The elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court will have a deleterious effect on American democracy. His nomination has been opposed by the National Council of Churches, along with other faith bodies, and hundreds of religious leaders have urged the U.S. Senate not to confirm his appointment. For those of us concerned about true religious freedom, voting rights (and other civil rights), protection of the environment, and the epidemic of gun violence, this is a sad day. What makes this a tragedy are the serious and credible allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. A majority of U.S. Senate members, not to mention President Trump (himself accused of sexual assault), have chosen to place ideology over the voices of women. People of faith have a special obligation to continue the hard work of building up the ideal of the Beloved Community. I believe that work becomes more difficult but more urgent still with Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
The Courts
Friday, October 05, 2018
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Elections Have Consequences
I agree with Les AuCoin and others who have noted this week the number of progressives who declared in 2000 there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Many of these people voted for third-party candidate Ralph Nader or didn't vote at all. The results of that election include not only the war in Iraq and the crash of the U.S. economy, but also the make up of the U.S. Supreme Court today. Elections do matter. All of us should make principled decisions in the ways we vote and conduct our public lives. Part of being principled is being smart and strategic. 2000 cost us a needless war and resulted in the Supreme Court rulings the majority of Americans oppose today. That election also resulted in a decade of inaction on climate change and a massive increase in inequality. It is a lesson worth remembering in 2016 and in the elections to follow.
| |
|
Thursday, June 28, 2012
People Of Faith Will Rejoice Over #SCOTUS Ruling Upholding Health Care Reform
Many people of faith supported President Obama's health care reform plan and today rejoice in the Supreme Court ruling that largely upholds the Affordable Care Act. 30 million Americans will receive coverage under the president's plan. Millions already have. All this moves us closer to the Beloved Community. President Obama and those leaders in Congress who voted for reform are to be applauded for their commitment to fixing a broken system that has long created a moral crisis in our nation. The Supreme Court has surprised many with their ruling and they too must be applauded for a wise decision. There is more to do, of course, to fix the health care system. But President Obama has moved us further down the path toward universal health care than any other president since Teddy Roosevelt first made the effort. This has long been a goal of the National Council of Churches and many Christian denominations, along with other interfaith leaders. Today is a good day for our nation.
Related: Reason rules for Court, but Christians need to continue to advocate for the poorest
| |
|
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Health Care vs. Bullets
GOP leaders in Congress - hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare - are looking to reroute funding for health care to military budgets. It's a move people of faith must resist. Politico reports:
If the Supreme Court strikes down the health care reform law, that loss for President Barack Obama could be a win for the Pentagon.
That's because Congress could find itself flush, thanks to billions of dollars that were allocated to fund "Obamacare" that won't be spent if parts of the law are knocked down. And that money would be freed up just as a battle over automatic cuts to the Defense Department budget heats up on the Hill.
He explained that the process wouldn't be hard: Any House committee, likely the armed services or Defense appropriations panels, could send a recommendation to the House Budget Committee for consideration. The deal could move through a reconciliation bill, which is a common tactic to move business along in Congress.
Members of those committees said it's an option they'd consider.
"If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, I would certainly support using the savings to replace the cuts contained in the FY 2013 Obama budget. I believe that most GOP Defense appropriators and House Armed Services Committee members would feel the same way," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla), who sits on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
For Christians, the responsibility on how to respond is clear. We need to continue to work towards a health care system that covers every American. It is our moral obligation. Robbing people of their health care to expand military budgets is contrary to the values of our faith.
| |
|
Friday, April 27, 2012
John Edwards Is a Sinner, Yes. But a Criminal? Via @HuffPostRelig
As a husband, he failed. As a father, he failed. Yet these seem to be issues best left to be resolved between Edwards and God, not a court of law. There is every reason to believe the case against Edwards is overreach.
| |
|
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor Of Westboro Baptist Church Right To Protest
In a democracy sometimes the bad guys win. That was the case today when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Westboro Baptist Church - the radically anti-gay, anti-abortion "church" - has the legal right to protest outside of military funerals (Westboro claims U.S. deaths in war time are God's punishment for "permissive" attitudes toward gay and lesbian rights). Not only do they protest outside of military funerals but also at funerals of such American heroes as Elizabeth Edwards, at school yards (my neighborhood high school this past fall), and at churches (like my own several years ago). I'll leave it to legal schloars to debate the merits of this court decision but I'm struck that both wings of the court ruled in favor of free speech. Sometimes to protect the liberities of all you need to defend the rights of the most offensive among us. But let this be clear: there is nothing Christian about the Westboro Baptist Church. Their actions and their theology have been condemned by religious leaders across the theological spectrum. They may have the right to free speech but their speech is hateful and at odds with the Gospel message.
Related Link from The Oregonian: Articles of faith: Westboro Baptist Church ruling by Supreme Court evokes double-edged reactions (includes quotes from this blog post)
| |
|
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Judicial Activism Tea Party-style
The New York Times:
When it comes to pushing the line between law and politics, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas each had a banner month in January.
Justice Scalia, who is sometimes called “the Justice from the Tea Party,” met behind closed doors on Capitol Hill to talk about the Constitution with a group of representatives led by Representative Michele Bachmann of the House Tea Party Caucus.
Justice Thomas, confirming his scorn for concern about conflicts of interest and rules designed to help prevent them, acknowledged that he has failed to comply with the law for the past six years by not disclosing his wife’s income from conservative groups.
In Supreme Court opinions, they showed how their impatience for goals promoted in conservative politics is infecting their legal actions. They joined in an unusual dissent from a court decision not to take a case about the commerce clause that turned into polemic in favor of limited government. In an important privacy case, NASA v. Nelson, they insisted the court should settle a constitutional issue it didn’t need to.
Constitutional law is political. It results from choices about concerns of government that political philosophers ponder, like liberty and property. When the court deals with major issues of social policy, the law it shapes is the most inescapably political.
To buffer justices from the demands of everyday politics, however, they receive tenure for life. The framers of our Constitution envisioned law gaining authority apart from politics. They wanted justices to exercise their judgment independently — to be free from worrying about upsetting the powerful and certainly not to be cultivating powerful political interests.
A petition by Common Cause to the Justice Department questioned whether Justices Scalia and Thomas are doing the latter. It asked whether the court’s ruling a year ago in the Citizens United case, unleashing corporate money into politics, should be set aside because the justices took part in a political gathering of the conservative corporate money-raiser Charles Koch while the case was before the court.
If the answer turns out to be yes, it would be yet more evidence that the court must change its policy — or rather its nonpolicy — about recusal.
| |
|
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tea Party Supreme Court Justices
Conservatives are forever complaining about the "judicial activism" of democratic appointees. Today will see U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speak before the Tea Party Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives. His colleague Justice Samuel Alito spoke at a fundraising dinner recently for The American Spectator, an ultra conservative political magazine that regularly questions the Christian faith of President Obama (not to mention his policies). Justice Clarence Thomas also makes political appearances (and his wife is a leader in the Tea Party movement). The legacy of the Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 presidencies are that our courts are stacked with right-wing political activists who clearly put partisan political interests before the law (see Bush v Gore). Visit People for the America Way to keep up-to-date about the real judicial activism underway in our courts.
Update: Common Cause has issued the following statement on Justice Scalia's plans to address the Tea Party Caucus:
Common Cause today criticized Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to address a closed-door session of the House Tea Party caucus as political activity that undermines public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The American people expect impartial justice from the Supreme Court,” said Bob Edgar, President and CEO of Common Cause, a non-partisan watchdog group. “The last thing we need in these divisive times is Supreme Court justices appearing to be allied with a political faction.”
“Justice Scalia’s acceptance of Rep. Bachmann’s invitation shows poor judgment and could lay the ground for his recusal in future cases, such as court challenges to President Obama’s health care reform law,” Edgar said.
The Judicial Code of Conduct bars federal judges from engaging in political activity, including “mak[ing] speeches for a political organization” or attend[ing]…a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization.” See Canon 5, Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.
The code applies to all federal judges, but is not binding on the nine Supreme Court justices, Edgar noted. Nonetheless, federal law on disqualification of judges is binding; it requires that “[a]ny justice…of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned..” 28 U.S.C. § 455.
“It’s clear that Congress intended Supreme Court justices to live by the same ethics rules as every other federal judge,” said Arn Pearson, an attorney and Vice President of Programs for Common Cause. “An appearance of bias is just as damaging to the nation at the Supreme Court level – perhaps even more so -- as it is at the trial level.”
The federal disqualification law was enacted in 1974 after a series of judicial scandals, most notably a controversy over Justice Abe Fortas’s role as a confidant and advisor to President Johnson, whose orders and legislation he would have to review.
“It’s time to upgrade the law to include the Judicial Conference’s rules on political activity by judges,” Pearson said. Those rules were adopted after the law’s initial passage in 1974.
“Common Cause is calling for immediate legislation to ensure that the Code of Conduct’s ban on political activity applies to the high court,” Edgar said. “Unfortunately, some justices seem to think they are above the ethics rules. We shouldn’t have two standards for what is okay and what isn’t for federal judges. I think our court of last resort is getting way too politicized.”
Last week, Common Cause asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case, which ended a longstanding ban on corporate spending to influence elections, because of potential conflicts of interest. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., the group cited the justices’ appearances at secretive retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, a firm that stood to benefit from the Citizens United decision, as well as Virginia Thomas’s financial interest in the outcome given her role as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) group that used corporate money to target members of Congress in the 2010 elections.
Common Cause also asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to look into Justice Thomas’s failure to disclose his wife’s income at the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central over a seven-year period, as required by the Ethics in Government Act. The Judicial Conference is required refer willful violations of the Act to the Attorney General.
“It’s high time we restored the appearance of fairness and balance to the high court,” Edgar said.
These are serious issues. The actions by several members of the Supreme Court clearly undermine the work of the court and politicize judicial proceedings in a manner that threatens democratic governance.
| |
|
Monday, November 08, 2010
NPR: Anti-Abortion Activist On Trial For 'Wanted' Posters
NPR reports:
In North Carolina on Monday, anti-abortion activist Flip Benham, who is charged with stalking and violating a new state law against residential picketing, goes to court.
He and his group, Operation Save America, put up Old West-style "wanted" posters targeting doctors who perform abortions. The group calls it free speech. Abortion rights activists say it's a threat.
Targeted Picketing
Benham is a longtime anti-abortion activist. The posters he distributed earlier this year included the names, addresses and photos of four Charlotte, N.C., doctors who perform abortions.
