evasive. His confirmation would be devastating for women’s rights.

Posted by Jessica at 12:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Alito hearings, morning edition

10:49AM: Alito says if confirmed he won't be a mold of O'Connor, he'll said "I'll be myself." Just like mom always told you to.

10:45AM: So how many times will Colburn say that Roe
was wrongly decided? Maybe we should make this a drinking game. Oh no
he didn't! The bad science bullshit breast cancer-abortion link?!

10:18AM: Is anyone else freaking out that this guy is equating Roe to Plessy?

Posted by Jessica at 10:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

In case you missed the hearings

...and feel like doing some reading, here are the transcripts from yesterday.

My favorite part:

CORNYN: But Judge Scalito might -- Alito, excuse me...

(LAUGHTER)

After talking about Judge Scalia -- you know what I was thinking, in the back
of my mind, a nickname that you've acquired sometimes. And I apologize.

Posted by Jessica at 9:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 10, 2006

Alito hearings, afternoon edition

4:02 PM: Alito just keeps digging. He can't get away from the "analogy" relating a minor needing to notify a parent about abortion and a woman needing to notify a husband. Cause we're just like kids anyway, right?

4:00 PM: Health exception stuff...does a law need to have a health exception to be considered constitutional? Alito gave a half answer, says that the issue of women's health is "compelling."

3:56 PM: Feinstein is smacking Alito down on his whole husband-notification nonsense.

Latest from Nancy Keenan: "Samuel Alito did not refute his record of opposition to Roe v. Wade."

3:40 PM: Feinstein. You gotta love her.

12:50 PM: Biden wants to talk about Casey but doesn't have time...will have to wait until later. Sigh.

12:45 PM: Another discrimination case from Biden, pushing Alito on "real world" racism (which apparently he doesn't quite get).

12:32 PM: Biden says that others noted that Alito's judgment in the Bray discrimination case could effectively "eviscerate Title VII" and ignored the reality of racial animus. Dear lord.

12:32 PM: Biden is bringing up the Princeton club again and discrimination and how subtle it's become. He's questioning Alito on discrimination cases. This should be interesting.

12:29 PM: Biden is talking about Alito replacing O'Connor. And how important it is to understand that the hearings go beyond Alito, but is about who he is replacing.

Posted by Jessica at 12:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Question

Is it wrong that I love Sen. Biden purely because he just used the word 'malarkey'?

Posted by Jessica at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Alito hearings, morning edition

11:00 AM: OK, he's getting his ass kissed a little too much for my taste. I'm going to break for a while. In the meantime, look out for bloggers for choice...

10:30 AM: Alito is talking about his Princeton days and how he "doesn't recall" being involved with a less-than-desirable student organization. (You know the kind that doesn't like women or non-whites in school.)

10:11 AM: Now on to presidential power. Alito says, "no one is above the law." How Chuck Norris of him. He's not giving up anything though. Wow, I didn't think he could be as evasive as he was on Roe. How wrong I was.

10:05 AM: Ok, is anyone else completely distracted by the woman behind Alito and
her big green puffy shirt? Actually, I think that's his wife. My bad.

9:57 AM: Alito keeps talking about stare decisis and it's just killing me. He's not really giving anything up on Roe or Casey. Or maybe I'm just not listening hard enough...

9:47 AM: And Specter pulls out the big-ass chart! Super duper.

9:40 AM: And we get right into Roe!

Alito is talking about stare decisis and Roe. Haven’t we already talked about how this is completely useless? Precedent, my ass.

Such evasion...but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Posted by Jessica at 9:44 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Alito, Alito, Alito

Yeah, I know. All Alito, all the time on most blogs. Admit it, you love it. But luckily today’s hearings (set to start at 9:30AM) are all about the questions. Down to business.

In the meantime, check out Alito’s statement and the hearing transcript from yesterday.

Posted by Jessica at 9:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 9, 2006

Hope for Alito hearings

For those of you who are as freaked out as I am about the hearings (starting today!), here’s a little ray of hope I call Feinstein. Check out some of these excerpts from an interview the California senator gave Brit Hume on Fox News yesterday.

On the possibility of voting for Alito.
"Well, first of all, it depends on the hearing...His position on a woman’s right to choose or abortion I think is a seminal issue in all of this...Well, he has expressed his views. My question is are his views, let’s say, on abortion the same as they were in 1985 when he wrote in an application, the Constitution does not protect a woman’s rights in this area. Now, if that’s true and he still holds to that, this will make him a very difficult nominee for many of us."

On her concerns about Alito and Roe.
"Well, obviously, I come from a state that is 71 percent supportive of Roe. The American people, according to the latest ABC poll -- 60 percent supportive of Roe. This is a pivotal question. And he’s in a pivotal spot because of Sandra Day O’Connor’s particular position on the court, where she was dispositive in so many 5-4 votes.

...Roe could have been overturned 38 times. Precedent has been established. Women all over America have come to depend on it. An overwhelming majority of people support it."

Just plain sticking it to them.
"...I’m old enough to know what it was like back when abortion was illegal. I know what it’s like to see young women commit suicide. I know what it’s like to see them go to Tijuana. And I don’t want to go back to those days."

Admit it, you love her.

Posted by Jessica at 9:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 5, 2006

Women’s rights organizations join forces to block Alito

The National Organization for Women, the National Congress of Black Women and the Feminist Majority Foundation have just announced Freedom Winter ‘06, a joint campaign to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito.

In the spirit of Freedom Summer 1964, when thousands of students from across the country traveled to Mississippi and other Southern states to register and mobilize African American voters in unprecedented numbers, Freedom Winter ’06 is mobilizing students to save women’s rights and civil rights.

I think this is great--young women are going to be particularly affected if Alito is confirmed, so we need to get out there in force!

Posted by Jessica at 12:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NARAL releases new report on Alito and birth control

NARAL Pro-Choice America has just released a report on Alito and his
anti-choice history--specifically how he confuses birth control with
abortion. I know, it’s wacky.

Download the report here.

Posted by Jessica at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 3, 2006

Countdown to hearings begin

Alito’s hearings are set to begin on January 9. Scary.

And of course, abortion will be a huge focus of the questioning--specifically a 1980s case where Alito upheld a restriction requiring that women obtaining abortions notify their husbands. You know, cause us feeble girls can’t make big decisions on our own.

Senators are expected to grill Alito about the case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, scheduled to begin Jan. 9. They're also expected to ask him about memos he wrote in the 1980s in which he said Roe should be overturned.

While the court's decision in Casey upheld a constitutional right to abortion, the justices gave states new powers to make it more difficult for women to end their pregnancies. For that reason, activists on both sides regard Casey as the court's most important abortion case since Roe, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Since Casey, state legislatures have approved hundreds of new regulations that determine when, where and how women may get abortions.

Let’s just hope that folks are little harder on Alito than they were on Roberts.

Note: BushvChoice is going to have some cool stuff going on starting the week of the hearings, so make sure to come back often. And no, I won’t tell you yet. It’s a surprise.

Posted by Jessica at 9:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 27, 2005

Alito against liberty?

The Boston Globe has an interesting piece today on Alito and his stance on the 14th Amendment’s protection of ''life, liberty, and property,” a main component in Roe.

Apparently Alito tried repeatedly to limit the court’s interpretation of these protections. Great.
The appeals court had ruled in a series of cases that the 14th Amendment protects people against arbitrary decisions by their local government, such as zoning board officials who deny permits for no good reason.

Alito, now a nominee to the Supreme Court, rejected such rights, writing that ''only in extreme circumstances is it proper to invoke" 14th Amendment protections.

Although the zoning board cases involved a subject quite different from abortion, Alito's critics note that the Supreme Court cited the same interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Roe v. Wade as a justification for the right to an abortion -- that denying a woman access to an abortion unfairly deprives her of her liberty.

Read the whole piece for the full story, but really—how much more info do we need on this guy to know that he’s terrible for women?

Posted by Jessica at 10:42 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 23, 2005

Alito argued to overturn Roe...again

It just keeps getting worse with this guy! How much more convincing do folks need that Alito is dangerous for women?

From the Associated Press:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings.

In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

More to come on the legalese of the memo--in the meantime, check it out for yourself.

UPDATE: Looks like this memo--which is being called new by news and wire services--is actually the same one released some time ago. Well, at least we can view the full doc this time around.

Posted by Jessica at 10:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 16, 2005

Civil rights orgs (don’t) heart Alito

The Washington Post reports that several large civil rights organizations have come out against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the Black Leadership Forum held a Capitol Hill news conference where they announced plans to fight Alito's nomination.

The LDF also issued a 70-page analysis of Alito's record to buttress its position. It concludes that Alito would pose a threat to the nation's hard-earned civil rights gains. "We can predict with substantial certainty that Judge Alito will likely vote in a manner that, given the current composition of the court, will cause a substantial shift in the court's civil rights jurisprudence with devastating effects," the report said.

Coming out strong; I love it!

Posted by Jessica at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 14, 2005

Best news via a headline ever

Knight Ridder Newspapers: Alito hearings to be rougher than Roberts'

Well I should certainly hope so!

Opposition to Alito is extensive, far beyond what Roberts faced. Because Alito's conservative credentials are beyond question and his stands on controversial questions of law are more clear cut than Roberts' were, his backers assume that at least the 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts will be united against him - and probably more.

"This vote will be all of those and then some," said Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, which supports Alito's confirmation.

Both Republican and Democratic Senate aides believe that Alito could easily have more than 40 votes already lined up against him, but most aren't ready to declare publicly yet.

These votes would be enough to block Alito with a filibuster.

Posted by Jessica at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 12, 2005

Must-read on Alito

This LA Times column brings up some interesting points about Alito’s stance on abortion and what it means for the future.

Author Ronald Brownstein points out that the recent disclosures from Alito’s memos on Roe say a lot about the future of Supreme Court nominees:

If this ammunition allows opponents to stop Alito — either by a majority vote or a filibuster — it will surely push future presidents back toward stealth nominees with limited public records. But if opponents can't generate full-scale resistance to Alito — at a time when nearly two-thirds of Americans tell pollsters they don't want Roe overturned — Bush and his successors may conclude they can risk more ideologically aggressive nominees, so long as the public considers them qualified.

Scary stuff. Personally, stealth nominees freak me out more than an out-of-the-closet anti-choicer like Alito.

Brownstein also squashes a common argument being pushed by Alito’s supporters concerning the memos:

One is the Roberts defense: Alito was only following his client's directions. That seems less persuasive than in Roberts' case. In the Justice Department memo, Alito wasn't advocating for his client; he was advocating an anti-Roe strategy to his client. And in the job application he clearly expresses personal pride about his work on antiabortion cases.

Read the whole piece; let me know what you think.

Posted by Jessica at 3:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 7, 2005

Don’t be fooled over Ayotte

Former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt has a great editorial in Women’s eNews today on Supreme Court case Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

Feldt reminds us what Ayotte is really about.

Don't mistake Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England--the abortion case now before the Supreme Court--for a run-of-the-mill case about minors' access to abortion.

Think of it as two poisonous arrows aiming straight for the heart of Roe v. Wade.

Scary image, but a correct one.

