> The Progressive
> Editor Matthew Rothschild comments on the "news of the day".
> October 28, 2000
>
> Let's examine the Supreme Court argument a little more closely.
>
> First of all, it's not a given that George W. Bush will appoint arch
> conservatives who will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.
>
> Republican presidents have appointed many justices who turned out to
> be liberal: George the First, W.'s dad, appointed David Souter.
>
> Ford appointed John Paul Stevens.
> Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade.
> And Eisenhower appointed William Brennan.
>
> But the doomsayers say we're in more ideological times today, and
> that Bush the Younger would never appoint another Souter.
>
> How can they be sure?
>
> Take a gander at Bush's appointments in Texas.
>
> The New York Times did a front-page piece on these appointments back
> on July 9, and here's what it found: "A look at Mr. Bush's record in
> Texas shows that he has appointed justices who have had a moderating
> influence on the Texas Supreme Court, often regarded as among the most
> conservative and pro-business in the country. He has appointed four of
> the court's nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth."
>
> The Times cited one particularly illuminating example: "Earlier this
> year, the Texas Supreme Court stunned social conservatives throughout the
> state by issuing a 6-to-3 ruling that allowed a 17-year-old high school
> senior to have an abortion without telling her parents."
>
> That's right: George W. Bush's state supreme court upheld abortion
> rights!
>
> Even a conservative justice appointed by Bush might uphold Roe v. Wade
> on the basis of stare decisis, the legal doctrine that says precedent
> should be respected. Chief Justice William Rehnquist invoked this doctrine
> last term when he joined the majority in upholding Miranda, even though he
> opposed the original Miranda decision.
>
> Nor does it seem likely that George W. Bush would want to stack the
> court with anti-abortion justices since that would mean a disaster for
> Republicans at the polls.
>
> And even if Bush wanted to do so and succeeded with his first
> reactionary appointee (assuming, of course, that a liberal and not a
> conservative is the first justice to step down), the Democrats and pro-
> choice advocates around the country ought to be able to put up a big
> enough fight to defeat any second such appointee. (Note: Scalia was
> approved 98-to-0. Not a single Democrat opposed him.)
>
> Michael Moore writes:
> "Your attempts to scare Nader voters have only backfired on you (Gore).
> Once NARAL started running its anti-Nader ads in Minnesota, Ralph
> jumped up to 10% in the polls! People are not stupid. You can howl all
> you want about how "Bush will appoint Supreme Court justices like
> Scalia and Clarence Thomas." But we the people know who voted to PUT
> that right-wing nut Antonin Scalia on the court. It was YOU, Al Gore,
> the senator from Tennessee who stood up and voted "YEA!" the day Scalia
> was confirmed in the Senate! If we ever lose Roe v. Wade, YOU are the
> one with the blood on your hands, and those of us, including Ralph
> Nader, who fought the Scalia nomination, will never forget the jeopardy
> you and your fellow Democrats put women in with that vote. And when 11
> of your Democratic senators voted to put Clarence Thomas on the Court,
> giving him the slim 52 to 48 majority he needed, your party (which was
> in control of the Senate at that time!) threatened every woman in
> America. For the love of God, do NOT have the audacity to come at us
> now with your scare tactics about how women may lose the right to
> chose. You have no credibility."
>
> Nathalie Paravicini
> Green Party of Texas, Clearinghouse Coordinator
> Nader 2000 Campaign, Statewide Coordinator
> http://www.txgreens.org
> http://www.votenader.org
> -
> http://www.green-party.org>