Benham and his group took the posters to the doctors' offices and to their neighborhoods. They placed the posters on cars and tacked them up on doors.
Detective Milton Harris with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department says this violated the state's new law against targeting an individual at his home.
"By them handing out the flyers with doctors' photos on it, it was an indication to us that they were actually singling those doctors out within that residential neighborhood to protest," Harris says.
He also says that this is the first prosecution under the new law.
"The purpose of the law is to protect that person's identity against basically a lone-wolf assailant coming in there and possibly doing harm to that individual or that family," Harris says.
Clearly, these "wanted" posters are part of an on-going campaign by Operation Save America to incite violence against doctors and other health care professionals. Most people opposed to abortion abhor such tactics and reject violence. Operation Save America (also known as Operation Rescue) claims that they "employ only biblical principles" in their work. As a ordinated minister in the United Church of Christ, I see nothing biblical about their campaign to promote violence. My hope is that the case against Mr. Benham will further dissuade people from joining what is by definition a domestic terrorist movement.
| |
|
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Conservative "Christian" Group Says Oregon's Congressional Delegation "Anti-Family"
The Family Research Council (FRC) - which bills itself as a pro-family Christian organization - has issued their voter's guide. It is important to note that in reality the FRC is a conservative political organization and not a religious body.
What they consider "family values" is often the opposite of what millions of Christians across the United States consider moral.
Their guide, which is being distributed over the web and in churches across Oregon and the nation, ranks candidates and according to them 6 out of 7 members of Oregon's Congressional delegation are 100% anti-family.
What did Wyden, Merkley, Blumenauer, Wu, DeFazio, and Schrader do to earn their "anti-family values" label?
They voted for health care reform that cuts costs and expands coverage for tens of millions of Americans, voted to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic, voted to protect the right of women to make their own health care decisions and voted for hate crimes legislation to protect people from violent assaults and even murder.
Wyden and Merkley added insult to injury (from FRC's point of view) by voting to confirm President Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court and even had the gall to vote for legislation that would require groups that spend money on political campaigns to disclose their donors!
The truth is that Wyden, Merkley, Blumenauer, Wu, DeFazio, and Schrader voted for the common good. As a minister, I strongly dispute the Family Research Council's assertion that these votes were in any way anti-family. In fact, many of the votes taken by these members of Congress were ones recommended by Christian and Jewish national organizations - like the National Council of Churches USA and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
I commend these Oregon leaders for their wisdom, compassion, and family values. No, I don't agree with them all the time (Schrader's support for the NRA is quite troublesome, for example) but these are people of integrity.
Oregon's U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, for the record, received a 75% positive rating from FRC. I don't consider him to be "anti-family values" because he disagrees with me on public policy issues. We just have different views on important matters.
| |
|
Monday, August 23, 2010
Judge Halts Federal Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research; Such Research Consistent With Christian Ethics
| |
|
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Supreme Court: Moving Right Under John Roberts
The Supreme Court just finished their fifth term under Chief Justice John Roberts. What's the verdict?
In those five years, the court not only moved to the right but also became the most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of four sets of political science data....If the Roberts court continues on the course suggested by its first five years, it is likely to allow a greater role for religion in public life, to permit more participation by unions and corporations in elections and to elaborate further on the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Abortion rights are likely to be curtailed, as are affirmative action and protections for people accused of crimes.
Read the full story in The New York Times.
The Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a United Church of Christ minister, prophetically warned of this in 2005 when she testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee against Roberts' nomination:
John Roberts holds a very limited view of the Constitutional protection of religious liberty and an exceptionally permissive view of religious establishment. John Roberts sees a very small arena for the protection of the individual from tyranny including a rejection of a fundamental right to privacy and a very expansive view of the role of presidential power and law enforcement authority. In short, John Roberts’ views seem not to reflect the deep and broad promise of the Constitution, but to risk, in fact permit the very tyranny over the individual’s freedoms that the framers who wrote the Constitution most feared.It will take a generation (or more depending on future nominations to the court) to undo the damage this court is doing to the common good of our nation.
| |
|
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Three "wise" women will change the Supreme Court
When Elena Kagan is confirmed by the Senate and becomes a justice of the Supreme Court, she will join Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in making history. Three women, fully one third of the court, will be serving at the same time. They are likely to change the Supreme Court in ways that go far beyond even their numbers. These are not only three highly intelligent and accomplished women, they are also "wise" women. They are "wise" both in the sense meant by Sotomayor when she made her famous comment about "wise Latinas," and in the biblical sense, as wisdom is often personified as female and a public advocate for justice. "Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares." (Proverbs 1:20)Full post via On Faith.
| |
|
Monday, June 28, 2010
Senate Republicans Attack Thurgood Marshall, One Of America's Great Heroes
Dana Milbank reports for The Washington Post:
Oppo researchers digging into Elena Kagan's past didn't get the goods on the Supreme Court nominee -- but they did get the Thurgood.
As confirmation hearings opened Monday afternoon, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee took the unusual approach of attacking Kagan because she admired the late justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked more than two decades ago.
"Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy," said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, "is not what I would consider to be mainstream." Kyl -- the lone member of the panel in shirtsleeves for the big event -- was ready for a scrap. Marshall "might be the epitome of a results-oriented judge," he said.
It was, to say the least, a curious strategy to go after Marshall, the iconic civil rights lawyer who successfully argued Brown vs. Board of Education. Did Republicans think it would help their cause to criticize the first African American on the Supreme Court, a revered figure who has been celebrated with an airport, a postage stamp and a Broadway show? The guy is a saint -- literally. Marshall this spring was added to the Episcopal Church's list of "Holy Women and Holy Men," which the Episcopal Diocese of New York says "is akin to being granted sainthood."
With Kagan's confirmation hearings expected to last most of the week, Republicans may still have time to make cases against Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Gandhi.
I wish and pray Elena Kagan turns out to be as good as Justice Marshall but she is way too moderate to fill his shoes.
Justice Marshall was scheduled to swear-in the vice-president during the 1993 inaugural celebration but couldn't for health reasons. Being there and not being able to see him was a great disappointment for me. He was truly an American hero.
| |
|
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor Confirmed To United States Supreme Court
Today the United States Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, was one of the most qualified people to be nominated to the nation's highest court in the last one hundred years. Her nomination drew 68 votes - all Democrats and a small number of Republicans. Sadly,the majority of Republicans, towing the line of the National Rifle Association and extremist voices from the Religious Right and others, opposed the nomination. Nevertheless, an overwhelming number of senators supported the nomination. The Supreme Court will benefit from her experiences and judicial philosophy. Today was a victory for America and a defeat for extremists like the NRA.
Photo: White House
Related Link: Bush, NRA Share Blame For Tragic Pittsburgh Shooting
Related Link: Sonia Sotomayor’s Views Draw Support From Mainline Christians, Gun Control Advocates
| |
|
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor’s Views Draw Support From Mainline Christians, Gun Control Advocates
As Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor is grilled by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on abortion and gun control it is worth noting that Judge Sotomayor has drawn support from religious leaders who support the right of women to make their own health care decisions and from advocates of gun control who hope to reduce gun violence by restricting access to cop killer bullets and assault weapons.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) said on May 26, 2009 that:
With today's historic nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to appoint a jurist with outstanding legal credentials as well as empathy for the daily struggles of individuals and families.
RCRC is a coalition for mainline Christian denominations (United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church USA, Presbyterian Church USA, etc.), Jewish groups and other interfaith partners.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence released a statement this week that read in part:
During the second day of her Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor has now been asked for her views on the Second Amendment. She has given clear and responsible answers, while not pre-judging any issues that may come before her on the Court. We have been impressed with her presentation.
In stark contrast, gun lobby extremists have revealed their preference for an activist Supreme Court Justice who would support their ‘any gun, anywhere, anytime’ ideology. Judge Sotomayor's comments today as well as her judicial opinions in cases involving gun laws, however, show respect for the Constitution, for precedent and for the considered judgments of legislative bodies in protecting communities from gun violence.
Mainline Christian denominations have long advocated for gun control to stem violence. Listen to my recent sermon "God, Guns & American Violence: Turning Weapons Into Ploughshares" for more information on this issue.
The Religious Right, however, is clearly displeased by the nomination. The Family Research Council's leadership has stated that "President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice."
The nomination is expected to be approved by the U.S. Senate.
| |
|
Monday, July 13, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I Agree With John Cornyn: Republican Leaders Are Racist
Those are words I never thought I'd write but I agree with Senator Cornyn, the far right senator from Texas, that Republican Party leaders like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are being racist in their criticisms of Sonia Sotomayor.
Other Republicans are just apparently mentally impaired either due to head trauma or substance abuse.
| |
|
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Progressive Christians, Conservative Republicans Have Backed Sonia Sotomayor
Religious and political conservatives are searching for ways to oppose President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. You'll hear a lot of nonsense from the Right during this confirmation process. Their efforts may be, however, in vain. Not only do Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate but Sotomayor was first appointed to the courts by then President George H. W. Bush. When President Clinton nominated her for to a seat on the federal appeals court in 1998 she received bi-partisan support.
Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) joined a unanimous slate of Dems in pushing Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28.
Those members of the Senate are still in office. It is worth noting that during earlier confirmations she received support from such staunch conservatives as Strom Thurmond.
Meanwhile, progressive Christian groups are also weighing in on the nomination. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice released a statement today that read:
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which advocates for laws and policies that are just and compassionate to families and that accommodate differing religious and moral viewpoints, commends President Barack Obama's nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a jurist who has indicated she will apply her personal understanding of the struggles of ordinary Americans to her legal rulings.
With today's historic nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to appoint a jurist with outstanding legal credentials as well as empathy for the daily struggles of individuals and families. If confirmed for the seat that has been held by Justice David H. Souter, Judge Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.
In a moving introduction of Judge Sotomayor at the White House this morning, President Obama described the judge as a person who combines great legal acumen and a belief in the rule of law with a common-sense understanding of how the law affects people every day.
In addition to her varied and extensive legal and judicial experience, Judge Sotomayor would bring to the Court the experiences of a person who grew up in a South Bronx public housing project and overcame difficult challenges to achieve academic and professional success. After her father died, the judge's mother struggled to make a good life for her and her brother. Despite the challenges her family faced, Judge Sotomayor attended Princeton and Yale Law School, served as an Assistant District Attorney, worked as a corporate litigator in a New York law firm, and went on to become the first Latina appointed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Sotomayor has said she believes judges' legal findings are informed by their own life experiences as well as their legal research.