The two arrows Feldt refers to are central to women’s reproductive rights and health:

The questions the sections in the law put before the court are whether protection of women's health--the so-called health exception--can be absent from laws that restrict abortion, and whether the standard for challenging laws restricting abortion will be lowered to the point that a woman would have to actually be harmed before the law could be challenged.

If the high court upholds the New Hampshire law, poof, there goes Roe's health standard that has continued to protect women even as states and Congress have chipped away at access to abortion. And poof, there goes the legal standard allowing us to immediately prevent these laws from being enforced when a court deems they are likely to cause harm to women.

Truly terrifying. Make sure to read the whole piece.

Posted by Jessica at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 6, 2005

Most telling title ever

This Boston Globe headline caught my eye this morning: For foes of Roe v. Wade, Alito's fuzziness comforts.

Ah yes, the warm fuzzy comforting feeling of women’s reproductive rights being eroded.

Check this out, from the article:

One would think that the news that President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court said in a job application that he believes there is no right to abortion; that he strategized about ways to undermine Roe v. Wade while an attorney in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department; and that he left no doubt in his mother's mind that he opposes abortion, would all be glad tidings to conservatives.

But conservatives know that Alito will have an easier time being confirmed if there's ambiguity about his stance on abortion. So [Judicial Confirmation Network head, Wendy] Long chose to describe Alito's Reagan-era memo on overturning Roe, which was released by the National Archives last week, as ''more about inside baseball and tactics" than his view of abortion rights.

So don’t forget, these mofos are being deliberately ambiguous. This whole thing is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to anti-choicers, who have no doubts about Alito’s intentions towards Roe. And neither should you, so make sure to take action.

Posted by Jessica at 10:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 2, 2005

Dems coming out strong against Alito

After finding out about a new anti-choice memo, Democrats are “taking a firmer stance” against Alito’s nomination, reports The New York Times.

Lawmakers and senior aides said Thursday that a newly released Reagan administration memorandum from 1985 laying out Judge Alito's strategy for weakening the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade abortion ruling has intensified Democratic skepticism toward the nominee not just on abortion rights, but also on whether he is being forthcoming.

"Certainly the chance of a filibuster is greater today than it was the day Alito was nominated because of so many new revelations," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday.

Mr. Schumer also sent Judge Alito a letter asking him to explain why his participation in the Supreme Court case while working in the Justice Department was not disclosed in his responses to a Senate questionnaire.

Mr. Schumer and other Democrats say a judgment on whether the emerging record on Judge Alito is sufficient to provoke a filibuster will hinge on his performance during confirmation hearings scheduled to start early next month.

Well thank goodness. The last thing women need is yet another anti-choice Justice.

Posted by Jessica at 11:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 1, 2005

Alito memo reveals more anti-choice actions

It just gets worse and worse with this guy!

A new memo written by Alito in 1985 shows that he has been working to undermine choice for years.

The memo, written during Alito’s tenure in the Reagan administration, says that the Justice Department should set a goal of overturning Roe, and in the meantime should weaken the law through state restrictions.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, “Alito’s memo is a litany of legal strategies designed to undermine women’s reproductive health. He even confuses birth control with abortion and advocates additional restrictions on women’s access to contraception.”

Lovely. Click here to find out more about the memo.

Posted by Jessica at 11:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 30, 2005

Supreme Court case starts today

From the Associated Press:

The court, starting with Justice David Souter, a New Hampshire native, wasted little time before firing questions at Ayotte about how the state's law deals with situations where a minor's health — but not life — is in danger and she needs an immediate abortion.
Justices

Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer zeroed in on how doctors would avoid being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion if the minor did not want to notify a parent and a judge was unavailable to provide the necessary approval.

The justices did not seem satisfied when Ayotte said another, existing New Hampshire law would protect the doctor from legal action and that the state's attorney general would set a policy that would shield physicians in such instances.
"How do we know that's the law?" asked Breyer. "There are people of good faith on both sides of this argument" who may disagree about the other law's meaning.
…

"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which challenged the law.

We’ll keep you updated on the case…

Posted by Jessica at 12:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 29, 2005

Supreme Court meets on abortion tomorrow

The Supreme Court will meet tomorrow to start hearing arguments on Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, the court’s first abortion case in five years.

On a conference call last night for bloggers, speakers from NARAL, the ACLU Reproductive Freedoms Project and NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire explained that Ayotte is about a hell of a lot more than parental notification.

This case isn’t arguing whether or not parents should be notified or give consent when their daughters want to obtain an abortion--it’s about the health of young women:

New Hampshire imposes a 48-hour waiting period after the required notice to at least one parent. Like all states, it provides an exception for conditions that present an immediate threat to a pregnant teenager's life.

But of the 43 states with parental-involvement statutes, New Hampshire is one of only five that do not also provide an exception for non-life-threatening medical emergencies, and it was on this basis that two lower federal courts declared the law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's decision in the case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, may therefore shed light on the contours of the "health exception" that the court's abortion precedents have required since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

No matter what someone thinks about abortion, I think any parent would want their child to get the best medical care possible. And if your daughter is in medical distress, you would want her doctor taking care of her, not running off to find a lawyer and judge.

In a press release, NARAL Pro-Choice America president said, “The Ayotte case illustrates what’s at stake when it comes to the balance of the Supreme Court...The Bush administration has weighed in on this case, which means it wants politicians – not doctors – to determine when women can and cannot receive the care they need. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ayotte could effectively dismantle Roe v. Wade’s core protection of women’s health and fundamentally alter how doctors challenge abortion restrictions that pose a threat to their patients’ health. If the Court sides with the Bush administration, we also will see an onslaught of anti-choice measures in state legislatures that would all but eliminate the right to choose for millions of American women.”

Scary as hell. So don’t let this one fall below the radar.

Posted by Jessica at 11:31 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

November 28, 2005

Roberts faces first major abortion case

New Chief Justice John Roberts will face his first major abortion case on the Supreme Court when Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood comes up before the court next week.

The case stems from a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring teenagers to tell a parent before getting an abortion. While the law has an exception for girls who would die without the procedure, New Hampshire lawmakers omitted an exception for other non-life-threatening health problems because they felt it would render the law meaningless.

The new law has never been enforced, because two federal courts have said the lack of a health exception made it unconstitutional.

...New Hampshire's version would make it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor unless the doctor has written proof that at least one parent has been notified or unless the doctor certifies the girl would die without the procedure.

But unlike the parental involvement laws in most states, the New Hampshire statute does not explicitly let a doctor proceed when, in the doctor's judgment, the girl might be about to suffer serious health consequences short of death.

Nice to know where some folks’ priorities are

Posted by Jessica at 10:35 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

November 22, 2005

Alito needs to explain 1985 comments

From the Associated Press:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Monday that the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will be more difficult because of comments Alito made on a 1985 job application.

Durbin, D-Ill., said he is concerned because on the application, Alito questioned constitutional protections that the No. 2 ranking Democrat says are widely considered "fundamental."

"It would be troubling if he still holds these opinions," Durbin told reporters after speaking at the University of Chicago Law School.

...Durbin said Alito can expect to be asked about his comments on the 1985 document.

"I think he not only has to explain where he is today, but whether he has changed a position he took 20 years ago," Durbin said.

I agree, but really--how likely is that Alito will give a straight answer? I think we’ll be seeing a lot of answer-avoiding nonsense reminiscent of the Roberts hearings.

Posted by Jessica at 9:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 21, 2005

Take Action!

Help stop anti-choice Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito--sign NARAL’s petition. NARAL Pro-Choice America is aiming for 500,000 signatures by December 9th, so after you sign the petition send it to friends. (You can also print it up.)

A little something cool--if you collect 6 petition signatures by Dec. 9, you get an oh-so-cool magnet. Come on, admit it. You love magnets.

Posted by Jessica at 3:52 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

November 17, 2005

More anti-choice info on Alito

It just keeps getting better. Sigh.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, noted recently that a story in the Boston Globe underscores Alito’s anti-choice views.

According to the news report, a former colleague of Alito’s during his tenure in the solicitor general’s office has revealed that Alito sought out the opportunity to work on the Reagan administration’s 1985 legal brief for Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This brief argued in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade: "[T]he textual, historical and doctrinal basis of [Roe v. Wade] is so far flawed that this Court should overrule it and return the law to the condition in which it was before that case was decided."

"Americans have read Alito’s own words boasting of the special gratification he felt to be involved in the Reagan Administration’s efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Everyday, we learn new information revealing the true nature of Alito’s work at the Department of Justice—as an architect of a legal philosophy that opposed a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” Keenan said.

Terrifying. Click here to learn more about Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Posted by Jessica at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 16, 2005

Quick hit: What Would Alito Do?

Go check out Sharon Lerner’s What Would Alito Do? at The Nation. Lerner discusses how Alito is a little too willing to put restrictions on abortion and what that could mean for upcoming Supreme Court cases on choice.

My fave part:

The answer lies in his record. Airing his extreme decisions for what they are and what they mean for women's rights and health is the best hope we have of preventing the "note-from-your-husband judge" from becoming the "not-on-your-life Justice."

Posted by Jessica at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 15, 2005

Alito backs away from past abortion comments

In a recent conversation with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito backed away from his past anti-choice comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an abortion rights supporter and the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she asked the conservative judge about a document released Monday showing Alito in 1985 telling the Reagan administration he was particularly proud to help argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”

“He said first of all it was different then,” she said. “He said, ‘I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I’m now a judge, I’ve been on the circuit court for 15 years and it’s very different. I’m not an advocate, I don’t give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.”’

I don’t buy it. Arguing that Roe isn’t constitutional isn’t a personal view, it’s a legal opinion. And that’s what makes it dangerous.

Posted by Jessica at 12:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 14, 2005

Alito says there is no right to abortion

Wowie.

Check this out from The Washington Times:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.

"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

..."I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Scary stuff.

Posted by Jessica at 9:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 9, 2005

Alito and Roe: Don’t believe the hype

Alito and his recent comments on Roe aren’t anything to get excited over. Seriously.

“Mr. Alito is making the standard political move of ‘going centrist’ after nomination,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The hard-line anti-choice base secured his nomination, and now Alito is courting the votes of moderate senators who respect a woman's right to choose and respect the Court for adhering to precedent. Clarence Thomas told the Senate that he respected precedent, then he voted to overturn Roe one year after he was confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. That is why Americans can’t take these reported statements at face value. If Alito's backers -- the ones who forced Harriet Miers' withdrawal -- are so delighted with him, would he be so respectful of precedents women's freedom if he is confirmed?”

Click here to check out exactly what Thomas said.

Posted by Jessica at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 8, 2005

Pro-Choice Americans can't afford to gamble on Alito

The latest info from NARAL spells out exactly why Alito is so dangerous for choice.

The thing that resonated most with me is just how giddy anti-choicers are over his nomination:

Remember that President Bush caved in to the anti-choice far right when his first nominee, Harriet Miers, failed to meet these groups' call for a reliable opponent of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

Groups like Concerned Women for America and Operation Rescue officially opposed Miers. Their opposition came despite reports that Miers contributed money to an anti-choice group, supported a constitutional ban on almost all abortions during her run for the Dallas City Council, led the fight at the American Bar Association to repeal its pro-choice policy, and had numerous friends and colleagues attest to her anti-choice beliefs. Her record was insufficient and unreliable for them. They insisted the President go back to the drawing board--and he capitulated to their demands.

