The Courts and Reproductive Rights
Bush is filling lifetime judicial appointments and powerful government positions with right-wing fanatics dedicated to eradicating reproductive freedom. These zealots are close to overturning existing protective legislation, and creating new laws that would deny these fundamental freedoms to future generations.
Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court
The Lower Courts
Judicial Nominating Process
Filibusters & The "Nuclear Option"
The Supreme Court
- On July 1, 2005, Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court. Bush now has the opportunity to fulfill, at long last, his campaign promise to be a "uniter, not a divider."
- Until O'Connors retirement, the Supreme Court was narrowly divided, with three justices who clearly support the right to choose, three justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and three swing votes.
- The most recent decision addressing restrictions on the right to choose upheld the right by a razor-thin vote of 5-4.
- Some Supreme Court Justices appear perilously close to retirement. Four justices are over 70, and three of the four oldest members of the Court are part of the narrow five-justice pro-choice majority. Ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist may also retire soon.
- President Bush opposes the freedom to choose. Bush has identified Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia as his models for Supreme Court Justices. Both hold views on issues of fundamental importance to women that are more extreme and hostile than those of any other member of the Court.
- Help us protect the Supreme Court!
The Lower Courts
- The lower federal courts, where many key reproductive rights decisions are handed down, are also in jeopardy. Bush has nominated numerous anti-choice candidates for federal court judgeships during his first term, some of whom were staved off by filibustering by Senate Democrats. Starting his second term, Bush has already announced that he intends to renominate 20 candidates who were previously rejected by Senate.
- President Bush is engaged in a campaign to pack these lower courts with judges who will roll back basic constitutional freedoms, including civil rights, workers' rights, and the freedom to choose.
- Moreover, anti-choice members of the Senate are pressuring pro-choice lawmakers to rush through the confirmation process of many of the President's more controversial nominees.
Judicial Nominating Process
- The President nominates judges; the Senate confirms them. These are co-equal roles.
- The Constitution requires the Senate to be a check on the President's power to nominate.
- Federal judges serve for a lifetime. It is the Senate’s responsibility to carefully scrutinize the records and positions of all the nominees to ensure that the nation’s court system maintains a balance.
Filibusters & The "Nuclear Option"
- Filibusters of a handful of the Bush Administration’s judicial nominations have been prompted by the Administration’s insistence on selecting nominees with extreme records (Charles Pickering, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and others), in an effort to pack the courts with ideologues who will undermine critical legal rights and protections.
- A nominee to a powerful, lifetime seat on a federal court should be able to secure the confidence of 60% of the Senate. Filibusters on legislation are commonplace, and even more justified when needed to stop a lifetime judicial appointment.
- Filibusters have been used sparingly -- there has been no blockade of Bush Administration nominations. Over 200 judicial nominations were confirmed in the Administration’s first term, while only 10 of the most extreme were filibustered. President Bush has appointed 24% of all active federal judges, and 20% of all Circuit Court judges, in just four years.
- Filibusters can only be ended by a cloture, or a vote to end the debate by two-thirds of the Senators present.
- Republicans now promote the so-called "Nuclear Option" that would prohibit the use of filibuster to block judicial nominees. This proposal denies the longstanding right of Senators to consent to judicial nominees.
- If the rules for judicial nominations are changed by the “Nuclear Option,” there is no reason to believe that a future Senate majority might not change the rules for legislation as well. Requiring 60 votes to end debate forces a bill’s proponents to agree to compromises in order to gain passage of legislation.
|