The confirmation process will allow the Senate and the American people the opportunity to learn even more about this very impressive woman and jurist.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is a coalition "of more than 40 denominations and faith groups educates and promotes issues of reproductive choice." The United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church USA are among the coalition's members.
| |
|
First Reactions: Nomination Of Sonia Sotomayor
People with the American Way is praising President Obama's selection of U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York. I cocur with their statement:
This morning, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to the Supreme Court. People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan issued the following statement.
"President Obama has made a superb choice. Judge Sotomayor has one of the sharpest intellects on the federal bench. She’s shown that she’ll bring an open mind to the Court and rule on each case according to its particular merits. Her nomination is a very positive step towards bringing diversity to our highest Court.
"President Obama used this opportunity to do exactly what he promised in last year’s election - to select a person who has demonstrated an abiding commitment to core constitutional values of justice, opportunity, and equality under the law. He has named someone who understands the impact that the law has on the everyday lives of ordinary Americans.
"This nomination is good news for people who care about the future of our rights and liberties. Now it’s up to our Senators to avoid the distraction of attacks from the far right and work for a smooth, fair confirmation process. We urge them to confirm Judge Sotomayor with all deliberate speed."
People For the American Way is a progressive advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and defending Americans’ constitutional rights and liberties. People For is dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American: Equality. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right to seek justice in a court of law. The right to cast a vote that counts. The American Way.
Stay tuned for more reaction. How will conservatives reaction?
| |
|
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Victory in Oregon Against Predatory Lending
For years religious groups and consumer advocates have spoken out against predatory lending in Oregon. The Rev. Dr. Dan Bryant and David Leslie, both with Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, wrote in 2005 that:
The payday lending and tax refund loan business has exploded in Oregon. On many street corners, new businesses are opening up to serve the many Oregonians living paycheck to paycheck. In fact, there are now more payday lending businesses in Oregon than McDonald’s. Sadly, this explosion is fueled by the fact that lenders can charge fees that often exceed 300 percent interest.
Who uses these loans? People in financial crisis. They are the working poor, students and seniors on fixed incomes. They need quick money to pay bills, medical expenses, food or rent. These loans provide an important service. However, excessive fees amount to usury when recipients are economically disadvantaged with few options. Profiting from others’ misfortunes is a moral concern to many in the religious community and should be concern for all.
Houses of worship and charities have seen an increase of people victimized by payday loans. This is why the religious community filled a hearing room last month to support a bill in the Oregon Legislature to create consumer protections. One pastor told the story of a parishioner whose total fees amounted to an annual interest rate of 729 percent. The terms of the loan of did not permit any partial payments except for the full amount plus the fees. She had no choice but to incur more fees when she could not make the payment in full. Emergency food service providers told of clients getting evicted from their homes as a result of this financial trap.
Finally, after years of hard work, the Oregon Legislature enacted a new law that caps such loans at 36%. Businesses that profit from exploiting people in difficult situations cannot stand the thought of the state cutting into their ill-gotten profit margin and are fighting the new law in court. But a judge this week refused to support an injunction against the law and so it goes into effect this Sunday.
This is a good day for Oregon and a real victory for those who fight for economic justice.
| |
|
Friday, June 29, 2007
U.S. Supreme Court Dives Into Extremist Waters
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of rulings this week that set-back civil rights, make it more difficult for government to protect the environment, and that literally told American citizens that we have no rights to stop the Bush White House from using government agencies to promote religion.
People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph G. Neas said today:
“Under Chief Justice Roberts, the Court has turned sharply to the right, and far out of the mainstream of American thought. Rights and freedoms Americans take for granted stand in peril, and the progress that we have made in social justice over the past 70 years is at risk.
“In just their first full term together, a new right-wing bloc on the Court has signaled that it is willing to roll back reproductive choice for women, curb free expression, favor corporations over workers in discrimination cases, limit access to the courts for ordinary Americans, and start to tear down the wall between church and state that protects religious liberty for all Americans.
“While Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito gave lip service to respect for the established rulings of the Court in their confirmation hearings, they have not hesitated to tear down or undermine long-held rulings. This Court has shown the same respect for precedent that a wrecking ball shows for a plate glass window.
“Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered by many to be the "swing" vote on the Court, has demonstrated in case after case this term that he is more than willing to join his four ultraconservative colleagues—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia—to undermine Americans’ rights and protections. Justice Kennedy’s increasing willingness to side with the right-wing bloc will produce an ever more reliable five justice majority that will continue to do damage. Future elections will give voters the ability restore balance to the Court. I hope all Americans will take that responsibility seriously.”
The United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries issued a statement specifically dealing with the court's decision related to racial integration within public schools:
Cleveland, Ohio —While, in the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, we regret that, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down Seattle's and Louisville's voluntary programs promoting school integration and opportunity, we are pleased that in a separate opinion Justice Kennedy joined the four dissenters to recognize our nation's compelling need for diverse and integrated schools.
While it struck down the programs in Louisville and Seattle, today a majority of the Court made clear that diverse and inclusive schools are important to the future of our country, and that communities have a clear stake in overcoming the isolation and marginalization of children.
We disagree with the Supreme Court decision to strike down these voluntary programs that promote inclusion and opportunity. We believe those programs were consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is intended to provide opportunities, not deny them. Unfortunately the Court's decision will make it harder for school districts to tailor programs to serve particular demographic groups of children, many of whom have been underserved for generations.
In a dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens, Justice Breyer laments that today's decision by the majority will make it harder for school districts to design programs that bring children together across racial lines: "Many parents… want their children to attend schools with children of different races. Indeed, the very school districts that once spurned integration now strive for it. The long history of their efforts reveals the complexities and difficulties they have faced. And in light of those challenges, they have asked us not to take from their hands the instruments they have used to rid their schools of racial segregation, instruments that they believe are needed to overcome the problems of cities divided by race and poverty. The plurality would decline their modest request. The plurality is wrong to do so."
The UCC's Justice and Witness Ministries was party to an amicus brief in these cases that supported the right of the Louisville and Seattle school districts to use race as one of a number of factors to promote schooling children in demographically diverse settings at a time when our nation's schools and housing patterns have grown increasingly segregated. Research continues to demonstrate that all children benefit from learning with and from children whose backgrounds are different from their own. Serious achievement gaps demonstrate that racially separate schools remain unequal across the United States, and school finance data confirms that high spending schools continue to outspend low-spending schools by at least three to one in most states.
"We hope school districts will not give up on the ideals of opportunity, diversity, and inclusion, and that their leaders will analyze carefully this Court's ruling to discern any and all remaining ways communities can create diverse and inclusive schools in a constitutionally permissible way," said Jan Resseger, Minister for Public Education and Witness.
In 1991, the UCC's General Synod, its national governing body, proclaimed a truth that remains relevant sixteen years later: "Because the poor and their children are disproportionately people of color, the educational inequities in our public schools reinforce the racial/ethnic injustices of our society."
As an expression of long support in the United Church of Christ for integrated public schools, last week at the denomination's 26th General Synod in Hartford, Connecticut, participants were given an opportunity to learn about and celebrate the efforts of lifetime UCC member, Elizabeth Horton Sheff, mother of the named plaintiff in Sheff v. O'Neill, Connecticut's 18 year school integration case. Sheff v. O'Neill was decided by Connecticut's supreme court in 1996 under state constitutional language that prohibits "segregation or discrimination" on the basis of race or color. This case has resulted in a series of remedies involving city-suburban magnet schools and opportunities for children to participate in Project Choice, that provides places for children in neighboring districts to enhance integration. Because the state has lagged in meeting the requirements of a 2003 settlement, Connecticut's legislature has been meeting to strengthen the remedy.
The United Church of Christ's Justice and Witness Ministries, based in Cleveland, coordinates and implements the denomination's peace and justice advocacy mandates on behalf of 1.2 million members in over 5,700 congregations in the United States.
Things are only to get worse until a new President can appoint someone with more progressive legal views.
| |
|
Friday, October 13, 2006
Bush Nominee Draws Fire From Religious Right
A Bush nominee to the federal bench is under fire this week for participating in a Massachusetts commitment ceremony for two women held four years ago and officiated at by a United Church of Christ minister.
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, has placed a hold on the nomination of Janet T. Neff, whose nomination by Bush has been approved by the U.S. Judiciary Committee.
The Rev. John Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, issued a statement today saying that:
It's a sad day when participation in a ceremony sanctioned by the church, and breaking no federal or state laws, becomes a barrier to service in the federal judiciary. All churches, regardless of their theological convictions, should be concerned about the chilling effect of such an action on the ability of church members to freely practice their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience.
The Family Research Council, according to The Boston Globe, has also raised concerns about Neff's nomination. The hypocrisy is amazing. Brownback and his allies in the Religious Right routinely claim that conservatives are denied seats on the courts because of religious opposition to gay marriage. Neff's legal views on same sex marriage are not clear. But her participation in a religious ceremony should not be cause for a member of the senate to block her nomination to the bench.
This is not the first time that the theological views of the United Church of Christ have become a political issue. Earlier this fall a Republican candidate in Connecticut running for the U.S. House attacked her opponent simply for serving as a minister in the "liberal" UCC. The Rev. Scott MacLean, however, won the Republican nomination in a landslide.
| |
|
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Religious Groups Express Concern Over Nomination Of Williams Haynes
There is new cause for concern over the direction of the American judiciary. The Alliance for Justice reports:
Yesterday, the White House announced its intention to renominate its five most controversial appeals court candidates: William Haynes II, Terrence Boyle, Michael Wallace, William Myers III, and Randy Smith. According to the Associated Press, a spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has dubbed the renominations "extremely divisive." "The move sets the stage for yet another election-year battle over the federal judiciary," The New York Times explained, but whether it "will now lead to confrontation," and specifically "the nuclear option," remains "unclear." The Times also quoted our own Nan Aron, who called the president's announcement "nothing more than a ploy to gin up the base in this critical election year," and suggested that "rather than playing politics with our nation's courts, the president should send up nominees who are fair, just and qualified."
Religious leaders have expressed particular concern over the nomination of Williams Haynes. "We have strong concerns with Mr. Haynes' role in overseeing the development of detention, interrogation, and torture policies for the military's handling of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo Bay, and else where," wrote a coalition of leading Christian and Jewish groups.