Tellingly, on the day President Bush announced Alito's nomination, those same anti-choice, far-right groups who have long demanded the overturn of Roe v. Wade cheered the news.

Terrifying.

The new document also goes into Alito’s record--which is way risky on choice. Make sure to check it out.

Posted by Jessica at 11:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 7, 2005

The Far-Right hearts Alito

The far-right and anti-choice folks are just falling all over themselves with joy over nominee Alito. One phrase that keeps coming up in their praise of Alito is that he’s a “strict constructionist.”

NARAL has a new document on Alito that explains exactly what a “strict constructionist” means (hint: it’s not good for choice) and gives samples of what the far-right is saying about their boy Samuel.

Make sure to check it out.

Posted by Jessica at 3:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 4, 2005

Alito and Roe

While not particularly shocking, I think this Washington Post article is worth taking a look at: Nominee's Reasoning Points to a Likely Vote Against Roe v. Wade.

Terrifying, I know.

At least on the surface, Alito's record as an appeals court judge contains something for everyone. In 1991, he voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law that would have required married women to notify their husbands before getting an abortion. In 1995, however, he cast a deciding vote on a three-judge panel to strike down what abortion rights advocates saw as Pennsylvania's onerous regulations on federally funded abortions for victims of incest or rape. And in 2000, he concurred in a ruling that struck down a New Jersey ban on the late-term procedure called partial-birth abortion by opponents.

Yet for supporters and skeptics, Alito's record is not ambiguous, and it points toward the same conclusion: He would probably vote to strike down Roe. And they say this for a similar reason: It's not the results Alito reached in past cases that matters, it's his legal reasoning.

Alito's dissenting opinion in the 1991 case, which was later rejected by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court, shows "there was a little bit of interpretation, and more room for him to apply his own perspective to it," said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, which backs abortion rights. As a result, she said, his true anti- Roe colors came through.

Make sure to check out the whole piece. And then do something about it.

Posted by Jessica at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 3, 2005

Quick hit

Make sure to check out the latest from columnist Ellen Goodman, Alito's record a bad omen for women.

Goodman explains exactly what went down with Casey and why women need to be seriously wary about this nominee.

Posted by Jessica at 4:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Alito says he struggled with abortion decision

From The New York Times:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, told a pivotal Democrat that he had wrestled intensely with a 1991 opinion favoring an abortion restriction that has become a flashpoint in the debate over his confirmation.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said that in a private meeting he had asked Judge Alito about his dissent in the appeals court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The majority opinion in the case struck down a law requiring a married woman to notify her husband before having an abortion. Judge Alito, in dissent, would have upheld that provision.

"He said he had spent more time worrying and working over that decision than over any other decision he made when he was a judge," Mr. Durbin said.

Um, ok. But worry or not, Alito still came to the conclusion that restrictions on abortion--including spousal notification--were just peachy. I think women are the ones that need to be worried.

Posted by Jessica at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 1, 2005

NY Times: Alito confirmation may hinge on abortion case

The New York Times reports that Alito’s confirmation could be strongly affected by a 1991 abortion case. Uh oh.

Here’s some info on the case from NARAL’s fact sheet on Alito:

He was among the Third Circuit judges who heard Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey before it went to the Supreme Court. While the Third Circuit overturned the spousal-notification provision of the statute, it upheld the remaining provisions, including a mandatory delay and a biased-counseling requirement.

Alito concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority’s opinion, arguing that all of the proposed law’s restrictions on abortions were constitutional. Had Alito’s opinion been the majority’s, most married women seeking abortion services would have been required to notify their husbands prior to exercising their right to choose.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the next year struck down the notice requirement as an undue burden. Times reporter Linda Greenhouse notes that an abortion case that is set to be argued later this month touches on similar issues that came up in Casey:

A new abortion case to be argued on Nov. 30, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, No. 04-1144, poses a variant of the same question. The federal appeals court in Boston extrapolated from the Casey decision and struck down a New Hampshire parental-notification requirement for minors seeking abortions on the ground that because its lack of a provision for a health emergency would place a severe burden on some fraction of teenagers, the burden was "undue" for all.

...If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will vote in this case only if Justice O'Connor has cast the deciding vote, and then only if the court decides after she leaves the bench to break the tie by rearguing the case.

Translation: This is one to keep an eye on.

Posted by Jessica at 8:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 31, 2005

Oppose Alito!

Find out more about Alito and his anti-choice record here.

Then get your ass moving and take action by emailing your senators! (Make sure to tell all your friends to do the same.)

Posted by Jessica at 4:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pro-Choice Americans Oppose Alito

NARAL Pro-Choice America has formally announced its opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Some troubling info on Alito:

Alito took pains to distant himself from the longstanding constitutional requirement that abortion restrictions must have exceptions when a woman's health is in jeopardy. He did so when ruling on a law that effectively banned abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and lacked an exception to protect women’s health. The health exception is a fundamental tenet of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the need for the health exception this fall. Should Alito’s vote replace that of Sandra Day O’Connor, a fundamental right will likely be lost by next summer.

Alito has argued that significant restrictions on a woman's right to choose are constitutional. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that all of the proposed law’s restrictions on a woman's right to choose – including a spousal notification provision struck down by the Third Circuit and, later, the Supreme Court – were constitutional. Alito dissented in part because he would have gone even further than the rest of the court.

Alito would uphold state laws that place significant roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortion care. Alito concurred with the majority’s opinion in Casey that concluded that “time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing the woman to receive information she has not sought,” although admittedly “potential burdens,” could not “be characterized as an undue burden.” This opinion practically ensures that he would never find any burden to be undue.

Terrifying.

Posted by Jessica at 12:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush picks new Supreme Court nominee

From The Washington Post:

President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals.

Alito, appointed to the appeals court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, has been a regular for years on the White House's short list for the high court. He was also among those proposed by conservative intellectuals as an alternative to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel who withdrew as the nominee last week.

Great. Just great.

More to come...

Posted by Jessica at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 28, 2005

Who will be the next nominee?

From The Associated Press:

Denied his first choice, President Bush scrambled on Thursday to find a new Supreme Court nominee who could calm a conservative rebellion and walk sure-footedly through a Senate confirmation hearing.

That could point to a handful of federal judges believed to have been finalists when Bush made his doomed choice of Harriet Miers.

Some top contenders are believed to be federal appellate judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Alice Batchelder, Priscilla Owen and Karen Williams as well as Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.

...Also being touted is Diane Sykes, who recently joined the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. A spokesman for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from her home state of Wisconsin, says she "has a wealth of experience, extremely solid intellect."

Don’t forget to take action and let Bush know that this decision is too important to rush!

Posted by Jessica at 10:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 27, 2005

Take action!

So as you know (I hope!), Bush has accepted Miers' request to be withdrawn from consideration for the Supreme Court. This means Bushie and the far-right have another chance to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with an anti-choice nominee. Don’t let it happen!

Justice O’Connor has said she would serve until a new nominee is confirmed. Tell Bush that there is no reason to rush the process; sign NARAL’s petition now.

Posted by Jessica at 3:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Keenan speaks out on Miers’ withdrawal

Nancy Keenan says that Miers’ withdrawal is a clear demonstration of how the radical right is in charge of judicial selection for this administration.

"The withdrawal of this nomination exposes the right wing’s real agenda. They won’t be satisfied unless the president puts forth a nominee who is an avowed opponent of Roe v. Wade and who will shift the Court in a direction that threatens fundamental freedoms and liberties Americans cherish.

"It is obvious that judicial philosophy matters to the American people. The next nominee must give clear answers to direct questions regarding privacy and choice."

Posted by Jessica at 11:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

BREAKING: Harriet Miers withdraws nomination

From The Washington Post:

In announcing the decision, Miers and President Bush cited their concern with the requests of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for documents dealing with her work as White House Counsel that the administration has chosen to withhold as privileged.

But the Miers nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was in deep trouble, with little support in the Senate, open criticism from many Senators of both parties, and an outpouring of opposition from conservative activists and intellectuals.

Miers told the president in a letter of withdrawal that she was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interests of the country."

Bush responded that he was "reluctantly" accepting the decision.

Wow. I’ll give you more info as I get it.

Posted by Jessica at 9:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2005

Bush refuses to release Miers docs

He is really not screwing around. Despite the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have asked the White House for documents pertaining to Miers, Bush out and out refuses to hand them over.

"It's a red line I'm not willing to cross," Mr. Bush said. His flat refusal raised the stakes for Ms. Miers's Senate confirmation hearings, set to begin two weeks from now, as the president seemed to acknowledge.

"People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to watch - walk into the Oval Office and say: 'Mr. President, here's my advice to you. Here's what I think is important.'

Um, ok. But I don’t think that’s really going to fly. Americans want to know who Miers is, and they deserve all the information available.

Posted by Jessica at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 21, 2005

Miers says the past is the past

Harriet Miers insists that her 1989 position against abortion doesn’t necessarily reveal how she would vote on Roe as a Justice:

Democratic Senator Herb Kohl said he questioned Miers about her support 16 years ago for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion except to save the mother's life. Miers sought the endorsement of a Texas anti-abortion group that year for her Dallas City Council candidacy and filled out the group's questionnaire.

Kohl said he asked Miers about the questionnaire during a private meeting today to try to elicit her views on the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

“She made the point that it was at a different time for a different purpose, that we should not read too much into that in terms of where she might be on the issue of privacy and a woman's right to choose,” Kohl told reporters in Washington.

So basically, we’re still as clueless as we were yesterday? Excuse me if I don’t find this acceptable.

Posted by Jessica at 10:16 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 19, 2005

Miers’ confirmation hearings to start in Nov.

Well at least now we know exactly when we’ll be getting the run-around:

Confirmation hearings for White House counsel Harriet Miers, President Bush's choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, will commence the first week of November.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the decision to start the hearings on Nov. 7 was passed on to Republican Judiciary Committee members by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., at a meeting this morning.

...Democrats have been pushing to start the hearing later in the month, saying there is no need to rush the White House counsel's confirmation since O'Connor has promised to stay on the court until her replacement is approved by the Senate.

Republicans are pushing to have Miers confirmed and on bench before Thanksgiving.

Let’s just hope Miers makes her positions on choice clearer than Roberts did.

Posted by Jessica at 4:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Terrifying news of the day

From The Associated Press:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged unflagging opposition to abortion as a candidate for the Dallas City Council in 1989, according to documents released Tuesday.

She backed a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure in most cases and promised to appear at "pro-life rallies and special events."

Sigh. This is just getting more and more convoluted. We deserve a straight answer on where Miers falls when it comes to choice--though it’s not looking too good.

Posted by Jessica at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 18, 2005

Keenan responds to Miers confusion

NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to make her position on privacy and a right to birth control clear.

