Have We Avoided Judicial Armageddon?
An essay submitted by Timothy D. Stanley, executive director of Minnesota NARAL The sense of relief is palpable. Since the flurry of rumors earlier this summer forecasting a near certain vacancy on the Supreme Court - the first in nearly nine years - there's been scarcely a peep heard from any of the nine members of the High Court about departing. Was this vacancy hype much ado about nothing? Is it now OK for pro-choice Minnesotans to turn our attention back to the real passions of summer like baseball, the family cabin, and the varieties of food-on-a-stick at the State Fair? The answer to both is "no." The right to choose is very much at risk and it will take the vigilance of pro-choice members of the U.S. Senate to protect it. Presently, anti-choice leaders hold a monopoly on political power in Washington. Quietly but consistently they are using that power to circumscribe a woman's right to choose by repeatedly bowing to the most conservative elements of their party and nominating passionately anti-choice nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. Most of the Bush administration's 43 nominees to the federal courts pose a clear and present threat to a woman's right to choose. Once confirmed, federal judges hold their positions for life. It is for this reason that President Bush is using the judicial nomination process to further his political agenda of rolling back women's rights. The President knows full well that judges wield enormous power and discretion in vindicating women's rights, the right to privacy, reproductive rights, and other basic civil and constitutional rights. The decisions they hand down have lasting and powerful consequences for generations to come. Though we may all want to take some comfort in the fact that a Supreme Court confirmation battle likely won't be interrupting our summer, and that Roe v. Wade may be safe for the time being, this comfort would be misplaced. Since Roe was decided in 1973, the Supreme Court has continually allowed lower federal judges broad discretion in deciding whether state restrictions on abortion are proper. Emboldened by a lifetime appointment, a federal judge hostile to a woman's right to choose can do serious damage. Since so few cases reach the Supreme Court, lower federal courts are often the last place women can turn. They deserve an open mind and a dispassionate ear from federal judges, not the predetermined anti-choice point of view of President Bush's nominees. Unfortunately, President Bush's aggressive campaign to pack the courts with far-right judges who share his anti-choice views has been extremely successful. So far, nearly all of his nominees have been approved. Thankfully though, there may be a limit to how far he can go. Four of Bush's current choices for Federal District Courts: Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, Miguel Estrada, and Bill Pryor are facing strong opposition. These nominees comprise a particularly threatening cadre of right-wing ideologues that fit perfectly into the Bush administration's plan to remake the federal judiciary. A determined block of pro-choice members in the U.S. Senate - fulfilling their constitutional role to advise and consent regarding judicial nominees - are fighting to keep the constitutional protections Americans have consistently embraced from being eroded by a president intent on shamelessly kowtowing to anti-choice forces and the religious right. Many senators, including our own Sen. Mark Dayton, stand ready to oppose these nominations. Time is of the essence and it is clear that Sen. Norm Coleman prefers the Senate to act as a rubber stamp to the Bush administration's wishes. It should be increasingly apparent to President Bush that the U.S. Senate will not be complicit in his court-packing scheme. We cannot risk allowing more opponents of reproductive rights to gain a foothold in the federal judiciary. We must act now to protect our hard-won freedoms. If not, all levels of the judiciary will become precisely the ideological and political pawns that President Bush desires.
| 