The full letter follows:
Continue reading "Religious Groups Express Concern Over Nomination Of Williams Haynes" »
| |
|
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Oppose The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh
People for the American Way reports:
The Senate Judiciary Committee just held a hearing on President Bush's nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the most powerful federal court other than the U.S. Supreme Court – often the last word on federal agency activities as the Supreme Court reviews so few lower court decisions. As Kavanaugh heads toward the Senate floor, let your senators know why the nomination should be rejected.
Visit Save Our Courts for more background on this nominee.
Kavanaugh is a right-wing political activist who does have have the experience to sit on a federal court What does he have that makes his nomination so important?
Support from the Religious Right.
Groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, two leading radical groups that support President Bush, have demanded that Kavanaugh be given a seat on the court. These groups oppose allowing women to make their own health care decisions, fight against civil rights for minorities, and reject the Constitutional foundation of religious pluralism in favor of creating a theocracy.
Clearly, the Bush Administration is bringing this nomination forward now to energize their political base for a fight before the mid-term elections.
We have to do what we can to stop this process from moving forward. Senate Democrats will need to filibuster this nomination if needed to keep Kavanaugh off the court.
| |
|
Friday, May 05, 2006
Senate Democrats Must Filibuster Brett M. Kavanaugh
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a second hearing for Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the federal appeals court. Kavanaugh was nominated by George W. Bush and is supported by the Religious Right. He should not be confirmed and Senate Democrats should filibuster his nomination if a vote is set for the Senate floor.
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights reports:
A review of Brett Kavanaugh's record reveals the strident workings of a political operative, not the legal experience and judgment necessary for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit.
Brett Kavanaugh's record raises numerous serious concerns, including:
For many Americans, the federal judiciary is the first line of defense against violations of dearly held constitutional principles. Because of the impact that lifetime appointments of judges hostile to civil rights may have on the rights of millions of Americans, LCCR/LCCREF will continue to monitor the integrity of the processes of nominating and confirming judicial appointments.
Click here for more on this nomination.
Update: Religious Right group Focus on the Family sent out a pro-Kavanaugh action alert this afternoon.
| |
|
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Democratic Courts At Risk In US
Over the last couple of years a highly orchestrated campaign to harm the independence of the judicial branch of government has been waged by the Religious Right and their allies in the Republican Party. Their call for courts to be shut down because of opposition on the Right to judicial rulings, for example, has been compared by the editor of The Christian Century to the political maneuvering of the fascists who seized control of Germany in the 1930s.
This week we got a glimpse at what at least two members of the US Supreme Court feel the impact of all the politics swirling around their profession has been (and could be):
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as noted earlier this week, recently called the activities of former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his cohorts in Congress a threat to democracy. DeLay, a Texas Republican under criminal indictment but beloved by the Religious Right, has threatened judges with retribution for not following his political agenda (whether his threat of retribution included a threat of violence is a matter of great concern). O'Connor was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan.
On Friday, The Washington Post reported that O'Connor was not alone in her views:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts "fuel" an "irrational fringe" that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.
Though the proposals do not seem headed for passage, Ginsburg said, "it is disquieting that they have attracted sizeable support. And one not-so-small concern -- they fuel the irrational fringe."
She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week...."
In her speech, Ginsburg said that the Internet posting was brought to her attention by Supreme Court Marshal Pamela Talkin, who is responsible for court security.
According to Ginsburg, the posting said: "Okay, commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment . . . an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use [foreign] laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. . . . If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then these two justices will not live another week."
America is truly in a political battle between those who support Constitutional democracy and the rule of law and those who are willing to abandon the Constitution in favor of a theocracy led by the Religious Right. The law and the voters must hold them accountable for their words and deeds.
| |
|
Friday, March 10, 2006
"O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts"
From NPR:
Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.
O'Connor specifically took on remarks made by Tom Delay during one of the Justice Sunday events and statements made by Texas senator John Cornyn.
Click here to listen to the NPR story.
| |
|
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Alito To Dobson: I Will Obey
US Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in a personal thank you note to Religious Right icon James Dobson, leader of the radical group Focus on The Family:
….as long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.."
Translation: “I will obey you, my master.”
Dobson helped organize support from Religious Right groups for President Bush’s nomination of Alito to the court.
| |
|
Monday, January 30, 2006
Republican Lincoln Chafee: No On Alito
Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee announced today that he would vote against Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Family Research Council, the Religious Right Group that backs the nomination and sponsors the “Justice Sunday” events, immediately attacked the senator. Chafee faces a tough primary challenge in Rhode Island this year from a conservative former mayor. His vote against Alito is a brave act and shows that he puts the interests of the nation ahead of his own political ambitions. America is fortunate to have Lincoln Chafee in the United States Senate. Here is his statement announcing his vote:
Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story. However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues. In particular I carefully examined his record on Executive Power, women’s reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause of Article one, Section Eight of the Constitution.
On Executive Power, it is likely that cases dealing with the Fourth Amendment will beheard by the Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment reads :
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
To me this language is very clear that a warrant is required for a search. That premise is now being questioned regarding warrantless wiretaps.
At the Judiciary Committee hearings, Judge Alito was asked a question on Executive powers and warrantless wiretapping. He said he would have to determine “whether the President’s power, inherent powers, the powers given to the President under Article II are sufficient, even taking away congressional authorization, the area where the President is asserting a power to do something in the face of explicit congressional determination to the contrary”.
The only power in Article II that Judge Alito could be referring to would be “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”.
Judge Alito was also asked “…is it possible under your construct that an inherent Constitutional power of the President could, under some analysis or some case, override what people believe to be a Constitutional criminal statue?” Judge Alito responded that this was possible noting a “possibility that that might be justified”.
How far do we want Commander in Chief stretched? As Justice O’Connor wrote in a recent case, “a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens”.
On the issue of Roe vs. Wade as with other issues, I am less interested in what Judge Alito wrote or said as a lawyer for his client the Reagan Administration, than how he has ruled as a judge and how he testified at his nomination hearing. As an appellate Court Judge, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a court case reviewing the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.
The Supreme Court wrote on this landmark affirmation of Roe vs. Wade:
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state”.
The five majority justices, who wrote that, were all Republican appointees: two Reagan appointees, one each of Bush “41”, Ford and Nixon.
An important standard of law is the concept of stare decisis--it stands decided. At the hearing Chairman Specter asked Judge Alito to discuss his view of stare decisis. He responded, “It’s not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents”. In the Supreme Court dissent on Casey, the justices who arguably wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade wrote “stare decisis is not …… a universal inexorable command”.
Not only did Judge Alito rule in favor of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as a lower court judge, he used the same language as the high court dissenters at his Supreme Court nomination hearing. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.
Additionally, at his nomination hearing Judge Roberts was willing to call Roe vs. Wade “settled law” but judge Alito refused to make a similar statement.
The last point I’d like to make concerning constitutional law is on the commerce clause. As you know the Constitution creates a government of limited power--Congress can only enact legislation in areas that are specifically set out under the Constitution. Congress is expressly prohibited from enacting legislation in other areas, leaving this authority to the States per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution gave Congress broad power to regulate immigration, national security and economic activity between the states, and left most other power with the States.
However, Section Eight of Article I states that “the Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce…among the several states”. This is the Commerce clause and it is the most powerful provision in the Constitution providing Congress the authority to enact legislation in a host of areas – including environmental protection. A key Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause was in 1942 when the Supreme Court upheld legislation that allowed USDA to set quotas on local wheat growing. The Court noted that while crops regulated may never actually enter into interstate commerce, such local activity, coupled with similar activity in other states as an aggregate has a direct impact on interstate commerce. Since then using the “aggregate effects test” or “substantial effects test” Congress has passed broad ranging environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which were signed into law by Republican President Nixon.
While I agree there should be constitutional limits on legislative power, Judge Alito seems to have agreed with Justice Thomas who wrote: “I believe we must further reconsider our substantial effects test with an eye toward constructing a stand that reflects the text and history of the Commerce Clause”.
Indeed in a dissent to a gun case heard before his court Judge Alito wrote: “In sum, we are left with no appreciable empirical support for the proposition that the purely intrastate possessions of machine guns, by facilitating the commission of certain crimes, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and without such support I do not see how the statutory provision at issue here can be sustained”.
What is noteworthy in this dissent is that Judge Alito was alone with all members of his Appeals Court ruling the other way.
If “the aggregate or substantial effects tests” are overruled as Justice Thomas has advocated, federal environmental laws could be ruled unconstitutional. Indeed on February 21, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments on two cases, Carabell vs. United States and United States vs. Rapanos.
In both cases the lower court upheld protection of wetlands, which are currently protected under the Clean Water Act. Environmentalists argue that these wetlands are critical to the health of our nation’s water supply and wildlife habitat.
Industry groups argue that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “isolated wetlands” that have no connection with “navigable waters.” This would be a major setback to the Clean Water Act.
The critical issue is whether under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the authority to regulate non-navigable bodies of water within a single state. Based on the writing of Judge Alito, he would appear to side with the faction what would greatly limit the ability of Congress to protect such “intrastate” issues.
These constitutional issues, the scope of Executive power, Women’s Reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause are likely to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming months. I care deeply about these issues.
Believe me, having been an Executive in government, I want to support President Bush’s choice to the Supreme Court. The President did win the election. He has made his promises and I have made mine.
I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican and I will be voting against this nomination.
Thank you again for your time.
| |
|
Thursday, January 26, 2006
John Kerry Calls For Filibuster Of Alito
This post has been updated
Urgent Action Alert from People for the American Way:
Senator John Kerry has called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination, heeding your calls to do everything possible to defeat it. He has asked that activists now help convince his colleagues to join him.
Please contact key senators who can provide critical support to the filibuster effort!
http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/AlitoFilibuster
Then forward this message to anyone you know who is worried that Alito would likely condone the abuse of power by the president, vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and help curtail Congress' ability to protect the civil rights, health, safety, and welfare of the American people.
We need to act now to prevent Senate Republican leaders from ramming this nomination through the Senate -- time is of the essence.
This will make things interesting.
Update: Senator Kerry has posted a statement on Daily Kos outlining his reasons for undertaking a filibuster (there is also more about this issue on his Senate website).
I'll admit to a certain amount of amazement that Kerry would even undertake such an adventure. A valid criticism of his Senate tenure is that he has always been so careful as to not take major risks in defense of principles he cares about. A move like this might remind some of the Vietnam vet who showed such courage and came back to protest the war more than the 2004 democratic presidential nominee. The real John Kerry just stood up.