Nancy Keenan released the following statement:

“Americans have heard and read conflicting reports on Harriet Miers’ views on birth control and a woman’s right to choose. Yesterday, there was confusion over whether she told the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee she supported the decisions in the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases, which affirmed a constitutional right to birth control. In recent days, some of her friends have given assurances that she would serve as a reliable vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Miers then said she hadn’t discussed her views on Roe v. Wade. Now, an unsigned questionnaire from her days as a political candidate has surfaced that appears to show she supported a wide range of anti-choice policies. Harriet Miers’ inconsistency and evasiveness continue to generate confusion and concern. Miers must give direct answers on these critical questions as she pursues a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.”

Posted by Jessica at 4:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Miers on Roe: will she or won’t she

While James Dobson has come out to say that Karl Rove never told him how Miers would vote on Roe, it looks like Dobson may have gotten that information somewhere else. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal obtained notes from a conference call (that included Dobson and other religious conservatives) where two of Miers’ close friends said that she would vote to overturn Roe. Yikes.

However, yesterday Miers said, “'No one knows how I would rule on Roe v. Wade.” Ok, but I’m not convinced.

In addition, The Washington Post reports that Miers’ position on privacy rights have become somewhat convoluted:

But as Miers sought to distance herself from the judges' assertions, her day on Capitol Hill ended in confusion over how far she went in telling senators that she believes there is a constitutional right to privacy -- the right that is the legal premise of Roe.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) emerged from a 100-minute meeting with the nominee and said that she stated she believes that a right to privacy exists. Initially, Specter told reporters that Miers had said "she backs Griswold," referring to a 1965 case that dealt with access to contraceptives on the basis of privacy considerations.

But last night, a spokesman for Specter issued a statement saying that Miers had called him after his public comments "to say that he misunderstood her and that she had not taken a position on Griswold or the privacy issue."

What is going on here?!

Posted by Jessica at 10:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 7, 2005

Conservatives (don't) heart Miers

From The New York Times:

The White House moved to contain a continuing revolt among conservatives on Thursday over President Bush's selection of Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court. Some conservatives said that Ms. Miers could withdraw, and White House officials countered that the idea was preposterous.

The White House aides said they were now focusing their efforts on the Senate floor. "There's frustration because people don't know Harriet and they have all these questions," said Ed Gillespie, the former Republican party chairman, who is helping shepherd Ms. Miers through her Senate hearings and who was pummeled by angry conservatives at a meeting earlier this week.

Republicans said that White House officials had not anticipated the intensity of the criticism and that conservative groups felt they had not been given adequate warning that Ms. Miers was the president's pick.

Yikes...it’s a mutiny. We’ll keep you updated.

Posted by Jessica at 12:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 5, 2005

More on Miers

While some folks are saying that Harriet Miers is not the conservative nominee that the far-right would like her to be, today’s Washington Post article seems to show otherwise:

Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht says he has dated her "off and on" for decades...

Hecht, who first met Miers when she interviewed him for a job in the early 1970s, wields one of the most conservative gavels on the Texas bench. He said he has attended several antiabortion dinners with Miers and noted that she has always tithed to the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, where antiabortion literature is sometimes distributed and tapes from the conservative group Focus on the Family are sometimes screened. He said her personal beliefs would not guide her jurisprudence, but he scoffed at the skepticism that some conservatives have expressed about Bush's selection of Miers.

"I know what her judicial philosophy will be, and when they find out what this president knows about Harriet, they are going to be happy as clams," Hecht said.

Though I certainly won't be...

Posted by Jessica at 6:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 4, 2005

Bush evasive on Miers and Roe

Bush wasn’t exactly forthcoming during today’s White House press conference--he refused to say whether Harriet Miers would uphold women’s right to choose. He also wouldn’t say whether he had ever discussed abortion with Miers, despite the fact that she’s worked with him for more than a decade.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America released the following statement about the conference:

“President Bush's press conference raised--not answered--questions for the American public about Harriet Miers. This administration and Harriet Miers have the burden of proving to the American people that she would continue Justice O'Connor's tradition of moderation and independence. Unfortunately, the president missed that opportunity in the Rose Garden today.”

Word around the blogosphere however, is that Miers is a well-known opponent of choice.

Not to mention, Bush said several times over that Miers shares his "judicial philosophy" while also noting that he is a "pro-life president." Perhaps he doesn't need to answer questions for us to get the point after all.

Posted by Jessica at 1:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 3, 2005

Who is Harriet Miers?

Some links to help you out...

Reuters: Key Facts on Harriet Miers

Village Voice: What's the Deal With Harriet Miers?

Associated Press: Bush taps female justice nominee

The Nation: Harriet Miers: Supreme Court Choice With Few Footprints

Stone Court: Harriet Miers and Abortion

Posted by Jessica at 3:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the pivotal swing vote protecting women’s reproductive rights. Miers, who has never been a judge is the White House counsel.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling on Miers to demonstrate that she shares O'Connor's commitment to fundamental freedoms, such as the right to privacy as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

"The burden is on the Bush administration and Harriet Miers to prove to the American people that she will respect and protect our fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose. Miers does not appear to have a public record to assure America's pro-choice majority that she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the critical swing vote that protected women’s reproductive health and freedom. The president has known Miers for many years, so it’s incumbent upon his administration and this nominee to share with the American public her views on critical issues, including the right to privacy,” said Nancy Keenan.

Posted by Jessica at 10:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 29, 2005

Roberts is confirmed, pro-choice Americans disappointed

Ugh. So it’s done. John Roberts has been confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States.

Nancy Keenan had the following to say about it:

"We are clearly disappointed that the Senate has confirmed John Roberts for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, even though he repeatedly refused to answer fair and direct questions, including whether the right to privacy extends to a woman's right to choose. Pro-choice Americans applaud those senators who courageously opposed this nomination.

"Now that this first nomination process is complete, the Senate must turn to the monumental task of replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the Court's swing vote, O'Connor put reason before ideology and played a decisive role in protecting women's reproductive freedom. The president has an obligation to nominate an individual who reflects O'Connor's moderate philosophy and has a record of supporting the fundamental freedoms that Americans value."

Posted by Jessica at 12:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 28, 2005

Most duh-inducing headline ever

From the Associated Press: GOP Hopes for Another Smooth Confirmation

You don’t say?

Headlines aside, you should go check out this piece on the easy-as-pie time Roberts has been getting as of late.

Roberts has gone through the Senate relatively unscathed from the day President Bush tapped him as the nation's 109th Supreme Court justice.

"I'm not sure we will ever have the privilege of voting on a nominee who is more intelligent than John Roberts," said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore. "His integrity is beyond reproach as well. There's been no hint of any scandal."

I guess just the lack of sexual harassment claims make him a decent guy.

The article also touches on the concerns over Bush’s next nominee.

Posted by Jessica at 4:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 26, 2005

Roberts confirmation goes to Senate

From The Washington Post:

John Roberts' ascension to chief justice is so assured that senators debating the nomination this week may spend as much time talking about President Bush's upcoming nomination to fill a second vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Two-thirds of the 100 senators _ Republican and Democrats alike _ had already announced their support of the conservative federal appeals court judge as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist before the Senate even started its final debate Monday afternoon.

...A floor vote is planned for no later than Thursday.

Doesn’t sound very promising, I know. But you can still take action and urge your senators to oppose Roberts. It’s not over till it’s over.

Posted by Jessica at 10:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 22, 2005

Roberts endorsed by committee

Yeah, so we got some bad news.

Nancy Keenan released the following statement after the committee voted to send John Roberts’ nomination as Chief Justice to the full Senate for consideration:

“We are deeply disappointed that the committee supported this nomination. John Roberts repeatedly refused to answer fair and direct questions, including whether the right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to choose. His dodging of questions did nothing to alleviate pro-choice Americans’ fears that he poses a threat to Roe v. Wade. We want to thank those senators on the committee who opposed this nomination. We will continue to call on senators who do not serve on this committee to oppose Roberts’ nomination during next week’s floor vote.

“As we move forward to the next nomination for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat, the stakes are even higher. Justice O’Connor is the swing vote who puts reason before ideology. The senators who supported Roberts have an obligation to urge the president to nominate an individual who reflects O’Connor’s moderate views and will protect the fundamental freedoms that Americans value."

Thanks to all you pro-choice folks out there who took the time to take action online. Keep an eye out for more actions in the coming days!

Posted by Jessica at 3:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Voting starts on Roberts

Drum roll please...

Today's vote began with Specter giving the predictable thumbs up to Roberts. Ugh. But my fave person these days, Dianne Feinstein (and the only woman on the committee) said she was voting no. Some good news after all! Make sure to send Sen. Feinstein your thanks.

Roberts didn't exactly do a stellar job answering Feinstein's (or anyone else's) questions on choice. He refused to distance himself from his past record and was evasive to the point of ridiculousness about where he stands now.

What was also truly disturbing about Roberts "answers" is how similar they were to language used by Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. By the way, Justice Thomas voted to overturn Roe one year after his hearings. Roberts is likely to do the same.

If you want the whole story on Roberts, choice, and the hearings, check out this comprehensive report from NARAL.

Check out The New York Times for more on the voting.

Posted by Jessica at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 20, 2005

Quick hit: Who will Bush’s next nominee be?

The Associated Press takes some guesses and looks into how the Roberts hearings will play into Bush’s next pick.

Check it out, and let us know what you think.

Posted by Jessica at 3:04 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Specter to vote ‘yes’ on Roberts

Ugh.

Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an abortion rights supporter, declared Monday that he will vote for John Roberts to be confirmed as chief justice of the United States.

Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican, said that while Roberts never endorsed Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision protecting the right to abortion, the nominee at his confirmation hearings supported the constitutional right to privacy that underlies Roe and emphasized respect for the Roe precedent and others that reaffirmed it.

One of the few Republicans ever considered -- however remotely -- a possible "no" vote on Roberts, Specter's move leaves the eight committee Democrats with a difficult choice.

They must decide whether to oppose Roberts, at the risk of weakening their position on the next Supreme Court vacancy -- one that matters most to them -- for the pivotal seat left by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Seems like an easy decision to me...a resounding ‘hells no’.

Posted by Jessica at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2005

Clinton speaks out on Roberts

Former President Clinton talked about John Roberts yesterday on ABC’s This Week. He had some interesting things to say:

...The other thing is there was no issue with my appointees of their refusal to release documents, which I think is still a little bit of an issue in the Roberts case, although I don't know that it would make any difference if he released the documents, since he now says the first documents where he expressed his opinion didn't really reflect his opinion.

But I suspect he probably will be confirmed, but I think for a lot of Democrats, particularly-- And keep in mind, I think the whole idea of the Roe v. Wade issue is a big issue, because Justice Thomas said he'd never even discussed it with anybody, and then, like the minute he got on the Court, he made it clear that he wanted to repeal it.

Click here for the full transcript. What do you think?

Posted by Jessica at 9:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 15, 2005

Day Four: Roberts Refuses to Answer Questions (shocker)

After the fourth day of silence on key women’s issues, I am just sickened. Nancy Keenan released the following statement about Roberts’ refusal to state whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman’s right to choose:

“John Roberts ends his participation in these Senate hearings without telling the American people where he stands on issues that affect their everyday lives. Roberts repeatedly refused to answer fundamental questions on important liberties and freedoms, including whether the right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to choose. Americans do not want a Chief Justice who says privacy for some but not for all.

