Megan Crane / AFP
07/08/2005
US lawmakers drew battle lines Sunday for the coming fight over a new Supreme Court justice, and demanded opponents foster a civil confirmation process.
US Republicans and Democrats were geared up for a major political fight over a successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her retirement Friday.
Both sides urged the other to refrain from heated partisan attacks over the nomination, although such restraint is unlikely, given the high stakes.
"It is very important. This is a very high profile appointment, everybody is watching," liberal California Senator Dianne Feinstein, told Fox television.
She said she was concerned about "extraordinarily conservative" recent nominees to the appellate courts.
"I think the president would do well to reach into the mainstream to try to bring people together over this appointment and I think it's very doable," she said.
O'Connor's retirement handed President George W. Bush his first chance to reshape the ideological balance of the court , which has immense influence over the lives of Americans as it interprets the constitution.
Liberals warned Bush not to name an "extremist" while Republicans urged him to pick a strict conservative.
But Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont told NBC a nominee "on the extreme right," who did not "unite the country," would spark a fight in the 100-member US Senate.
"You know, when you stop to think about it, if you had a justice on the Supreme Court who only got 51 votes, that's not a very good signal to the rest of the country," he said.
Meanwhile, conservative Republican Senator Lindsay Graham said on Fox that only an ethical problem should stop a Bush nominee.
"To me, it'd have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent, given what we've done in the past," he said.
And Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky told Fox that a recent agreement to limit filibusters, a procedural move that can block a nomination, to "extraordinary circumstances," means that any "reasonable" Bush nominee could have an easy confirmation.
"I think there is every expectation, every reason to believe that there will be no successful filibuster. You know, virtually any reasonable nominee," he said. "All options are still on the table, obviously, but we don't think a filibuster can be sustained."
Bush said he would pick a new justice in a "timely manner" but the White House said there would be no announcement before he returns from next week's G8 summit in Scotland.
The administration has not released any names, but speculation has circled around Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as federal appeals court judges Michael Luttig, Harvie Wilkinson, John Roberts and former solicitor general Theodore Olson.
Justices are named for life, so a Supreme Court nomination gives a president the chance to affect the political tenor of the country for years after leaving office.
Bush's choice is critical because conservatives, who control the presidency and both houses of the legislature, have had their eyes on the more moderate judiciary branch.
Key issues are on their way to the highest court , including cases on abortion, assisted suicide and gay rights.
O'Connor was appointed by president Ronald Reagan and took her seat in September 1981. Her retirement opens the first vacancy on the court in 11 years. Cancer-stricken Chief Justice William Rehnquist had been seen as the most likely justice to retire, but has so far made no announcement on his future.
Supreme Court: What's in it for Hispanics?
Isabel M. Estrada Portales
The Supreme Court has played an historic role in the lives of minorities in extending equal protections and rights.
The Federal Courts led the way in desegregation cases. In Westminster v. Mendez (161 F. 2d 774, 9th Circuit, 1947) Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez brought suit against four Southern California school districts, demanding an end to the segregation of Hispanic school children in Orange County, California. The case was decided 7 years before Brown v. The Board of Education.
The Supreme Court required schools to help students with limited English skills, making bilingual education available to millions of students over the past three decades. In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Court found that the San Francisco school system failed to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 Chinese students who were limited English proficient.
The importance of each judge
The Supreme Court has a history of deciding by narrow margins many important cases that deeply affect all minorities. Its decisions can determine U.S. policy on workers' rights, affirmative action, voting rights, and education. Given the close split on the Court between moderates and conservatives, the next Supreme Court Justice will affect where the country is headed on many important issues.
When Justice O'Connor made the difference
This is a partial list of 5-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O'Connor was the decisive justice. Some of these decisions, groups say, are in danger of being overturned:
-
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.
-
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.
-
Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.
-
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person.
-
Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.
When 5-4 decisions go against minorities
In a 5-4 Decision, the Supreme Court OK'd Discrimination against Non English Speakers. In Alexander v. Sandoval, (532 U.S. 275, 2001) the Supreme Court ruled that non-English speakers had no right to sue the Alabama Department of Public Safety for the discriminatory effect of its English-only driver's license exam policy.