Related Post: When Will John Kerry Be Brave?
Related Post: Report From St. Louis On The Debate & Kerry Rally
| |
|
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Statement of Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. to the United States Supreme Court
US Senator Russ Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee, voted this week against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. His vote is remarkable because he has voted for every other nominee to the Supreme Court - appointments made by both democratic and republican presidents - because of his strong belief that a president should have extraordinary leeway in making executive branch and judicial appointments. Feingold, for example, joined Republicans in voting for John Roberts to be Chief Justice. Unlike John Roberts, Samuel Alito, argued the senator from Wisconsin, does not deserve a seat on the court because of his extremist positions on issue after issue. No one can accuse Russ Feingold of being a partisan determined to simply defeat George W. Bush's nominations. Americans ought to seriously consider the senator's words on Samuel Alito before the full Senate votes on his nomination. Senator Feingold's full statement is below:
Mr. Chairman, Justice O’Connor’s retirement in July touched off a period of intense and important work in this Committee. Just over six months later, that work seems finally to be coming to a close, at least for now. I want to commend you for the thorough and fair process you have overseen. The nominees have been treated fairly, and both sides on the Committee have been treated fairly as well. I want to thank you for that.
Supreme Court nominations truly are among the most important responsibilities of this committee and the Senate. I have given the nominations the President has sent to us in the past six months serious and careful consideration.
The scrutiny to be applied to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination. I have voted for executive branch appointees, and even for Court of Appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, and so I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens.
This is not a new standard Mr. Chairman. It is the same standard I applied to the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. In that case, after careful consideration, I decided to vote in favor of the nomination. In the case of Judge Samuel Alito, after the same careful consideration, I must vote no.
Judge Alito has an impressive background and a very capable legal mind, but I have grave concerns about how he would rule on cases involving the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. Some of the most important cases that the Supreme Court will consider in the coming years will involve the government’s conduct of the fight against terrorism. It is critical that we have a strong and independent Supreme Court to evaluate these issues and to safeguard the rights and freedoms of Americans in the face of enormous pressures.
Confronted with an executive branch that has jealously claimed every possible authority that it can, and then some, the Supreme Court must continue to assert its constitutional role as a critical check on executive power. Just how “critical” that check is has been made clear over the past few weeks, as Americans have learned that the President thinks his executive power permits him to violate explicit criminal statutes by spying on Americans without a court order.
With the executive and the legislature at loggerheads, we may well need the Supreme Court to have the final word in this matter. In times of constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court can tell the executive it has gone too far, and require it to obey the law. Yet Judge Alito’s record and testimony strongly suggest that he would do what he has done for much of his 15 years on the bench: defer to the executive branch in case after case at the expense of individual rights.
Although he has not decided cases dealing with the Bill of Rights in wartime, he has a very long record on the bench of ruling in favor of the government and against individuals in a variety of contexts. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is an important distinction between Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Our new Chief Justice had a very limited judicial record before his nomination. Judge Alito has an extensive record. There is no better evidence of what kind of Justice he will be on the Supreme Court than his record as a Court of Appeals judge. He told us that himself.
A whole series of analyses by law professors and news organizations has shown that Judge Alito is very deferential toward the government, and one detailed analysis by the Washington Post concluded that he is more deferential than his Third Circuit colleagues and even than Republican-appointed appeals judges nationwide. This vividly demonstrates the concern I have about this nomination. Judge Alito is not simply a conservative judge appointed by a conservative President. His record is that of a jurist with a clear inclination to rule in favor of the government and against individual rights.
In particular, Judge Alito’s record in Fourth Amendment cases shows a recurring pattern. In almost every Fourth Amendment case in which Judge Alito wrote an opinion, he either found no constitutional violation or argued that the violation should not prevent the illegally obtained evidence from being used. In more than a dozen dissents in criminal or Fourth Amendment cases, not once did Judge Alito argue for greater protection of individual rights than the majority.
In one case that he was asked about on several occasions at his hearing, Judge Alito, in dissent, argued that the strip search of a 10-year old girl and her mother passed constitutional muster, even though they were not suspected of any crime or specifically mentioned in the search warrant. Judge Alito’s answers to questions at the hearing about this case only reinforced concerns identified by outside scholars that he seems to ignore the serious interests of privacy and personal dignity protected by the Fourth Amendment and instead relies on technical readings of warrants so that he can authorize the government action.
Cases challenging government power comprise nearly half of the current Supreme Court’s docket. A Supreme Court Justice should protect individual freedoms against government intrusion where justified, and, specifically, should appreciate that the Fourth Amendment serves to limit government power. As Yale Law School Professor Ronald Sullivan testified:
In the United States, perhaps no right is more sacred – more worthy of vigilant protection – than the right of each and every individual to be free from government interference without the ‘unquestionable’ authority of the law. Judge Alito . . . shows an inadequate consideration for the important values that underwrite these norms of individual liberty – the very norms upon which this constitutional democracy relies for its sustenance. . . . [T]his Senate’s decision on whether to consent to Judge Alito’s nomination will profoundly impact how liberty is realized in the United States.
At the hearing, I and many other Senators repeatedly asked Judge Alito whether the President can violate a clear statutory prohibition, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the ban on torture. He never answered the question. He returned again and again to a formulaic response that told us nothing at all: he said that the President must follow the Constitution and must follow the laws that are consistent with the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, any first-year law student could tell you that. That kind of stock phrase, which Judge Alito repeated over and over, tells us absolutely nothing about his view of whether the President can, consistent with the Constitution, violate a criminal law.
Judge Alito did point to Justice Jackson’s three-part analysis in Youngstown. That is an appropriate framework, but merely citing Youngstown doesn’t tell you anything about how he would apply that framework. Even when presented with the alarming hypothetical of whether a President can authorize a murder in the United States, Judge Alito would say no more.
These practiced and opaque responses gave me no reassurance about Judge Alito’s views on these issues. What troubled me even more was that he repeatedly, and in some cases gratuitously, raised issues of justiciability and the political question doctrine – that is, he seemed to question whether the courts can even weigh in on these serious legal battles between the legislature and the executive. Although he said he thought the courts could address questions involving individual rights, Judge Alito’s instinct in discussing these historic issues was to focus on whether the courts even had a role to play. It wasn’t to talk about the gravity of the issues at stake for our system of government, but to question whether he as a judge could even participate in the resolution of such critical constitutional conflicts.
Mr. Chairman, I found that very disturbing, and it has played a significant role in my decision to vote against him. Judge Alito’s record and his testimony have led me to conclude that his impulse to defer to the executive branch would make him a dangerous addition to the Supreme Court at a time when cases involving executive overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism are likely to be such an important part of the Court’s work.
I am also concerned about Judge Alito’s record and testimony on cases involving the death penalty. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in death penalty cases. Judge Alito participated in five death penalty cases that resulted in split panels, and in every single one of those he voted against the death row inmate. A Washington Post analysis found that he ruled against defendants and for the government in death penalty cases significantly more often than other judges. And his testimony gave me no reason to believe that he will approach these cases any differently as a Supreme Court Justice.
To be blunt, Mr. Chairman, I found Judge Alito’s answers to questions about the death penalty to be chilling. He focused almost entirely on procedures and deference to state courts, and didn’t appear to recognize the extremely weighty constitutional and legal rights involved in any case where a person’s life is at stake.
I was particularly troubled by his refusal to say that an individual who went through a procedurally perfect trial, but was later proven innocent, had a constitutional right not to be executed. The Constitution states that no one in this country will be deprived of life without due process of law. It is hard to even imagine how any process that would allow the execution of someone who is known to be innocent could satisfy that requirement of our Bill of Rights. I pressed Judge Alito on this topic but rather than answering the question directly or acknowledging how horrific the idea of executing an innocent person is, or even pointing to the House v. Bell case currently pending in the Supreme Court on a related issue, Judge Alito mechanically laid out the procedures a person would have to follow in state and federal court to raise an innocence claim, and the procedural barriers the person would have to surmount.
Judge Alito’s record and response suggest that he analyzes death penalty appeals as a series of procedural hurdles that inmates must overcome, rather than as a critical backstop to prevent grave miscarriages of justice. The Supreme Court plays a very unique role in death penalty cases, and Judge Alito left me with no assurance that he would be able to review these cases without a weight on the scale in favor of the government.
One important question that I had about Judge Alito was his view on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. At his hearing, while restating the doctrine of stare decisis, Judge Alito repeatedly qualified his answers with the comment that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” While this is most certainly true, his insistence on qualifying his answers with this formulation was troubling. Combined with a judicial record in which fellow judges have criticized his application of precedent in several cases, Judge Alito’s record and testimony do not give me the same comfort I had with Chief Justice Roberts that he has the respect for and deference to precedent that I would like to see in a Supreme Court Justice.
With respect to reproductive rights, Judge Alito said that he would look at any case with an “open mind.” That promise, however, is not reassuring given his prior denunciations of Roe, his legal work to undermine Roe, and his failure to disavow the strong legal views he had expressed in the 1980s when given the opportunity at his hearing. In his 1985 Justice Department job application, Judge Alito wrote that he believed that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and, as an Assistant to the Solicitor General, he wrote a memo advocating a strategy for the Reagan Administration to chip away at Roe v. Wade, with the ultimate goal of overturning that decision. Since he refused to say that he changed his mind, despite numerous chances, one can only think that he still believes what he said in 1985. And his opinions as a Third Circuit judge raise a legitimate concern that he will, if given the opportunity, be inclined to narrow reproductive rights.
Mr. Chairman, I want also to say a brief word about ethics. The Vanguard case could have been disposed of fairly easily if Judge Alito had only admitted his mistake up front. Under questioning, Judge Alito finally admitted that there is no evidence that he followed through on his 1990 promise to the Committee to recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. He also said that some of the explanations that he and his supporters gave for his failure to recuse from the Vanguard case in 2002-- such as a “computer glitch” or the fact that his promise to the Committee was somehow time-limited -- were not in fact the true reasons that he failed to recuse himself from the 2002 case.
While I am not basing my vote on this matter, it continues to trouble me. First, it is not clear to me that Judge Alito took his 1990 promise to the Committee seriously. Second, Judge Alito failed to clear up the inconsistent explanations before or at the outset of his hearing, even after documents revealed that those explanations were implausible and even though he knew that they were not the real reasons that he failed to recuse himself in 2002.