“While Roberts wanted to give the impression he respected the right to privacy and the precedent of Roe v. Wade, his answers look dangerously similar to the responses Clarence Thomas gave senators during his confirmation hearings 14 years ago. Thomas also gave grandiose remarks about respecting precedent and the right to privacy during his confirmation hearings. One year later, Justice Thomas voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

If you’re interested, click here to see a comparison of responses from John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. Scary.

Posted by Jessica at 5:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NY Times on Roberts

Check out today’s NY Times piece on the hearings, Roberts Parries Queries on Roe and End of Life. Interesting stuff.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. faced increasingly contentious questions from Democrats on Wednesday as he outlined his views on an array of legal issues, but repeatedly declined to address some of the most ideologically charged matters, including whether the Constitution establishes a right to abortion and a right to die.

"I'm not standing for election," Judge Roberts said in one testy exchange on end-of-life issues on the third day of his confirmation hearings for chief justice of the United States.

His refusal to elaborate on his statement that there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy drew criticism from Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, one of several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who challenged him with growing frustration on Wednesday.

"Without any knowledge of your understanding of the law, because you will not share it with us," Mr. Biden said, "we are rolling the dice with you, Judge."

No shit. Make sure to read the whole piece.

Posted by Jessica at 1:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 14, 2005

What anti-choicers say about Roberts

Nancy Keenan said today that John Roberts failed to give complete answers to questions on whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman’s right to choose:

“Anti-choice groups and talking heads that want to see Roe v. Wade overturned continue to cheer John Roberts’ non-responses to questions on a woman’s right to choose. This unwavering support from those who know John Roberts best shows they believe they can count on him to roll back women’s reproductive freedom,” Keenan said.

Oh and check out these gems from anti-choicers...they love them some Roberts.

Jay Sekulow, Executive Director of American Center for Law Justice
Pat Roberts: “This will mean judges though, that will be willing to go back and make it right, which means that you have got to over turn some of the stare decisis, is he prepared to do that?”

Jay: “I think there is no question.” “. . . I think what John Roberts is doing is laying out the case for how you review precedent, and I am very, very comfortable with how he has done it.”

700 Club, September 14, 2005

Ted Olsen, 42nd Solicitor General of the United States:
Q: “ . . . he outlined that there are circumstances where precedent is reversed”
A: “Yes. And it’s clear from what he said, he acknowledges the fact the Supreme Court sometimes changes its mind. It did in Brown v. Board of Education he mentioned that, he regards those decisions as precedents of the Supreme Court but they are not inviolate.”

Click here for more Roberts-love from anti-choicers.

Posted by Jessica at 6:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

LiberalOasis: Don't Buy Roberts' Privacy Talk

Make sure to check out Bill Scher’s (of LiberalOasis) excellent take on the hearings yesterday. He calls Roberts out for his statements on privacy. Cause really--they didn’t mean shit.

Much is being made of John Roberts’ claim that he believes there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
But it was a meaningless statement.

Read the whole thing. Now.

Favorite line ever: ...And you get one nasty anti-privacy sundae.

(Can’t help it; I like ice cream.)

Posted by Jessica at 1:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Highlights from yesterday

What a day...

Roberts refused to state whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman’s right to choose as recognized in Roe. Shocker. Equally as annoying was Roberts’ comments on precedent and the role of stare decisis, which did not take into account the very real fact that there is more than one way to dismantle Roe.

Facts: Saying that you respect precedent is not the same as actually following it. Roberts is not the only Supreme Court nominee who said he would respect precedent. During his confirmation hearing, Clarence Thomas claimed to support adhering to precedent; then he voted to overturn Roe. Hmmm...

This I love...our online activist report back:

Sonny in Washington: I called my senators to oppose John Roberts' confirmation to Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an AWESOME communication strategy. It was so easy for me to pick up the phone because you provided me with the phone numbers for each of my senators, as well as a simple script to follow. GREAT JOB! I also wonder if it might be effective to call the senator's regional offices located here in our state. Keep up the great work! This is SO important.

Betty in Arizona: I called both of my Arizona senators today after watching the Confirmation Meetings yesterday and today. I was very disappointed with Jon Kyl's opening remarks and talked with one of his employees to express my concerns and to ask him to change his vote. I have also forwarded your last email, encouraging all those I know to call their senators as well.

Keep up the amazing work!

Posted by Jessica at 12:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hearings Day 3

Stay tuned for analysis of today's hearings. (Maybe he'll actually answer something!)

Posted by Jessica at 11:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 13, 2005

Nancy Keenan speaks out...

Nancy Keenan issued the following statement in response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's questioning of John Roberts, President Bush's nominee for Chief Justice of the United States.

"Throughout Senator Feinstein's questioning, John Roberts continued to sidestep repeated, direct, fair questions about whether he believes the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to choose. Roberts' insistence on telling the public about what the Supreme Court has held, rather than his own judicial philosophy, should be a matter of great concern to senators and the public.

"Any American who has undergone a job interview must be watching today's hearings in astonishment. Senators have a duty and obligation to learn about John Roberts' views on critical constitutional issues. Yet, he continues to dodge even basic questions on whether he supports protecting a woman's right to choose. The far right is working to assure mainstream Americans that Roberts is a moderate, but today, he has done little to alleviate concerns that he cannot be trusted to uphold our fundamental rights, such as privacy and women’s reproductive freedom."

Posted by Jessica at 6:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) v. Roberts

Sen. Feinstein's questions ran the gamut from women’s rights, choice issues, environmental concerns and the separation of Church and State.

I was glad to see that she called Roberts out on his past they-were-a-joke-I-swear comments on women, though it seemed she could have given him a bit of a harder time on them. (Though she did tell him for someone who talked about modesty and humility, these statements were anything but.)

Roberts just responded with a predictable I have a wife, sister and daughter statement. That’s great and I’m sure he wants the best for them, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t come out with some pretty sexist remarks in the past.

Of course when questioned on privacy, Roe and Casey, Roberts dodged. Again. Relying on stare decisis just won’t cut it, Johnny!

More to come...

Posted by Jessica at 4:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Feinstein calls Roberts out on sexist comments

Sen. Feinstein is calling out Roberts right now on his past sexist comments and his views on Roe, Casey and Bray. Stay tuned for a full analysis. (Though I'm sure you can gather that he's not revealing much.)

Posted by Jessica at 4:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Round-up of this morning

The New York Times has a transcript of this morning's question and answer session.

Also check out NARAL's hearings update page here for more info.

Posted by Jessica at 2:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Biden questions Roberts on abortion, gender discrimination

Joseph Biden (D-DE), using Ginsburg as an example, asked Roberts about abortion and whether he thinks a state prohibiting abortion would limit women’s rights. Roberts refused to answer. Shocking.

Biden is too funny. When the Chairman tried to get Biden to stop talking so Roberts could answer, Biden said to Roberts, “Yeah, go ahead and continue not to answer.” Sweet.

Posted by Jessica at 12:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Roberts' answers on privacy give no assurance to pro-choice Americans

Nancy Keenan issued the following statement in response to Sen. Arlen Specter’s questioning of John Roberts:

“In his first round of questioning, John Roberts failed to state whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman’s right to choose as recognized in Roe v. Wade. He still must answer this vital question directly; the American people expect him to do so as the hearings go forward.

“Furthermore, Roberts’ comments on precedent and the role of stare decisis did not take into account the very real fact that there is more than one way to dismantle Roe. In this coming session alone, the Supreme Court will take up at least two reproductive rights-related cases. The Supreme Court could render Roe v. Wade a shell of itself, even without overturning the landmark decision. Roberts’ answers to Sen. Specter’s questions did nothing to give Americans confidence that, as Chief Justice, he would protect their fundamental freedoms.”

In addition, ConfirmThem.com (a blog organized by RedState.org) just came out all gleeful over Roberts’ answers on privacy. That should be enough to make you terrified:

Roberts’ answer was brilliant. He made a statement that will satisfy most Americans about privacy while leaving himself enough wiggle room to move the Court on that issue in the future.

ConfirmThem also reports this little tidbit:

A top-flight, leading conservative pro-life lawyer with a vibrant Supreme Court practice whose name most readers of this forum would know just walked into the room where I’m sitting. He was thrilled about Roberts’ answers during the dialogue with Specter and indicated his strong approval and endorsement. He explained that Roberts’s answer was carefully framed to provide a basis for revisiting and overturning Roe in the future. Specifically, he indicated that Roberts said that precedent could be overturned on the basis of changing circumstances.

Posted by Jessica at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Just in case you needed a reminder....

This is why we're opposing Roberts:

So-Called “Right to Privacy”
In an official memorandum to the Attorney General, then- Special Assistant to the Attorney General John Roberts dismissed one of our fundamental liberties as the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’” [Memorandum from John Roberts to the Attorney General (December 11, 1981)]

“Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
In the Supreme Court case Rust v. Sullivan, John Roberts co-wrote a legal brief arguing that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” [Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)]

Civil Rights Law Does Not Protect Women from Health Clinic Blockades.
In the Supreme Court case Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, John Roberts led the U.S. government’s participation as a “friend of the court” in support of Operation Rescue and argued for a narrow interpretation of a civil rights law used to protect women’s access to their doctors. Roberts claimed that the defendants’ blockades did not constitute discrimination against women and that a civil rights remedy was inappropriate.

Posted by Jessica at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Day 2: The questions begin

Not surprisingly, Roberts hasn’t answered much on choice so far--at least in detail. Sen. Specter started the questioning with Roe and the right to choose. Roberts talked about a bit and precedent, but didn’t touch on this past comments (shocking.)

Specter also questioned Roberts on Casey, and what-do-you-know, Roberts responds with a predictable comment on settled law being an “very important consideration.”

Roberts also spoke a bit about stare decisis (standing by a decision) in his comments on abortion.

“It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis...There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis.”

OK, but that’s still not telling us if he thinks the decision was wrong...

Roberts also sidestepped questions about his past statement on the “so-called right to privacy.”

I’m unimpressed so far...stay tuned.

Posted by Jessica at 10:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 12, 2005

Day one wrap-up

After attending the first day of Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement:

“Tomorrow, John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to Chief Justice of the United States, has an opportunity to give the public clear and direct responses to essential questions on fundamental freedoms, such as the constitutionally protected right to privacy. But will Americans get the straight answers they deserve? A troubling theme emerging from today’s remarks included a number of anti-choice senators seemingly laying the groundwork for Roberts to evade or refuse to answer questions..."

Read the rest here.

For the full transcript of the hearings, click here.

Make sure to check back tomorrow for coverage of the question and answer session.

Posted by Jessica at 7:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John Roberts speaks

John Roberts had the chance to make a statement today, before questioning begins tomorrow. Pretty predictable stuff. Here are some highlights from the Associated Press until I can get the full transcript:

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Monday that justices are servants of the law, playing a limited government role, as the Senate opened confirmation hearings on President Bush’s choice to be the nation’s 17th chief justice.

“A certain humility should characterize the judicial role,” the 50-year-old Roberts told the Judiciary Committee in a brief statement. “Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.”

