Human beings age. It’s a natural part of life and few
would treat the idea with much alarm. But when the person aging is
a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and President George W. Bush will
appoint his successor, the issue takes on menacing proportions.
Justices William H. Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor are
likely to leave the Court before Bush’s term is up, and Bush
must avoid extreme judicial appointments to protect individual
freedoms.
President Bush must avoid caving in to the far-right thirst for
dangerously conservative Supreme Court nominations, and moderates
should not hesitate to battle Bush if he seeks to steer the Court
far to the right. With Republicans now in control of the Senate,
the elevation of nominees who have a narrow, exclusive vision is
greater than ever before.
A quick look at potential nominees shows that they threaten many
historic ideals and freedoms, starting with the rights of women.
Potential nominees, according to well-connected Republican
politicos, include Judge Michael Luttig. Luttig is the judge who
struck down the federal Violence Against Women Act and overruled a
lower court judge who sought to block implementation of a statute
that would require parental notification for abortion. Luttig is
known among many judicial insiders as the man who
“tutored” Clarence Thomas prior to his promotion to
Supreme Court Justice in 1991 ““ a frightening preview of the
future if Luttig is confirmed. Nominations of people like Luttig
are being considered at a time when the Supreme Court supports the
Roe v. Wade precedent by a margin of one vote, making the situation
more perilous.
Another fundamental freedom threatened by nominees who may don
the black robe is the separation of church and state. President
Bush has already vowed to nominate justices “who understand
that our rights were derived from God.” While I agree with
his belief, forcing such a viewpoint on those who disagree with it
is patently un-American and would threaten the sacrosanct
separation of church and state that was recently trampled by the
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case, which upheld vouchers for religious
schools.
Rulings and views like those mentioned are extended into areas
like environmental protection and racial discrimination
legislation. They can be summed up in two phrases:
“states’ rights” and “strict
construction.” This philosophy upholds the beliefs that
federal authority should be curtailed, and states should have
greater or complete discretion in areas like abortion.
The problem with this idea is both historical and philosophical.
Support for states’ rights was the doctrine advanced by
people like Strom Thurmond and Jefferson Davis to justify slavery
and segregation. It would permit the intemperate passions of
politicians and voters to ignore worthwhile and crucial laws that
uphold important rights and regulations. After all, if policies
compatible with states’ rights were enacted,
anti-discrimination legislation and abortion rights could be
limited by racially stained, conservative states like Georgia and
South Carolina.
Original intent is an equally problematic philosophy. Those who
support this doctrine believe the Constitution should be read
strictly, according to the founding fathers’ vision for our
country during their time. As educated as these men were, America
has changed tremendously since the time the Constitution was
ratified. In Thomas Jefferson’s day, women had few rights,
blacks were slaves, and the police could interrogate suspects who
were unaware of their rights. A society that has become so much
more enlightened must be willing to acknowledge that our
understanding of constitutional rights has shifted.
Moderates and all Americans who believe in fundamental rights
should fight against the Bush nominees if they are not of a
middle-of-the-road judicial disposition. Some have argued that
politicizing the judicial system is wrong. However, when judges
rule on many issues pertinent and political in nature like
affirmative action or violence against women, the process must be
political. After all, Republican senators battled against the
nomination of Judge Ronnie White on the grounds that he enforced
the death penalty insufficiently ““ a political issue.
This coming summer could be a long, hot one in Washington as
President Bush’s more conservative backers seek to pack the
Supreme Court with judges who have unsound and dangerous ideas that
will strip Americans of important protections. Unless people of
conscience stop this onslaught, our freedoms will suffer.
E-mail Bhaskar with your comments at sbhaskar@
media.ucla.edu.