The concept of recusal, which recognizes that from time to time the public might reasonably believe that judges’ biases or interests may cast doubt on the integrity of a judicial decision, is part of ensuring due process and protecting the public’s confidence in the integrity of our system of justice. Despite numerous other reports of Judge Alito’s honesty and integrity, I am not satisfied that he appreciates the importance of recusal.
His written answer to my question about how he would analyze recusal motions related to the Third Circuit judges who testified on his behalf raises concerns about his approach to conflicts of interest. Judge Alito wrote that he thinks Supreme Court Justices have “less latitude to err on the side of recusal” than other judges, because recusal could lead to evenly divided decisions. But when Congress amended the federal recusal law in 1974, it specifically removed any so-called “duty to sit” in favor of a general standard requiring recusal if there is a reasonable basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality. The purpose of that change was to enhance public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the judicial system. In my view, Supreme Court Justices should have no more latitude in interpreting ethics rules than other judges; indeed, the recusal statute specifically applies to Supreme Court Justices.
I would argue that treating recusal issues seriously is even more important for Supreme Court Justices since they are solely responsible for their recusal decisions. There is no judicial review of their decisions, no formal procedure for the full Court review of such decisions, and, when a Justice improperly participates, a tainted constitutional decision cannot be undone. That is why it is so important to have Justices who adhere to the highest ethical standards. Judge Alito repeatedly told us that he seeks to carry out his duties in accordance with both the letter and spirit of all applicable rules of ethics and canons of conduct. He wrote in a letter to the Chairman “my personal practice is to recuse myself when any possible question might arise.” Unfortunately, his description of how he would handle recusal motions as a Supreme Court Justice does not seem consistent with those statements.
Mr. Chairman, it gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to vote against a nominee to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, he may well serve for over 20 years. I would very much like to have confidence that this new Justice, who plainly has a keen legal mind, would be the kind of impartial, objective, and wise Justice that our nation needs. But I do not, so I will vote No. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
| |
|
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Anti-Choice Cause Appears Headed For Major Victory
Protesters at the annual "march for life" in Washington (held each year on the anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision) were reportedly jubilant over the expected confirmation of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.
The marchers have every right to be happy. There is every indication that Alito is an extremist in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. President Bush, after all, promised to name men to the courts who emulated that dynamic duo. All but two of the members of the Supreme Court have now been appointed by Republican presidents who have vowed to make abortion illegal.
Times were very difficult for women in the days before Roe vs Wade and if Alito votes to restrict a woman's right to make her own health care decisions those difficult days will return.
Many clergy people took extraordinary risks to support women who needed an abortion in the pre-Roe days. Their stories are chronicled in a piece available for download on the web site of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Today there are still many in our churches - both ordained and lay people - who are willing to risk much to make sure that women have both the legal rights and the access they need to make their own decisions. A victory for Bush, Alito and their allies in the Religious Right will not end the debate.
| |
|
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Update: Supreme Court UpHolds Oregon's Death With Dignity Law
Good news for the people of Oregon:
The Supreme Court delivered a rebuff to the Bush administration over physician-assisted suicide today, rejecting a Justice Department effort to bar doctors in Oregon from helping terminally ill patients end their lives under a 1994 state law.
In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that then-U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft overstepped his authority in 2001 by trying to use a federal drug law to prosecute doctors who prescribed lethal overdoses under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows physician-assisted suicide. The measure has been approved twice by Oregon voters and upheld by lower court rulings.
Faced with lower court rulings against his position, Ashcroft brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day he announced his resignation in November 2004. The case was continued by his successor as attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., dissenting for the first time since he joined the court in September, sided with the two most conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- in voting for the minority view.
Click here for the full story in The Washington Post.
The bad news in this story: John Roberts has confirmed our worst fears and sided with Scalia and Thomas. Letting Samuel Alito take a seat on the court will further push America to the right - something we should not let happen.
Related Post: Oregon's Death With Dignity Act: One Christian Perspective (Revisited)
| |
|
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Action Alert From The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Too Much is at Stake to Risk Placing Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court
Citing the long-standing national consensus supporting the right of women to make reproductive decisions, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) urges the U.S. Senate to reject the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Aspects of Judge Alito's record on reproductive rights show a radical legal philosophy that would reverse and overthrow basic guarantees that have been essential to women's progress over the past 30 years. In a nation that affirms freedom, equality, and dignity, Judge Alito holds legal views that are directly counter to our country's highest aspirations.
RCRC bases its opposition to Judge Alito's nomination on two instances indicating Judge Alito's judicial philosophy and lack of respect for women's moral decision-making.
As a lawyer in the Reagan Administration, Judge Alito was actively involved in devising the government's position in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a 1985 Supreme Court case in which the government asked the court to uphold Pennsylvania and Illinois laws that imposed numerous restrictions on abortions, including that women be required to provide a variety of personal details. The government went even further and argued that the court should disregard precedent and overrule Roe v. Wade and "return the law to the condition in which it was before that case was decided." The Court rejected the government's argument and struck down the Pennsylvania statute.
Judge Alito expressed his pride in taking part in this case, writing in an application for a promotion to deputy assistant attorney general, "It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me ... to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court ... that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
In his 1991 dissenting opinion in the Third Circuit Court decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito disregarded expert evidence about spousal abuse of pregnant women and concluded that a law requiring married women to notify their husbands prior to an abortion would not unduly burden women's access to abortion. When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1992, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat he is nominated to fill, voted to strike down that provision. Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter said Judge Alito's opinion would give a husband a "troubling degree of authority over his wife" and place the most vulnerable women "in the gravest danger" of abuse. The Justices invoked the possibility of state regulation over many more aspects of women's behavior--smoking, drinking, exercising, using contraception, having surgery--if husbands were granted control over their wives' decision about abortion.
Whether Judge Alito will uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade and whether he will set aside his personal views about women's moral decisions cannot be answered before he is confirmed.
Alito, if confirmed, will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been the pivotal vote in cases to protect reproductive rights. Justice O'Connor has brought an open-mind and pragmatic approach to every case. Alito's writings and record indicate he is likely to follow his personal views on the subject of moral choices and will narrow or reverse existing rights.
With two reproductive rights cases before the Supreme Court docket this term, the stakes are enormous. The next Supreme Court Justice will be in a position to shape laws regarding reproductive choice for the next generation. (The cases are Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Scheidler v. NOW/Operation Rescue v. NOW.) Too much is at stake for women and families to risk confirming Samuel Alito to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.
November 17, 2005
1985 Memo Sets Out Strategy Used by Right-Wing Groups
A 17-page memo* written by Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito while an attorney for the Reagan Administration shows Alito as a passionate opponent of reproductive choice. Alito spelled out the legal and political strategy that right-wing organizations have used in their quest to eliminate access to abortion.
In his strongly worded legal analysis, Alito recommended upholding numerous restrictions as the surest way to undermine a woman's access to abortion services. Among the restrictions he named were state regulations requiring doctors to provide women seeking abortions with information about fetal development, the risks and "unforeseeable detrimental effects" of the procedure, and the availability of adoption services and paternal child support.
Alito advised against "a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade" because it might be rejected. He wrote: "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?" The Reagan Administration incorporated some of Alito's recommendations in its brief in the 1985 Supreme Court case Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, but decided to ask directly for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
The memo confirms that, contrary to his assertions that his views on abortion are only personal opinion and would not affect his judicial rulings, Judge Alito has long-standing ideological beliefs. He should not be confirmed to a lifetime position in which he can impose his personal views on women's moral decisions.
*The memo was written in response to a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that overturned provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. The act would have required doctors to inform women seeking abortion of fetal development and risks of and alternatives to the procedure, such as adoption or child support. Alito called the court's decision "extraordinary" but added, "No one seriously believes that the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade." He suggested that the Reagan administration in a brief to the Supreme Court support the restrictions and withhold from calling for a ban on abortion. However, the administration asked the court to "abandon" Roe, and in 1986 the case was dismissed by a 5-4 vote.
More on Alito Rulings
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of the increased danger of bodily harm to some women during pregnancy, Alito wrote separately from the other two judges hearing the case to support the provision, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. Alito wrote 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 indicates he would never find any burden to be undue.
The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that it not only placed the most vulnerable women "in the gravest danger" of abuse but deprived all women of a constitutionally protected liberty when they married. The opinion, co-authored by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, stated, "A state cannot give a man control over his wife."
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer
In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito ruled against the regulation, but wrote his own opinion instead of concurring with the opinion of the majority. Although he applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute, he refused to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case.
January 11, 2006
Click here to send your senators a letter.
Related Link: Can Christians Be Pro-choice? Yes.
Related Link: Seven Reasons To Oppose Samuel Alito
Related Link: People Of Faith Will Oppose Samuel Alito
| |
|
Monday, January 09, 2006
Seven Reasons To Oppose Samuel Alito
This morning the United States Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings into Samuel Alito's nomination to the United States Supreme Court - a nomination strongly supported by the Religious Right and other extremists.
People for the American Way notes seven important cases in which Judge Alito's decisions on the federal court create solid reasons why his nomination should not be approved:
1. Privacy: In dissent, Alito would have upheld the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them. Judge Michael Chertoff, now head of the Department of Homeland Security, criticized that position as threatening to turn the constitution's search warrant requirement into little more than a "rubber stamp." Doe v. Groody
2. Community safety: Alito, dissenting in the case of United States v. Rybar, said that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows. In response to Alito's assertion that Congress must make findings or provide empirical evidence of a link between a regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, the majority said, "Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute."
3. Family and Medical Leave: Writing for a unanimous court in Chittister v. Dep't of Community & Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to allow state employees to sue for damages under one section of the Family and Medical Leave Act. By contrast, the Supreme Court in a later case (Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs) upheld the FMLA against a similar challenge; the Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justice O'Connor.
4. Reproductive Freedom: In dissent, Alito would have upheld a provision of Pennsylvania's restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. His colleagues on the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court majority disagreed and overturned the provision. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
5. Racial Discrimination in the Workplace: In dissent, Alito argued for imposing an evidentiary burden on victims of employment discrimination that, according to the majority, would have "eviscerated" legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In particular, the majority said that Alito's position would protect employers from suit even in situations where the employer's belief that it had selected the "best" candidate "was the result of conscious racial bias." Bray v. Marriott Hotels
6. Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: As a lone dissenter in a 10-1 decision of the full Third Circuit, Alito would have made it more difficult for someone alleging discrimination to present sufficient evidence to get his or her case to a jury. In particular, Alito would have prevented a woman claiming gender discrimination from going to trial, even where she had produced evidence showing that her employer's claim that it had a legitimate reason to deny her a promotion was a pretext for the employer's allegedly discriminatory actions. Sheridan v. E.I.DuPont de Nemours and Co.
7. Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting claims by an African American defendant who had been convicted of felony murder by an all white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck because of their race. The full Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the majority specifically criticized Alito for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed. According to the majority, "[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants …" Riley v. Taylor
Click here to send a message to your Senators asking that they vote against Samuel Alito.
| |
|
Friday, January 06, 2006
FaithfulAmerica.org: Don't let the Religious Right Steal Your Voice
Millions of Americans from all faith traditions are coming together to say "No" to the extreme religious politics of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Tony Perkin's Family Research Council. This well funded and heavily promoted effort called "Justice Sunday III is an attempt by politically-aligned right-wing religious fundamentalists to pressure Congress to load the courts with ultra-conservative judges. They claim that the courts have been secretly “working... like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms” simply by upholding the constitutional separation of church and state.
The event's coordinator recently said, "Next week, when Judge Alito's critics bore in on him with their questions on "separation of church and state," we want people to understand what they really mean is to push people of faith out of the public arena. When they grill Alito on "privacy rights," they are really referring to abortion-on-demand and the newly-minted "right" to commit sodomy."
Wait a minute. Can they be serious? Join us in our common-sense corner for a moment.
When laws that protect persons of all faiths are said to “rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms,” then all constitutional logic about religious freedom is being turned on its head. If they succeed in loading the court with judges who favor one religious perspective over others, then religious freedom in our nation truly will be compromised.
Congress must not hear only from religious fundamentalists. The rest of us deserve a hearing, too.
You can help make that happen by signing FaithfulAmerica's Justice for ALL Petition below, which will be sent to your Senators in Washington.
Many of you have asked for a way to express a more thoughtful, inclusive, and tolerant view. Here is your opportunity!
Blessings to you as ever,
Vince Isner and your FaithfulAmerica.org Team
Sign this petition and notify:
Your Senators
On Sunday January 8th the organizers of the "Justice Sunday III" event will try to tell you that all those who question the Alito nomination and believe in the separation of church and state are "seeking to push people of faith out of the public arena."
As a person of faith, I strongly object to that false claim.
I am one of countless millions of persons of faith who love this country, value its diversity of thought, its protections under the law, and its respect for human dignity. We care profoundly about our country's values, the decisions of its courts, and the blessings of liberty it vows to uphold, We believe, just as all persons are equal in the eyes of God, so, too, all persons should be equal in the eyes of the law - no matter what their religious beliefs, personal moral convictions, or sexual orientation.
We pray that the actions of Congress in the judicial nomination and confirmation process will reflect our nation's historic commitment to religious freedom for all.
Related Post: Justice Sunday III
| |
|
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Justice Sunday III
Leaders of the Religious Right will be hosting Justice Sunday III this weekend - a rally designed to support the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr to the US Supreme Court.
Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Tony Perkins are among the Alito allies speaking at the event.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State notes that Greater Exodus Baptist Church, site of the rally, has received over $1 million in "faith-based" grants since their pastor first endorsed George W. Bush in 2000.
Pastor Herb Lusk, the Philadelphia preacher hosting the Religious Right-led "Justice Sunday III" rally this weekend, has a long history of partisan activity on behalf of Republicans and has been awarded more than $1 million in "faith-based" grants by the Bush administration, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State....
"Lusk's case highlights one of the often overlooked dangers of the faith-based initiative," (Rev. Barry W.) Lynn said. "Government funding too often sucks churches into partisan politics. After all, if church leaders want to keep the pipeline to tax funding open, they had better back administration policies."
"Justice Sunday III" is sponsored by the Family Research Council, a Washington-based Religious Right group headed by Tony Perkins. The event, scheduled for Jan. 8 from 7-8:30 p.m., is the third in a series designed to pressure Congress to stack the federal courts with judges hostile to church-state separation and to promote Republican political hopefuls.
The event this weekend has been timed to coincide with the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings of Alito, which get under way Jan. 9. Speakers include Lusk, Falwell, Perkins and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). (Santorum faces re-election this year and is locked in a tight race.)
The previous Justice Sunday events (Justice Sunday I & Justice Sunday II) have drawn intension criticism from mainline Christian leaders, Jewish leaders, and Roman Catholic leaders for suggesting that opposition to the Religious Right's political agenda and the president's judicial nominees is tantamount to bigotry against Christians.
Click here to oppose Alito's nomination and to help stop the right wing take over of our judiciary.
| |
|
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
“Intelligent Design Theory” Declared Farce By Judge
An important victory for the Constitution was reached today by a federal judge who has ruled against teaching “Intelligent Design” as an alternative scientific theory to evolution in the public schools. The AP reports:
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion. “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote, adding that several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs….
“We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," Jones said.
This fall voters in Dover kicked out of office the school board members that had been pushing ‘Intelligent Design.”
Public schools should be teaching science and leave theological interpretations of the world to our churches and other religious bodies.
A big thank you to the voters and the courts for upholding the Constitution!
| |
|
Thursday, November 03, 2005
AskJudgeAlito.com
The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism has launched a new web site to solicit questions senators should ask Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings.
(The) nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court has begun anew the process of filling the seat vacated by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the President noted in accepting Harriet Miers's decision to withdraw her nomination, the Senate's responsibility to examine thoroughly a nominee's record, work and writings is of paramount importance. For this reason, we call on the Administration to make available all pertinent documents concerning Judge Alito's work and call on the Senate to carefully review that material and fully exercise its powers of advise and consent.
We look forward to the opportunity to learn more about how Judge Alito has conducted himself as a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Throughout her tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor was well-known for approaching cases with an open mind, for understanding the real-world impact of her rulings, and for rarely abandoning the Warren and Burger Courts' expanded protection of rights for women and minorities and of the wall of separation of church and state. Particularly because he has been nominated to fill Justice O'Connor's seat, it is all the more essential that an exploration of his record demonstrates that Judge Alito will sit on the bench with an open mind and uphold the rights and liberties Americans hold dear.
To encourage the participation of Reform Jews and others in the process of exploring Judge Alito's fitness for the Supreme Court, the Religious Action Center is launching a website, www.AskJudgeAlito.com, which allows for the submission of questions to be asked by Senators during the confirmation hearings. We look forward to working with Senators on the vital process of ensuring that any Supreme Court nominee is worthy of a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court.
Meanwhile, ThinkProgress complied a list of criticism against Alito from other judges:
During his tenure on 3rd Circuit many of Samuel Alito's opinions have been roundly criticized by other judges. This is particularly true in civil rights cases. In such cases Alito has been repeatedly criticized, not for being conservative, but for being unfaithful to the law.
Click here to read some of what Alito's own colleagues think about his judicial opinions.
| |
|
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Says Alito Nomination Raises “Grave Concerns”
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has issued a statement on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court:
President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito’s written opinions on abortion and reproductive choice give us grave concern, and we urge the Senate to ask important questions about his views on the right to privacy in the coming weeks.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold Pennsylvania’s spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of battered women who would be affected by the statute, Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. Alito wrote 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. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, “Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry.” The ruling also stated that “a State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.” (Source: NARAL and Planned Parenthood)
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer
In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito ruled against the regulation, but wrote his own opinion instead of concurring with the opinion of the majority. He applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute while refusing to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case. (Source: Planned Parenthood)
What's At Stake?
With two reproductive rights cases on the U.S. Supreme Court docket this term and a third likely to be heard, the stakes are enormous. The next Supreme Court Justice will be in a position to shape laws regarding reproductive choice for the next generation. (The cases are Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Scheidler v. NOW. The possible third case will be a challenge to the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.) Alito, if confirmed, will replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been the pivotal vote in cases to protect reproductive rights. Justice O’Connor has brought an open-mind and pragmatic approach to every case. Alito must show that he will not impose his personal ideology, nor that of the Administration, on the Court, and that he is committed to protecting individual rights and freedoms.
Click here for more on RCRC.
Related Post: Can Christians Be Pro-Choice? Yes.
| |
|
Monday, October 31, 2005
People Of Faith Will Oppose Samuel Alito
The Religious Right is predictably praising the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, released the following statement this morning:
"President Bush is to be applauded for his choice of Judge Samuel Alito to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Court. The President has kept his commitment to appoint an individual who will faithfully interpret the Constitution. Judge Alito is an experienced judge with an extensive record of decisions in his 29 years of public service including 15 years as a judge. He has the well-reasoned judicial philosophy that is needed at this moment in history on the Court. I intend to work full-time for as long as it takes to get Judge Alito confirmed by the Senate."
The Traditional Values Coalition and their partners (groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council) are opposed to basic civil rights for women and other minorities.
Many leaders of the Religious Right opposed the president's first choice for the court, Harriett Miers, for not being conservative enough. Alito is clearly more to their liking and has a record of sharing their views.
The nomination, however, is drawing fire from civil rights organizations.
Wade Henderson, Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, released a statement today saying:
"Caving to the will of the radical right, President Bush has nominated a judicial activist with a record hostile to civil rights, individual rights, and the rights of women. If confirmed, Judge Samuel Alito - affectionately called "Scalito" by conservatives - would destroy the delicate balance Sandra Day O'Connor has brought to the Supreme Court and swing the Court far to the right.
America wants a mainstream nominee, not one who will turn back the clock on civil rights progress, worker protections, environmental safeguards, and our health and safety. With the nomination of Alito, all of those rights are now at risk.
We urge the Senate to conduct a complete, thorough, and probing review of Alito's record. For a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, the Senate must take all the time it needs to investigate not only his qualifications, but also his judicial philosophy."
The Leadership Council on Civil Rights is a coalition of religious groups and civil rights organizations. Among the members are the African Methodist Episcopal Church, American Baptist Churches, U.S.A. - National Ministries, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Catholic Charities, USA, Episcopal Church - Public Affairs Office, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, National Council of Churches, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society, and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.
You can expect that many Christians and other people of faith will oppose this nomination because of Alito's record on civil rights and women's health care issues.
| |
|
In Samual Alito Bush Picks Conservative Extremist For Court Seat
The religious right is going to be pretty happy.