The appellate judge likened judges to baseball umpires, saying that “they make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

...“I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform,” Roberts told the panel.

Hmmm...

The good part comes tomorrow, when Roberts is questioned. What would you ask?

Posted by Jessica at 4:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Orrin Hatch changes his tune

Alliance for Justice reports that Hatch has apparently changed his position on the speediness of hearings:

A second Repubican [sic] senator, Orrin Hatch of Utah (defying conventional political tie conventional wisdom in a very nice gold striped number), seems to be trying to lay the groundwork that it’s okay for Judge Roberts not to answer questions he find uncomfortable. Nice try.

...Hatch tried to bring up a Harding nomination from years ago, citing a same-day nomination and confirmation as some kind of gold standard. Because to respect the separation of powers that Hatch praised so highly the Senate should be a rubber stamp for the executive branch? No. Speed is not the standard here, thoroughness of review is.

Senator Hatch himself in 1997 said “"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)”

Imagine that.

Posted by Jessica at 3:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is speaking out now...

As the only woman on this committee...I have an additional role...to see that the hard-earned autonomy of women is protected...we share a history of having to fight for many rights--the rights that many young american women now take for granted.
(Um, not all of are, Dianne.)

Sen. Feinstein also (of course) made sure to bring up concern of Roberts’ comments on the right to privacy which could affect women’s right to choose:

For me, one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by you is the const. right to privacy...I remember, and many of the young women here don’t, what it was like when abortion was illegal.

I don’t want to go back to those days...

I’m glad Sen. Feinstein is bringing up the issues so important to women--but why the singling out of young women as not understanding the history of women’s rights? Just wondering...

Posted by Jessica at 1:44 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Roberts hearings begin

Sen. Hatch, in his opening statements said that the committee must “use a judicial rather than a political standard.” We know what that means.

Sen. Kennedy is just finishing up a great comment on the committee’s responsibility to America’s founding principle that we are all created equal. He not only brought up the progress we have made, but the fact that discrimination still exists in a very real way.

The central issue before us...is whether the Supreme Court will preserve the gains of the past and protect the rights that are indispensable...

Kennedy also commented on Roberts record (and the fact that Bushie won’t give up all his papers):

There are real and serious reasons to be concerned about Judge Roberts...his past comments cast doubt on his commitment to equal opportunity...

Kennedy ended by noting how important it is that the committee find out more about how Roberts feels on civil rights, the right to privacy, and the rights of women, minorities and the disabled.

More to come...

Posted by Jessica at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Roberts' confirmation hearings begin today

So stay tuned…I’ll be live-blogging as much as I can of the hearings.

NARAL Pres. Nancy Keenan has already posted an online audio message that goes over what’s at stake. So listen up. I’ll also be posting Keenan’s updates and insights here on the blog as the hearings proceed.

Here we go…

Posted by Jessica at 7:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 8, 2005

Take Action: Senate hearings to begin Monday, September 12

That’s right, it’s that time again. As you probably know, the Senate was set to begin its committee hearings on Roberts' nomination this week. But due to Chief Justice Rehnquist's death and Roberts' nomination to Chief Justice, the hearings have been postponed until this coming Monday.

So get on it! Send a message to your Senators, tell your friends all about the danger Roberts poses to choice, or help fund the fight.

Posted by Jessica at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 7, 2005

Women of Color Alarmed by Chief Justice Nominee

This has been going around as an email for some time, but now Women’s eNews is carrying it...very good stuff.

Women of color listen up.

As we focus on our sisters facing tragedy and despair in the hurricane-torn South, we need to remember that another struggle is going on, one that will profoundly influence our ability to eliminate the kind of racial disparities that continue to plague our nation. We are talking about the two vacancies on the Supreme Court.

President Bush has nominated John Roberts, yet another white male conservative, to sit on the highest court in the land. Initially nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, Roberts is now nominated to succeed William Rehnquist, who died over the weekend, as the chief justice on the Court.

Roberts' confirmation hearings, which were set to begin yesterday, are now scheduled for next week. If confirmed, he would cast critical votes in cases that involve our fundamental rights, our freedom and our lives.

In addition, as chief justice, Roberts would have an augmented authority that could affect the outcome of cases. For example, Roberts would decide which justice would write the opinion when he agrees with the majority of justices in a case. Roberts would also preside over the Court's internal deliberations on cases.

Before Bush named Roberts, the public discussion focused on the ethnic and gender identity of a potential Supreme Court nominee. There was widespread talk about whether the nominee would be a white woman or a Latino male, both of which should be on the Court.

But did anyone ever seriously mention a woman of color for the job?

Read the rest here.

Posted by Jessica at 2:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gallup Poll: Americans want Roberts to answer questions on abortion

From Gallup:

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say they plan to follow the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts closely. A majority of the public says it would like Roberts to answer questions on specific issues like abortion or affirmative action, rather than responding only to questions about his general judicial philosophy.

Posted by Jessica at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 6, 2005

NARAL opposes nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan released the following statement on Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to succeed William Rehnquist as the Chief Justice:

"President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice underscores the need for a more in-depth and deliberative examination of his record. The Chief Justice plays a critical role in setting the direction of the Supreme Court, and his or her decisions will have a profound impact on the freedoms and liberties that Americans cherish.

...We opposed Roberts' nomination because of his record of opposition to fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose. Roberts co-wrote a legal brief that said 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled' and dismissed a fundamental liberty as the 'so-called "right to privacy."'

Click here to learn more about the powers of the Chief Justice.

Posted by Jessica at 9:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 31, 2005

Gonzales says questioning Roberts on abortion is OK

According to USA Today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said it would be "appropriate" for the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask John Roberts about his personal views on abortion. (Well I would hope so!)

But Gonzales drew the line at senators asking Roberts about "an issue or case that he may have to preside on."

During a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board on Tuesday, Gonzales provided a glimpse of how Roberts might answer questions about such divisive issues as abortion during his confirmation hearings next week.

"In analyzing the answer to that question, I would caution everyone to remember that a judge's personal view about an issue may tell you absolutely nothing about his or her views about that issue as a legal matter," he said. "But I suppose that might be a question that would certainly be appropriate to ask, and he may choose to answer that question."

When asked about whether Roberts should talk about Roe and if it was wrongly decided, Gonzales said that Roberts "may be in a position" to answer the question.

Posted by Jessica at 10:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 26, 2005

NARAL Pro-Choice America releases new ad on Roberts record

NARAL’s new TV advertisement highlights Roberts’ more than scary statements on the “so-called” right to privacy and his record on choice.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released the following statement about the ad:

“At this point in our nation’s history, we need a Supreme Court nominee who respects our fundamental right to privacy, freedom, and personal responsibility. John Roberts dismisses our ‘so-called’ right to privacy – letting politicians into the most private decisions of every American and their families. NARAL Pro-Choice America will continue to be a vocal advocate for women’s fundamental freedoms. There is just too much is at stake to let John Roberts become a decisive vote on the Supreme Court.”

Watch the ad here.

Posted by Jessica at 11:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 25, 2005

Sen. Feinstein: Women’s rights are no joke

Oh how I love Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) these days. In response to some of John Roberts’ past comments on women and women’s rights, Sen. Feinstein is calling Roberts out on his supposed sense of humor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday that Roberts could be called to account for some of his humor from his years in the Reagan administration, when he frequently leavened his legal opinions with bursts of wit that could run from playful to caustic.

Feinstein, the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, pointed to one memo in which Roberts, while disparaging state efforts to combat discrimination against women, wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

Oh, what a laugh! Women working outside the home?! That is funny! (Note sarcasm please.)

Sen. Feinstein is more forgiving than I am:

"He ... had a sense of humor that is subject to interpretation, on women's rights for example," Feinstein told reporters after a speech at a downtown hotel.

"Whether that was a joke, or whether it represents his real view, I don't know. We'll try and find out," she said.

Let’s hope so. Because as far as I’m concerned, women’s rights aren’t a laughing matter. Ever.

Posted by Jessica at 10:17 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

August 23, 2005

Sen. Feinstein to question Roberts on abortion

The Associated Press reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA-D), the only woman on the 17-member Senate Judiciary Committee, will question Roberts on his views on abortion.

"I don't think in the last couple of decades there has been a Supreme Court appointment that could more tip the balance of the court," Feinstein said in a speech to several hundred Silicon Valley business executives. "That's how mega this vote is."

..."I happen to feel that it would be very difficult for me to vote yes on a nominee I thought would overturn Roe vs. Wade," she said.

I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by Jessica at 10:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 22, 2005

Doctor weighs in on Roberts

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a great column today reminding us (as if we needed one, but still!) why it’s so amazingly important that we know as much as we can on Roberts and his views on choice.

Thomas Allen, a doctor and member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH), tells it like it is:

From the early 1940s until 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, I saw the effects of illegal abortion firsthand. Hospital wards were crowded with women with infections and blood loss caused by illegal or self-induced abortions. Many, if they didn't die from gas gangrene or something else, were permanently injured and would never be able to have children.

I have five daughters, and I didn't want them ever to be in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy with nowhere to turn. When my hospital formed an abortion approval committee, I voted yes in every instance. I didn't feel guilty, because I knew how wrong the law was.

Many women outside of that hospital had no choice but to risk their lives and health. These women were desperate. They used coat hangers. They used knitting needles. It was a horrible, unnecessary, pervasive problem for physicians. We were powerless.

Those are the stakes with this Supreme Court nomination: not just individual rights and freedoms, but also public health. A Supreme Court justice who opposes legal
abortion is a threat to the health and lives of women nationwide.

Make sure to read the rest of the piece, and to check out PRCH’s new site, www.voicesofchoice.org.

Posted by Jessica at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2005

Roberts’ memos reveal more disturbing news

Wow. The fact that Roberts is anti-choice and anti-privacy isn’t news. But today’s Washington Post reveals some pretty shocking stuff. The article details memos that not only further prove Roberts’ commitment to anti-choice nonsense, but also show his straight-up disdain for women’s rights in general:

The memo about the Los Angeles service for aborted fetuses is part of a pattern in the documents issued yesterday by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: During his tenure from 1982 to 1986 in the Reagan White House, Roberts staked out conservative positions on a broader array of issues than has previously been known.

He called a federal court decision that sought to guarantee women equal pay to men "a radical redistributive concept." He wrote that a Supreme Court case prohibiting silent prayer in public school "seems indefensible."

What? Equal pay for women is radical?! That’s just lovely.

Posted by Jessica at 10:15 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 12, 2005

NARAL changes ad campaign

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan reveals a change in the organization's much-talked about ad campaign:

We sincerely share your hope that the upcoming Senate hearings will be a fair, thorough and serious examination of John Roberts’ legal philosophy and his views on significant constitutional issues. We also regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts’ record.

This week, we began a television advertising campaign aimed at focusing greater public attention on an important aspect of Mr. Roberts’ record. Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public.

Therefore, we are changing from our current advertisement to one that examines Mr. Roberts’ record on several points, including his advocacy for overturning Roe v. Wade, his statement questioning the right to privacy, and his arguments against using a federal civil rights law to protect women and their doctors and nurses from those who use blockades and intimidation.