Supreme Court vacancy leaves
key rights at stake for Latinas
Statement by National Latina
Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH)
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been essential in maintaining the balance of the Supreme Court for over twenty years, and she has been instrumental in guarding women rights, reproductive rights and civil rights. She has voted to uphold abortion rights and affirmative action, as well as protect women in the workplace. She recently voted to protect individuals who bring Title IX claims, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in programs that receive federal funding.
"Justice O'Connor's retirement means that the future of our most fundamental rights is at stake," said Executive Director Silvia Henriquez. "Latinas must stand together and collectively demand that any nominee, including a Latino, reflect our shared values. We will not support a Latino nominee simply because he or she is Latino without assurance that the rights so many Latinas and their families depend on will be protected."
Without Justice O'Connor on the Court, Latinas risk losing many of the essential rights that protect the freedom and dignity of our families and communities. President Bush has the opportunity to nominate a replacement for Justice O'Connor and there is strong speculation that he may nominate a Latino/a to the bench. If confirmed, he or she would be the first Latino/a to serve in the Supreme Court. The Senate must ensure that any nominee, including a Latino/a, will uphold our rights protected under the Constitution.
The nine US Supreme Court justices
| Moderates: |
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
Anthony KENNEDY
68, nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1988. The most conservative of the moderates, Kennedy often sides with the conservative camp on issues like abortion, affirmative action for minorities and states' rights.
|
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
Sandra Day O'CONNOR
75, nominated in 1981 by Reagan. The first woman to sit on the Supreme Court , O'Connor often votes in step with public opinion, having a stabilizing influence on the court . She announced her retirement on Friday.
|
Conservatives: |
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
William REHNQUIST
80, nominated in 1972 by Republican President Richard Nixon and promoted in 1986 by Reagan. Rehnquist leads the conservative camp.
|
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
Clarence THOMAS
56, nominated in 1991 by Republican President George Bush. Thomas's confirmation by the Senate was delayed after a former co-worker accused him of sexual harassment. Generally quiet during hearings, Thomas is a staunch conservative who has been known on occasion, however, to break ranks during votes.
|
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
Antonin SCALIA
69, nominated by Reagan in 1986. A devout Roman Catholic and father of nine children, the ultraconservative Scalia favors a strict interpretation of the constitution.
|
| Progressives: |
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
Stephen BREYER
66, nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994. The progressive Breyer is a fierce defender of abortion rights.
|
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
Ruth GINSBURG
72, nominated by Clinton in 1993. The moderate Ginsburg is a strong defender of women's rights.
|
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
David Hackett SOUTER
65, nominated in 1990 by the elder George Bush. Though chosen by a Republican, the justice shocked the conservative camp by taking a progressive line on most issues.
|
HO/AFP/Getty Images |
John Paul STEVENS
85, nominated in 1975 by Republican President Gerald Ford. The white-haired Stevens, known for sporting dark glasses and a bow tie, is the oldest Supreme Court justice and the leader of the progressive camp. He is also one of the court 's most prolific writers, having penned numerous opinions during his tenure.
|
|
Statement from Virginia's
Lieutenant Governor Timothy M. Kaine
“It is no small coincidence that as America celebrates its birthday – an anniversary of our great experiment based in the ideal that we as a people are equal – we turn our attention and extend our gratitude to Sandra Day O'Connor, an exceptional public servant, whose pioneering role and distinguished service on the United States Supreme Court validates that bedrock principle.
“Justice O'Connor's retirement is a loss for our nation. Her work on the bench reflects an impressive display of political independence, diligence and integrity. While her role as the first woman to sit on the high court is of great significance, it is her sound judicial temperament that will be her lasting legacy.
“As the President seeks a candidate to fill this new vacancy, I urge him to offer a nominee in the tradition of Justice O'Connor – a jurist with the courage to put the Constitution before ideology.”
|