President Bush will nominate Samual Alito (reportedly nicknamed "Scalito" for his similar judicial outlook to ultra conservative Antonin Scalia) to the Supreme Court.
ThinkProgress has the details on Alito's record:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the `best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any...cases would survive summary judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Visit Save Our Courts throughout the nomination process for updated information.
| |
|
Friday, October 28, 2005
Too Much To Do......
A senior White House official has been indicted for betraying the nation.
The president’s Supreme Court nominee has been forced to resign after the right-wing agreed that while Harriett Miers was a practitioner of the Dark Side of the Force she wasn’t evil enough to serve their will.
And Rosa Parks – hero of the nation – has passed away.
I wish I had the time this week to blog about all this.
| |
|
Monday, October 10, 2005
What Is The Religious Right Saying Behind Closed Doors?
People for the American Way have obtained notes from a telephone conference call between leaders representing the White House and the religious right. The discussion: Harriett Miers:
According to Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, there are two values in Texas: courage and loyalty. On a conference call held by national right-wing leaders to convince grassroots activists to support Miers, Land argued that Miers can be trusted to rule the way Bush expects – anything else would be a personal betrayal. GOP Chair Ken Mehlman touted Miers’ willingness to support Bush’s actions in the war on terror. And Religious Right attorney Jay Sekulow said he wanted her vote for an upcoming Supreme Court case on restricting abortion rights.
Grab a cold beer (or a good mug of fair trade coffee) and sit back and listen to what the wizards of the Right had to say:
| |
|
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
I Trust George W. Bush (To Make Awful Appointments To Our Courts)
George W. Bush promised to appoint people to the Supreme Court in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
The facts are these: the president has appointed judges – at all levels of the federal courts – that are extremely conservative. He has kept his promise.
But news of the president’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court sent shock waves through many right wing organizations who hoped for a name they recognized. Miers, who has no judicial experience, does not have a record on many of the issues important to social conservatives. She has not been one of the religious right’s cultural warriors.
This appointment was undoubtedly made because the president is in a weak political position and he knew a fight on a nomination to the Supreme Court could cripple the rest of his agenda. A woman with no record is easier to confirm than a man with a track record opposing abortion and affirmative action in judicial rulings.
In effect, as many commentators have pointed out, the president is asking his political base on the extreme right of American politics to trust him.
James Dobson, leader of the Republican Party-aligned Focus on the Family, told supporters today that he supported the president’s choice and trusted his judgment.
"I don't believe he would have nominated Harriet Miers if he knew that she was going to assassinate what he believed in and that the court would not be reformed the way he wants it to be…."
"She is a deeply committed Christian," Dobson said. "She has been a believer in Jesus Christ since the late 1970s. I know the person who led her to the Lord. I know the church that she goes to. I know it's a very conservative church. I know that she is a tithe-paying member at that church. I know that she has deep convictions about things. I have talked at length to people that know her—and have known her for a long time. Some of them have been a close personal friend of hers for 25 years. I trust these people because I know them—I know who they are and I know their character and I know what they stand their heart for the Lord."
“Lord,” of course, is a code word here for “GOP/Religious Right agenda.”
"I believe in trusting this president at this time because of the stand that he has taken and has implemented consistently over the last four years."
Trust the president. Trust James Dobson. Trust me.
Harriet Miers will reflect this president’s values and that will prove a disaster for all those concerned about civil rights, a woman’s right to choose, and Constitutional democracy. The theocracy dreamed about by the religious right is coming.
| |
|
Monday, October 03, 2005
Focus On The Family Gets Ironic With Attack On Debbie Stabenow
Focus on the Family’s political wing is running ads against Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow for voting against John Roberts.
A Focus on the Family Action newspaper ad takes Sen. Debbie Stabenow to task for voting against the recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ad calls on readers to contact the Michigan Democrat to urge her to fairly consider the president's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"We are disappointed that Sen. Stabenow would vote against John Roberts, who is eminently qualified to succeed William Rehnquist as chief justice of the United States," said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action. "Her vote is a slap in the face of the voters of Michigan, who understand that the Constitution is clear on the nomination of judges: The president has the authority to nominate as he chooses and the Senate provides consent on the basis of a nominee's qualifications, not ideology."
Minnery said the president is under no constraint to nominate individuals who will maintain "balance" on the court.
"Partisan politics have no place in the consideration and confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee," he said, "either the nominee is qualified and is confirmed, or he or she is unqualified and the Senate rejects the nomination."
Click here to read the full FOF press release.
Partisan politics?
FOF the family is in fact one of the most partisan political organizations around. Their founder and still leader James Dobson is active in Republican politics and has threatened to organize campaigns against several democratic senators.
Senator Stabenow had solid reasons for voting against the nomination.
“The Constitution grants all Americans the same rights, liberties and freedoms under the law. These are the sacred, bedrock values upon which the United States of America was founded. And we count on the Supreme Court to protect these constitutional rights at all times, whether they are popular or not.
“Unfortunately, Judge Roberts refused to answer most substantive questions about how he would protect our fundamental constitutional rights. Because of his failure to answer questions on the major legal issues of our time in a forthright manner, I feel compelled to base my decision on his writings and opinions.
“When you closely examine these documents, you see a forceful and instinctive opposition toward protecting the fundamental rights of all Americans. In case after case, Judge Roberts argued that the Constitution did not protect workers, voters, women, minorities and the disabled from discrimination. He also argued that the Constitution does not firmly establish the right of privacy for all Americans.
“In all of his memos, writings and briefs, Judge Roberts took the view that the Constitution only protects Americans in the most narrow and technical ways, and does not convey to us fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms. Because of these views, after much deliberation, I have concluded that Judge Roberts is the wrong choice for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court – where he may well be making decisions on the rights of our children and grandchildren for the next 30 to 40 years.
“Judge Roberts is certainly an intelligent man with a record of public service. However, that alone does not qualify him to lead the entire third branch of our government. I believe that his philosophy undermines our most cherished and fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms as Americans, and for that reason, I will be voting no on his nomination next week.”
Click here to read her full statement and click here to send her a statement thanking the senator for defending the Constitution.
| |
|
"Bush Nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court"
Statement from People for the American Way
President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers requires close scrutiny by the Senate and straightforward answers by the nominee, said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way.
“President Bush has nominated his personal lawyer and long-time friend to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. His choice raises serious questions about whether he has found a nominee who has the requisite qualifications and independence for the nation’s highest court. This nomination will require the closest scrutiny by the Senate,” said Neas. “With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how – and whether – she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely.”
If confirmed, Miers would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the key vote on many crucial 5-4 decisions on the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor cast a number of decisive votes protecting the right of privacy, reproductive freedom for women, the constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion, effective civil rights remedies, environmental protection, congressional authority to protect Americans’ rights and more.
“The stakes could not be higher, and the Senate should proceed with care. There must be no rush to judgment. Poll after poll shows that the American people do not want to see dramatic change on the Supreme Court, and that they value the rights and freedoms that have been guaranteed to them by the Court. Will Harriet Miers uphold these rights, or will she vote to roll back seven decades of legal progress in civil rights and personal freedom?” Neas asked. “We need Supreme Court justices who are committed to equal justice under the law for all, and who will uphold the role of the federal government in preserving those rights and acting to protect the common good. The next several months could determine the law of the land for the next several decades.”
| |
|
Thursday, September 29, 2005
PAW Response to John Roberts Vote
The good folks at People for the American Way had this to say today in response to the vote to confirm John Roberts:
John Roberts has been confirmed to a lifetime position as Chief Justice of the United States. We opposed his confirmation and are disappointed at the vote. However, now that he has been confirmed, we wish John Roberts well, and hope that he will use his intellect and his abilities to serve all Americans with a fair and even hand.
With John Roberts confirmed, attention now turns to the upcoming nominee to fill the vacancy being created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Every Supreme Court nominee should be held to a high standard, which includes a demonstrated commitment to protecting Americans’ fundamental rights, liberties, and legal protections. Given the pivotal role that Justice O’Connor has played in recent years, the stakes with her replacement are enormous.
If you’re not already signed up to get our alerts, click here, and we’ll keep you up to date and in the action on the next nominee.
| |
|
Join The E-Mail List
Disclaimer
Views expressed here represent the perspectives of Rev. Currie, as well as reader participants, and may not represent the views of Pacific University, the United Church of Christ’s national offices in Cleveland or any local UCC congregation. External links made from this site should not construe an endorsement. Rev. Currie has no more editorial control over such content than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand. Such external links are made for informational purposes only.
Comment Policy
UCC Newsroom
Daily Bible Readings and Daily Devotional
Categories
- 2004 Election (293)
- 2006 Midterm Elections (107)
- 2007 Federal Budget (10)
- 2008 Election (256)
- 2008 Federal Budget (4)
- 2010 Elections (49)
- 2012 Elections (101)
- 2012 Federal Budget (32)
- 2013 Federal Budget (7)
- 2014 Elections (2)
- 2016 Elections (9)
- 2018 Election (4)
- 9/11 (83)
- Afghanistan (14)
- Books (58)
- Children's Issues (11)
- Civil Rights (263)
- Clergy Leadership Network (43)
- Current Affairs (741)
- Eco-Justice (65)
- Family (249)
- Film (54)
- Food and Drink (6)
- Friends (84)
- Gun Violence (40)
- Haiti (3)
- Health (209)
- Homelessness (165)
- Hurricane Gustav (1)
- Hurricane Katrina (42)
- Hurricane Sandy (3)
- Immigration Reform (30)
- Impeachment (2)
- Iran (3)
- Iraq (207)
- Israel - Palestine 2016 Tour (20)
- Israel / Palestine (2)
- Israel-Lebanon Conflict (13)
- Measure 30 (7)
- Media (159)
- Multnomah County (15)
- Music (6)
- Music [1] (14)
- National Council of Churches (242)
- Oregon (226)
- Pacific University (32)
- Peace and Spirituality (42)
- Podcast (41)
- Portland (334)
- Poverty (100)
- Poverty / Hunger (15)
- President Barack Obama (252)
- Religion (1322)
- Science (33)
- Sports (6)
- Sunday Offertory (16)
- Television (8)
- The Courts (67)
- The Twins (80)
- The Westar Institute (3)
- Travel (1)
- United Church New Blog (1)
- United Church News Blog (22)
- United Church of Christ (822)
- United Methodist Church (39)
- Web/Tech (19)
- Weblogs (177)
Recent Comments