NARAL stands behind the original ad, but when people and talking about an organization when they should be talking about a potential lifetime appointment something’s gotta give. It’s just too bad that people need a reminder like this to focus on what’s really important.

So let’s get back to work!

Posted by Jessica at 10:30 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 11, 2005

Yet another reason why...

I heart Barbara Boxer:

Sen. Barbara Boxer said she would vote against John Roberts' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, if she remains convinced he doesn't support abortion rights.

Boxer, fearing a more conservative court could lead "to the days of back alley illegal abortions," said pointedly of President Bush's pick to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Judge Roberts cannot duck this issue."

"I need to know exactly where he stands and I need to know whether he would fight to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people," said Boxer, D-Calif. "If I don't believe he will, I won't vote for him."

Damn straight!

Posted by Jessica at 12:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 9, 2005

Listen to choice news!

Now you can listen to the latest choice news. (Not that we don’t love you reading here!) Everyone’s favorite podcast on gender issues is back in the game. After a brief hiatus, Sex Talk has returned with a kick-ass new show.

Sex Talk creator Rebel Dad talks about the future of the show, the Roberts nomination, and some of the news you may have missed because of Roberts-fever.

Ahem, there is also an interview with me on emergency contraception woes in New York and Massachusetts, among other issues.

Make sure to check it out and show your support.

Posted by Jessica at 9:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush administration says NH parental notification law constitutional

Ugh. And the hits just keep on coming.

The Justice Department filed a legal brief with the Supreme Court yesterday arguing that New Hampshire’s parental notification law is not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided to hear the New Hampshire case after an appeals court found it unconstitutional because there was no health exception.

Hmm...why does that sound familiar? The brief filed noted that the parental notification case could have bearing on the bullshit Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which also lacks a health exception. So essentially the White House is trying to influence the court on the parental notification case because of its larger implications.

You know, you would think that if anti-choice folks wanted to make some headway with these laws, they would take women’s health and lives into consideration.

Posted by Jessica at 8:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 8, 2005

Blog props...

...for Armando at Daily Kos. His post today, Extremist Conservative Legal Reasoning on Abortion Rights, is a great legal history of “privacy” and choice. Not to mention it’s nice to see him give an intellectual smack down to NRO's legal analyst Ed Whelan.

Whelan was trying to argue that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are “neutral” on the right to choose. (Laughable, I know.)

Through examining the Roe and Casey decisions, Armando essentially tears Whelan’s argument apart and calls out the justices’ views on choice for what they are: extremist.

But most importantly, he brings it back to Bushie’s nominee: If Roberts hold this same extremist view, he is unfit for the Supreme Court.

Posted by Jessica at 4:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

New TV ad calls out Roberts on ties to violent anti-choice groups

NARAL Pro-Choice America launched a national television ad campaign today that draws attention to John Roberts’ less than stellar associates. You know, the ones that bomb clinics.

Featured in the ad is Emily Lyons, the former director of nursing at the New Woman All Women Healthcare Clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. Lyons survived anti-choice violence when a bomb exploded outside the clinic, resulting in the death of a police officer. Lyons underwent more than 20 surgeries for the injuries she sustained, and has since been a tireless advocate for reproductive rights and health.

Check out the ad here.

Posted by Jessica at 12:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 5, 2005

RNC chairman wants swift Roberts confirmation

Cause if we move fast enough, no one will be able to catch on to how scary he is...Mwahaha!

Ok, evil laugh aside, it’s not exactly surprising that Ken Mehlman--the chairman of the Republican National Committee--wants a fast confirmation. But it is bullshit. This is a lifetime appointment, folks. So excuse me if we’d like to get some questions in there. Jeez.

"Unfortunately, some on the other side want to turn a judicial confirmation into a political campaign," said Mehlman, arguing that Roberts will be a "superb Supreme Court justice."

Yeah, if you like having no privacy or choice rights. Then he’s super duper.

Posted by Jessica at 2:39 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 4, 2005

Quick Hits on privacy

LiberalOasis explores Roberts “so-called ‘right to privacy’” remark and explains what it really means. Check out a snippet:

Roberts comments on the right to privacy and Roe clearly show he casts his lot with...[t]he crew that doesn’t believe in individual privacy rights.

The crew that believes people don’t have a right to use birth control, to make their own medical decisions, to have sex with who they want to, and to start a family when they want to.

The crew that believes upholding such fundamental rights of personal freedom is “judicial activism,” but when Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas block Congress from dealing with public safety issues like domestic violence and gun control, it’s somehow “judicial restraint.”

The Bushies are going to try to keep Roberts a blank slate, spin what’s released of The Roberts Files, hide the rest, and keep the public from knowing what he will do on the Court.

But the picture is becoming clearer.

Also check out Pandagon on privacy and how it’s not just a women’s (or a choice) issue, but a class issue as well.

Posted by Jessica at 1:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 3, 2005

Our “so-called" right to privacy

It just gets worse and worse.

The Washington Post reports today on recently released documents that leave little question to how Roberts feels about the right to privacy. And it ain’t good.

...A second memo, sent by Roberts to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then- Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold's lecture, Roberts said, "devotes a section to the so-called 'right to privacy,' arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade."

So-called? That’s just fantastic. This comment makes it all the more clear where Roberts stands--right alongside anti-choice activists that oppose the right to privacy and want to do away not only with abortion rights, but with birth control rights as well.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said: “The more we learn about John Roberts’ judicial philosophy, the clearer it becomes that he is not the right choice for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” No joke. This guy is terrifying.

Posted by Jessica at 2:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 2, 2005

Supreme Court Media Blitz this week

NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling for Americans to get moving on the media in opposition to the Roberts nomination. So check out the call to action below and send the info to all your friends.

Did the radical right have undue influence over the nomination of anti-choice lawyer John Roberts? The word from the White House is: That's for us to know and you to find out!

Just last week the Bush administration not only broke with precedent to withhold the tax returns of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts from the public, they ALSO have not disclosed the reportedly numerous contacts between the White House and radical right organizations while Bush was deciding on a nominee.

The American public deserves the truth! So starting today, we're taking back the airwaves and demanding the truth about John Roberts.

Here’s what you can do to get involved:

In print: Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. If you’re not sure how to get started, take a look at these hints and a sample letter.

On the air: Take back the airwaves - take part in radio discussions about the Supreme Court battle. Use NARAL’s online media tool to find phone numbers and email addresses for your local stations.

Online: Make sure the blogosphere knows what's up. If you haven’t already, check out yesterday’s call to go choice-crazy in the comments section of some top political blogs.

Posted by Jessica at 1:06 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

August 1, 2005

NARAL Pres. responds to USA Today

While my rant about Laura Vanderkam’s article in USA Today (which argued that Roe doesn’t matter all that much) was certainly cathartic, it didn’t really take on the gaps in Vanderkam’s analysis. Fortunately, Nancy Keenan did. Check out her letter to USA Today:

Commentary writer Laura Vanderkam presents an extremely optimistic picture of what America would be like if John Roberts were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade were overturned. I wish her rosy scenario were true, but the reality is far more frightening ("If 'Roe' were overturned," The Forum, Wednesday).

Vanderkam's cursory review of states based on a "red/blue" analysis falls far short of offering USA TODAY's readers a complete picture of the current landscape for women's reproductive rights.

What Vanderkam doesn't share is that 19 states have both anti-choice governors and legislatures that have the votes to outlaw abortion in their states. She doesn't mention that states such as Michigan and South Dakota have already passed laws that could end up at the Supreme Court and put Roe v. Wade at risk. Legislators in places such as Ohio and Virginia are already talking openly of strategies to pass bills banning abortion entirely.

Vanderkam glosses over the frightening reality that there are only four states with reliably pro-choice officials in both the governor's mansion and the legislative leadership.

It is neither safe nor smart to assume that a woman's right to choose will be preserved because most Americans support it. The only way to ensure personal freedom is to keep opponents of it, such as John Roberts, off the Supreme Court. Then, let's work to elect more pro-choice members to Congress, state legislatures, governorships and, ultimately, the White House.

Posted by Jessica at 9:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Roberts Threatens “The Life And Health Of The Mother”

By Bill Scher, executive editor of LiberalOasis.com

The first blow to reproductive freedom if John Roberts is confirmed will be the gutting of “the life and health of the mother” standard for abortion regulations.

The 2000 Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart – a 5-4 decision with Sandra Day O’Connor in the majority -- is known for striking down a Nebraska ban on what anti-abortion groups inaccurately call partial-birth abortion.

But the Court was not expressing support for a particular abortion procedure. It was applying a key principle of Roe v. Wade: you can ban abortion after the fetus is viable, “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

In other words, in those rare situations when a pregnancy could accelerate the effects of diabetes, exacerbate heart disease, spread breast cancer or otherwise cause significant health problems, the wrenching decision whether or not to have a late-term abortion procedure is a decision that, under our Constitution, must remain between a woman and her doctor.

This recent Court ruling will be revisited soon, because Congress and George Bush enacted the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003” in defiance of our Constitution – explicitly refusing to include the constitutionally mandated exception when the health of the mother is in danger.

And one of the reasons why anti-abortion advocates purposely left out the health exception was that they hoped the Court’s composition would change by the time the law reached the Court for review.

A federal appeals court, one step below the Supreme Court, found the law unconstitutional just last month. Roberts may be seated just in time for the gambit to work.

Furthermore, we know from recently released documents from Roberts’ tenure in the Reagan Administration that he fundamentally disagrees with Roe.

And if you don’t agree with Roe, you don’t agree with Stenberg, you don’t agree that a health exception is backed by the constitutional right to privacy, and no longer will a pregnant woman’s medical decisions be between her and her doctor alone.

Does it make political sense to fight Roberts on these grounds? Yes it does. It is a fallacy that the public supports blanket bans of late-term abortion procedures.

An ABC News poll from 2003 showed that while 62% believed “the late-term abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction, or partial-birth abortion” should be “illegal,” it also found that if the procedure “would prevent a serious threat to the woman’s health,” public opinion turns, with 61% saying the procedure should then be “legal.”

The public does not want its government interfering with medical decisions, and does not want Supreme Court judges that would permit such a violation of privacy.

Posted by at 7:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 29, 2005

Women senators call out Roberts

Seven women senators are demanding Roberts respond to questions about his position on abortion and the right to privacy. Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Patty Murray (WA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Maria Cantwell (WA) have also launched a new website that allows the public to submit questions that they want the Judiciary Committee to ask Roberts.

Sweet!

Posted by Jessica at 4:47 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Roberts on civil rights

From the Associated Press:

Depending on the Senate Democrat, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has a questionable commitment to civil rights or is an outstanding nominee who pledges not to be an activist justice.

Criticism from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was the toughest talk yet from Senate Democrats about President Bush's first pick for the high court, who was continuing meetings with lawmakers on Friday.

A review of paperwork Roberts drafted while he worked at the Justice Department and White House counsel's office during the Reagan administration "certainly raise some questions in my mind about his commitment" to civil rights in general, Kennedy said Thursday.

Just something to think about…

Posted by Jessica at 6:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

Rant: Roe matters

I’m getting a little fucking sick of these articles coming out saying that if Roe is overturned it won’t make a difference. Yeah--maybe to you! For women around the country, it makes a hell of a difference.

From Laura Vanderkam at USA Today:

...however much energy is spent on Supreme Court nominee battles, a Roe reversal wouldn't change the country's total number of abortion providers much. In fact, a year after Roe is overturned, it would be the rare woman who would notice any difference in her life at all....

And how does Vanderkam come to this conclusion? Well, she says that it’s all about state laws. So apparently the states that already have a poor record on choice are just lost causes anyway:

...In a "worst-case scenario" (for pro-choice types) that included a Texas ban, overturning Roe would affect a maximum of 170 providers, less than 10% of the U.S. total.

And that’s not a big deal? I think a lot of women in Texas might disagree. This isn’t about numbers and percentages; it’s about women’s lives.

For a reality check, take a look at Katha Pollitt's Should Roe Go?

Posted by Jessica at 2:18 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

July 27, 2005

Americans deserve to know about Roberts

Though Bush doesn’t seem to think that we should have access to information on Roberts, it’s more than a little important that Americans know all they can on a potential Supreme Court justice.

That’s why NARAL Pro-Choice America filed a formal request with the White House asking for records of contacts between President Bush or other administration officials and radical right organizations that have supported Roberts. We deserve to know whether these groups had an undue influence on the decision to nominate Roberts.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said: “President Bush is asking the Senate to confirm John Roberts to serve a lifetime appointment in a position in which he will have a profound impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. We are filing this request because the public has a right to the same information regarding a potential Supreme Court Justice as representatives of ideological pressure groups.”

Click here to see a copy of the letter.

Posted by Jessica at 5:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush Administration admits Roberts’ “settled law” statement is meaningless

Like I’ve been saying...

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in an Associated Press interview that a Supreme Court justice “is not obliged to follow” the Roe precedent “if you believe it's wrong.”

So even Bush’s boys are admitting that Roberts’ previous comment that Roe is “settled law” doesn’t mean jack! Unbelievable.

On a related note, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a report yesterday, That’s What They All Say, showing how the “settled law” nonsense is a standard talking point for anti-choice Bush judicial nominees. Make sure to check it out.

Posted by Jessica at 10:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 25, 2005

White House won’t show all Roberts papers

Shocking:

Citing privacy and precedent, the Bush administration indicated Sunday it does not intend to release all memos and other documents written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts when he worked for two Republican presidents.

The leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings on Roberts' nomination, disputed the assertion that privacy was at stake and called such a position a "red herring."

...The committee has yet to ask for such material. But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release "in their entirety" any documents written by Roberts.

.."I want to ask him full and fair questions," [Vermont Sen. Patrick] Leahy said. "It's a standard I would have for any nominee to the Supreme Court."

Contending that documents could be an important part of the confirmation process when little is known about a nominee, [Dick] Durbin [of Illinois] said, "A lot has to do with whether or not you can fill in the empty vessel with the information that tells you about this person."

Another Judiciary Committee Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said the goal is to learn about Roberts' judicial philosophy and method of legal reasoning.

"This is not a game of 'gotcha,' and document requests and, in general, information requests, are not an end, a goal to prove something," Schumer said. "They're a means to simply determining Justice Roberts' judicial views. That's all we want."

Not such a huge request, I think. Wonder what they’re hiding…

Posted by Jessica at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Supreme Court Extreme Makeover

If you haven’t seen it yet, you must must must go check out this “Extreme Makeover: Supreme Court Edition” from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

If you know someone who still thinks that Roberts in the Supreme Court wouldn’t affect their lives, this will show them differently. (And besides, who can resist fun flash animation?)

Posted by Jessica at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 22, 2005

NY Times on Roberts

Make sure check out The New York Times’ latest article on Roberts, A Year of Work to Sell Roberts to Conservatives.

An interesting snippet:

...Supporters of Judge Roberts bolstered their case with the opinions of two leading legal thinkers in the movement to oppose abortion rights: Prof. Robert George of Princeton University and Prof. Hadley Arkes of Amherst.

Professor Arkes said he, too, had vouched for Judge Roberts with other social conservatives, partly on the strength of a personal acquaintance with him and on a longer acquaintance with his wife.

At a dinner with friends after Judge Roberts's appeals court confirmation, Professor Arkes said, he had suggested that nominees questioned about Roe v. Wade should turn the tables to put the senators on the defensive, asking them whether they understood the implications of the ruling. "He didn't rule it out, but he didn't think the hearings could be turned into that kind of seminar," Professor Arkes said.

He had presumed they both believed the decision should be overturned, Professor Arkes said, because they were with friends who shared that view. But he said Judge Roberts never said so explicitly. "He is a very, very careful guy."

Posted by Jessica at 1:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Most Americans want to know Roberts’ abortion stance

Well, I think we have a pretty damn good idea of what his stance is already.

The Associated Press reports that over half of all Americans, and a good majority of women, want to know John Roberts' position on abortion.

"It's such an important thing, abortion is a woman's right," said Denise Connett of Bakersfield, Calif. "What she does with her body is her right and nobody has the right to take that away from her."

...Most Democrats, 60 percent, were interested in hearing Roberts' position on abortion, while a majority of Republicans, 54 percent, said he should not have to disclose his views.

Not disclose his views?! Well I guess if I was buddy-buddy with violent anti-choice groups, I might want to keep quiet too.

Posted by Jessica at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Get organizing!

If you’re itching to step your activism up a notch, there are pro-choice actions happening around the country that you can get involved in. So get moving and help save the court!

Georgia:
Protest George Bush
Friday, July 22, 11:00 am
Atlanta Civic Center - Corner of Piedmont Rd. and Ralph McGill Blvd.

Iowa:
Organizing Meeting
Wednesday, July 27, 6:00 - 7:30 pm
Iowa City Public Library, Room E, 123 South Linn Street, Iowa City
Please call 515.243.3446 or email bkole@prochoiceiowa.org to RSVP.

Maryland:
Help collect petition signatures and educate Marylanders by volunteering
at one of these events...

Saturday, July 23, 12:30 pm
Montgomery Co. Women's Farm Coop Market (at Wisconsin Ave. and Bethesda Ave.)
Bethesda, MD

Tuesday, July 26, 11:00 am - 2:00 pm
Downtown Annapolis (meet in front of Middleton Tavern on Randall St.)
Annapolis, MD

Thursday, July 28, 5: 00 pm
Everedy Sq. and Shab Row Farmers Market (Downtown Frederick)
Frederick, MD

North Carolina:
Choice Action Team meeting
Monday, July 25, 7:00 pm
Raleigh (for specific directions RSVP)
RSVP to Amy Woodell, Statewide Organizer, at awoodell@prochoicenorthcarolina.org or call (919) 829-9779.

Oregon:
"Save the Supreme Court" Strategy Session
Tuesday, July 26, 6:00 - 7:30 pm
Central Library
801 SW 10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
RSVP: treasure@prochoiceoregon.org

Washington:
Rally at the Federal Building
Friday, July 22, 3:00 pm
Federal Building
(2nd and Marion - downtown Seattle)

Phone Bank to Senators Murray and Cantwell
Phone banks will run from our downtown Seattle office
Monday, July 25, 10:00 am to 8:00 pm.
Scripts, phone lists, training, coffee and snacks provided!
Contact Sasha Cousineau at 206-624-1990 or
SashaCousineau@ProChoiceWashington.Org.

Posted by Jessica at 10:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

Violent anti-choicers heart John Roberts

If you still are unsure of where John Roberts stands on choice, look no further than Operation Rescue’s endorsement of him. I mean, shit--how much more evidence do you need?! A John Roberts-Randall Terry makeout session?

From Operation Rescue’s statement:

Roberts has shown strong conservative credentials with indications that he will not uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that decriminalized abortion. Roberts coauthored a 1990 legal brief that stated, ‘The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.’

Roberts filed a "friend of the court" brief for the United States in support of Operation Rescue, who had blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the protesters’ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women. Lovely.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America says that Roberts “went out of his way to support these actions, and now Operation Rescue is cheering his nomination and telling their members he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Don’t let it happen! Tell all your friends about Roberts relationship with the violent, anti-choice, and all around sucky, Operation Rescue.

Posted by Jessica at 4:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Media misconstrues Roberts on Roe

Media Matters reports that the initial coverage of the Roberts nomination was more than a little misleading:

...many media outlets have cited Roberts's pledge at his 2003 appellate court nomination hearing to "fully and faithfully apply" Roe v. Wade as the "settled law of the land" as evidence that he would vote to uphold the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion if confirmed to the Supreme Court. But the suggestion that Roberts's previous description of Roe as "settled law" signals anything about how he would vote if confirmed to the highest court is incorrect. As an appellate court judge, the position to which he was "applying" in 2003 when he pledged to follow the law, Roberts is bound to adhere to Supreme Court precedent or face possible reversal on appeal. But as a Supreme Court justice, he would be in a position to vote to overturn Roe, or any other Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed, no matter how "settled." In the words of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the upholding of binding precedent "is required of lower-court judges," and therefore Roberts's comment "seems to leave open the possibility that he could vote to overturn Roe as a high-court justice."

Like I said--I call bullshit. Roberts is anti-choice, and we can’t afford to have him on the Supreme Court.

Posted by Jessica at 2:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dems vow to question Roberts on choice

From The Boston Globe:

Senate Democrats promised yesterday to scrutinize the positions of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. on key social issues, and said they intend to force him to clearly state his position on whether the Constitution gives women a right to abortion during his upcoming confirmation hearings.

As Roberts made the rounds yesterday on Capitol Hill, Democratic senators gave him a warm reception, but served notice to their Republican colleagues that they want to see memos Roberts produced as deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, whose administration advocated the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The current Bush administration has fought the release of such documents in the past.

Well thank goodness for that. But what’s up with possibly fighting the release of memos? When it comes to a frigging lifetime appointment, I would want to see everything.

Posted by Jessica at 11:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 20, 2005

Oppose Roberts (in person!)

If you’re in NY, here’s some info on a rally happening today. We'll be adding on events as we hear about them throughout the week. If anyone knows of similar actions in other areas, post them in comments.

Rally to SAVE THE COURT!

*WHO: NARAL Pro-Choice NY, Planned Parenthood NYC, and other Progressive Organizations.

*WHERE: UNION SQUARE PARK (South End)

*WHEN: Wednesday, July 20 (TODAY) @ 5PM

Posted by Jessica at 3:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Roberts Readings

Here’s what some of the media is saying about Roberts...

The New York Times: Bush's Supreme Court Choice Is a Judge Anchored in Modern Law

The Washington Post: A Move To the Right, An Eye to Confirmation

Los Angeles Times: Recent opinions by Judge Roberts

The Christian Science Monitor: A conservative with few hard edges

Reuters: Bush urges Senate to back his Supreme Court pick

MSNBC: The brilliance of Bush’s court choice

The Nation: The Stakes in Roberts' Nomination

The New Republic: Unnatural Selection

Salon: "Sterling" judge or "extreme rightist"?

Alternet: The Pick Is In

Posted by Jessica at 2:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack