O'Connor Resigns from the Court

Assuming that Bush has a right, far right, and a super far right nominee in mind, along with a pro-torture candidate, I think we need to see just how much confidence he has at this point. Who at this point would be the most inflammatory, and will Bush go that way or not?

AP report:
http://tinyurl.com/76wv8

Bush planned to make a statement at 11:15 a.m. EDT in the White House Rose Garden on her resignation. Spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush would not at that time be announcing a nominee to succeed her.

--snip--
The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O'Connor. Her departure leaves Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush's pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles.

Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush's father.

karen: this sad news about O'Conner is probably the most important news story in the last 30 years since the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Its impact is even more significant b/c Republicans control Congress. We are not going to win the battle other than choosing among a myriad of extreme jurists, we can only hope to use this fight to put pressure on Senators and vulnerable Congresspeople district by district, with the message that voters are carefully watching(Santorum are you listening)that our opposing political party (I am being careful to not name them) to see if they once again overreach and get slapped down. But this summer is going to be real fireworks. W is probably happy to have something other than Iraq to have voters pay attention to. But this is definitely a scary story. Especially for 20 year olds who will have to deal with the impact of a new right wing Supreme Court when many of us are old.

SUPREME COURT CAMPAIGN -- People For the American Way
July 1, 2005

- SUPREME COURT JUSTICE O'CONNOR STEPS DOWN!! -
Please Give Us 10 & 10: http://www.savethecourt.org/10Friends
________________________________________________________________

Karen:

We've been waiting and preparing for a Supreme Court retirement for the last 5 years
and so has President Bush. He finally has the opportunity he's been waiting for:
the chance to reward his right-wing base with a far-right appointment to the Supreme
Court.

Constitutional rights and freedoms will be affected for decades based on what we as
a people do in the coming months. Our very national identity hangs in the balance
and progressives must be loud and clear. You must step up now.

We don't need to tell you what kind of jurist President Bush might nominate; you
already know he cites Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his models for
Supreme Court nominees - justices far to the right of moderately conservative
O'Connor. Given his divisive lower court appointments - and the fact that
right-wing groups have already pledged $20 million to back that kind of nominee - we
can probably take him at his word here.

With Justice O'Connor providing the swing vote on critical 5-4 decisions regarding
privacy, reproductive rights, affirmative action, government neutrality toward
religion, and more, we cannot overstate the profound impact her replacement could
have on the direction of American law and society.

We've called on President Bush to select a consensus nominee, but given his track
record the odds are good that you and PFAW will have to mount a tireless campaign
this summer to stop the confirmation of a bad nominee to the Supreme Court.

Because we don't know who the nominee will be, we are now asking for two universally
essential needs: money and activists.

Please give us $10 and help us recruit 10 activists:
http://www.savethecourt.org/10Friends

The requested donation is low because we want as many of you as possible to invest
in this campaign - even if you've never donated to a political cause before. We
want tens of thousands of people to say with pride, "I helped make this possible."

Recruiting 10 activists is not so easy, but it is free. Please work hard to do this
even if you can't give the $10. The more people talking at water coolers, writing
their Senators, calling radio stations and emailing their friends, the harder it
will be for Bush to slip a right-wing extremist onto the Supreme Court. You know
better than we who out there will help, if asked. Be a salesperson for judicial
independence and get your friends and family involved. They will thank you later.

With your help, we will pull out all the stops to saturate the media and mobilize
people in the public square with three key messages:

President Bush MUST take seriously the Constitution's "advise and consent"
requirement and nominate a consensus candidate with broad bipartisan support.
The Senate leadership MUST provide ample time for hearings and review of any nominee.
And, the eventual nominee MUST fully disclose - and justify - his or her judicial
philosophy, especially on key constitutional issues.
These are not radical ideas; they are common sense.

PFAW has been at the forefront of battles against extreme judicial nominees -
including nominees to the Supreme Court. Our expert staff has broad and deep
experience working with and within the Senate; researching nominees; disseminating
facts and analysis; and organizing people across the nation to weigh in on
Congressional votes - especially confirmation votes.

We know that helping us generate funds and recruit activists is less exciting than
writing a letter of outrage, calling an elected official, going to a rally,
monitoring an election poll, hosting a house party, attending a meeting in your
Senator's office, and all the other things you have done with us. Actions like
these are coming - and soon - but right now we need to build our network of
activists and lay the groundwork for the coming months.

Please give us $10 or 10 activists, or both:
http://www.savethecourt.org/10Friends

Bush will be speaking at 11:15

Bush will be speaking at 11:15

Posted by: Karen at July 1, 2005 10:55 AM

Translation into English available at 11:30...

Ira:

I think the battle has to be more complex than just showing disapproval over a certain candidate or certain range of candidates.

The pressure on the Bush White House itself HAS to continue, weakening his support in a Congress concerned about mid-terms, and creating "soft ground" amongst moderates.

The continued erosion of confidence in Bush's performance on the war and his plummeting numbers coupled with the recent past of the Terry Schiavo debacle can help us pressure Congress with the chant of MYOB-Mind Your Own Business--and that includes appointment of court justices who would only serve an arch-conservative agenda.

Stay loud and clear on this: This Congress has been the absolute worst in terms of playing games with our individual rights while the country is on fire.

Bush will undoubtedly announce his superconservative nominee-in-mind, but couldn't progressives and moderates pose an alternate--perhaps a moderate like O"Connor, as compromise?

Either this, or we push Congress to get absolutely nothing done to and probably through the fall until Bush comes up with a suitable replacement. Filibuster it UP!!!

If anyone else has creative ideas, add them to this list, but this is the time to game plan and share ideas...

karen: I hope that its OK to solicit for People for the American Way but I hope that everyone here gives til it hurts and goes to their roldexs today and forward this link to every relative, friend, neighbor, etc that cares about the future of this country. This is the most important cause that we can participate in this year for our children.

Ira,

We do not solicit here but provide information. As we did for the tsunami relief, anyone is free to let people know about efforts to restore democracy.

We are nonpartisan and educational, and everyone is free to inform others. The DCP does not endorse or solicit; we teach.

I liked Reid going on the defense last week when he suggested several of his collegues as possible appointees.
I think that the leadership (whoever THAT is)should put forth candidates taht are acceptable and push them-in the media and everywhere else.
Why do we only have to react?
We can be proactive here!

Reid? Kerry? everyone?

Id be interested in knowing, above and beyond the 'official' search committee, who exactly are the real 'insiders' who will be the ones to 'advise' the pResident. Cheney, Card, Bartlett, Rice, Rove. Which way do each of them lean?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062601092.html

The White House gathered key political operatives at a strategy meeting Friday to prepare for a possible Supreme Court vacancy that officials believe could occur this week, leading to the first high court confirmation battle in a decade, according to Republicans informed about the session.

The meeting, hosted by White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., his deputy Karl Rove and counsel Harriet Miers, was called to ensure that President Bush's supporters are ready for the high-stakes, high-intensity, high-dollar campaign that would follow a nomination. But some participants later told associates that they were not sure if any justice would retire.

karen: my phrase solicit was improper, but my message that we need to get busy teaching about this selection is just the same.

Fe your first recommendation is a non starter, your second is right on the mark.

"Bush will undoubtedly announce his superconservative nominee-in-mind, but couldn't progressives and moderates pose an alternate--perhaps a moderate like O"Connor, as compromise?
No way.

Either this, or we push Congress to get absolutely nothing done to and probably through the fall until Bush comes up with a suitable replacement. Filibuster it UP!!!
Absolutely!"

I hope that this upcoming battle becomes more of a reflection on the character of Congress and especially with the image of DeLay and Frist than on the nominee. We need to hold up a mirror to each and every Congressperson throughout the country that this is a test as to whether they are in sink with the majority of Americans who are nonpolitical, nonidealogical and want a court that is fair, balanced and share their values, or a packed court that reflects a minority of cultural extremists. I expect Congress and W to once again overreach and that is where we need to once again threaten with the nuclear option. The Senate compromise today is now looking better. Did our Senators perhaps have an inside scoop on O'Conner's intentions.I am an emotional wreck over this announcement b/c its impact is monumental. Curious how others are reacting today. Will W now try and push Bolton thru while we are being distracted?

A little "good" news to offset the bad...

GOP backsdown on investigating Delay. Ethics hearings set to begin soon. Personally, I think it's a tactical move on the GOP's part because they can have their hearings now and be done with them by 06. They know people have really short memories.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/DeLay_inquiry_set_to_move_Chairman_of_Ethics_committee_backs_0629.html

I should clarify that. I KNOW how all of those people lean. What I mean is, what will they discuss as the most necesary of conservative issues? I'd love to be a fly on the wall. Wearing a wire of course.

Is a Latin nominee the most politically advantageous? Should a woman replace a woman? Would the 9-11 widower be the 'patriotic' person?

What is the frame they are going to put out there?

We know the phone is ringing off the hook at the WH this am. with right wingers making their bidding. I just sent in my bucks to save the courts....if that's even possible at this time. This will be our day going down in infamy!

I've already heard from a half dozen of my local nearest and dearest on the O'Connor retirement, and the emotions are running high. It occurs to me that in the few days that we have before a nominee is announced, that we breathe and remain calm.

But, I did get one good idea. Perhaps we should use this time to contact our senators and tell them what we expect from them. So, I'm off to writing to my senators right now.

Posted by: Ira at July 1, 2005 11:43 AM

"...this is a test as to whether they (DeLay and Frist)are in sync with the majority of Americans who are nonpolitical, nonidealogical and want a court that is fair, balanced and share their values, or a packed court that reflects a minority of cultural extremists. "

Ira-Right on the money. We need to show that appointments made to serve an agenda and not the country's welfare is NOT smart--like the Terry Schiavo debacle. (Back to Congress MYOB)

"I expect Congress and W to once again overreach and that is where we need to once again threaten with the nuclear option."

We need to play up the fact NOW that Bush, even with a willing press, is still a WOUNDED president, and ineffective. And he's probably giving the court nominations his best shot before MORE is revealed (on Iraq War) to further plummet his already low low low numbers.

If ever there WAS a time to use the F word as in filibuster, I'd say its NOW.

"The Senate compromise today is now looking better. Did our Senators perhaps have an inside scoop on O'Conner's intentions.I am an emotional wreck over this announcement b/c its impact is monumental. Curious how others are reacting today. Will W now try and push Bolton thru while we are being distracted?"

Let's see what happens during recess about Bolton. Holding the Bush's feet to the flames on this, Iraq and the Downing Street Minutes, isn't a bad idea, especially after that lead balloon of a speech on Iraq earlier this week.

We should make sure that every last staffer of the White House is overworked down to their cuticles, and the press secretary especially gets no sleep.

Progressives can learn the game of walking and chewing gum at the same time. That's what was done to Clinton in the late 90's. Let's learn from this. We don't play issue by issue anymore. We do full court press.

Pressure has to be systemic. Look at it as a festering wound that has crawled up the limb. Inevitably, necrosis will set in on the most damaged part, and bring the whole thing crashing down...

Keep irritating the wound.

Fe...your right on mark.
Strategy must address as many facets as possible and still be cohesive. Part of the problem Democrats have is policies and issues are treated as stand alone components.

The GOP treats it as one large movement, with smaller parts. Its why they get what they want and we are supposed to be happy with crumbs left over.
No more crumbs, we are over half this Nation and demand a seat at the Table.

You know, Bush may use this as a way to shove in Gonzales as his nominee. Doubly important to keep pressure on ALL fronts.

sorry if this is a repost!

For the first time in over a decade, there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Unless we act quickly and forcefully, it will be filled by a right-wing extremist bent on ending a woman’s right to choose.

Pro-choice Americans like you must fight back right now to save Roe v. Wade by demanding a fair and balanced Supreme Court! Now that President Bush has the power to appoint an anti-choice justice to the Supreme Court, we are just one vote away from the end of Roe v. Wade, one vote away from the end of your right to choose.

The news of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court sent a shudder through the pro-choice community.

Throughout her tenure, Justice O'Connor has been one of the "swing" votes on the Supreme Court, part of the razor-thin majority that has kept Roe v. Wade from being dismantled.

Right now, only hours after O'Connor's retirement, anti-choice forces are at work to ensure President Bush nominates the most conservative candidate he can find to replace her.

Now, pro-choice Americans must fight back.

Over the next 10 days, NARAL Pro-Choice America is launching the campaign we have been preparing for months. With your support, our campaign can block the confirmation or appointment of an anti-choice justice who would end a woman’s right to choose.

Your donation will help us put organizers on the ground, reach out to senators and keep our message front-and-center in this all-out struggle for women's freedom and privacy rights. We will make it clear that America’s pro-choice majority expects any Supreme Court nominee to be honest about his or her views on Roe v. Wade.

Please, give NARAL Pro-Choice America the resources to save Roe v. Wade! Please give as generous a donation as you can afford to help us expose the truth about President Bush's vision for a Supreme Court. Help us get the truth out by making an emergency contribution today

Thank you for standing with us in the fight for our lives.

Sincerely,

Nancy Keenan, President
NARAL Pro-Choice America

P.S. Our strength will be in our numbers. Help us enlist as many people as possible in our Choose Justice campaign – make a donation and then forward this message to at least 5 friends today.

The Bu$hCo administration has already had meetings about potential Supreme Court nominees, so I'm sure they already have a short list of people to nominate.

Reid got his message out before Bu$h did, which I'm sure was seen as some kind of one up-manship (and offensive to poor Georgie's ego). I saw that sly little smile on the pResident's face as he was "responding" to what Reid said without mentioning Reid.

If I had to guess about what's coming up no later than Tuesday morning..., I think I'd bet money on a nasty Rovian (and neoCon right wingnut fundie) slime machine tactic of some kind against the Democratic Senators collectively as a "pre-emptive strike" - something that will take mainstream media's attention away from the nominee(s) and put attention on whatever Rovian (or right-wingnut media) slander they come up with - like Rove just did last week.

I suspect there will probably be enough diversionary tactics to keep an army busy, take everyone's mind off of the war in Iraq (and off of how many are dying there, how the Bu$hCo cronies are divvying up the spoils of their war), and the slime machine will be operating in full force, likely gushing.... (He will want those poll numbers to come up, after all....)

I hope the Democratic Senators who have been distinctly lacking any spines in the last five and a half years go in to have emergency surgery over the weekend that will prop up their wimpy spines with titanium rods in preparation for what will likely be a nasty summer in DC.

Once again, John Kerry's voice echoes from the election last year:
"EVERYTHING is at stake."

Bu$h is going to name someone very very anti-RoevWade.
This is Bu$h's chance to reward the fundies / evangelicals and it will change the court, tip it to the hard right for a generation.

I think he will "reward" a Texan, who is both "pro-corporate" and "pro-life".
But the Rove / Dobson religious-far-right faction would probably not want Gonzales because:

from CNN archives:
"Some conservatives openly worry, for example, that Bush would appoint White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and longtime friend, who they fear has moderate-to-liberal views on abortion rights, particularly on the issue of parental consent. "Gonzales is someone the pro-life community would be very concerned about."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/abortion.law.politics/

I hate to make everybody even more gloomy. However, this is just the first of at least two vacancies that will be announced. I believe that Rhenquist held off his announcement so that Sandra O' Connor could announce her retirement first. It was well known that she had been considering retirement even before Rhenquist's cancer. I suspect that Bush will nominate what he considers to be a centrist to replace O' Connor, and then will lower the boom when it comes time to replace Rhenquist.

not about SCOTUS, but about Iraq...most sensible thing I've read all week:

America Held Hostage

By PAUL KRUGMAN NYT
Published: July 1, 2005

A majority of Americans now realize that President Bush deliberately misled the nation to promote a war in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's speech on Tuesday contained a chilling message: America has been taken hostage by his martial dreams. According to Mr. Bush, the nation now has no choice except to keep fighting the war he wanted to fight.

Never mind that Iraq posed no threat before we invaded. Now it's a "central front in the war on terror," Mr. Bush says, quoting Osama bin Laden as an authority. And since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.

But America doesn't have to let itself be taken hostage. The country missed the chance to say no before this war started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush's open-ended commitment, and demand a timetable for getting out.

I know that this argument will be hard to sell. Despite everything that has happened, many Americans still want to believe that this war can and should be seen through to victory.
But it's time to face up to three realities.

First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists.
Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm.

continue~
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp

Daily Kos has a list of things you can do right NOW to prepare for upcoming nomination battle.

http://www.dailykos.com

Bu$h is NOT going to name a "centrist" to replace O'Connor.
That's what O'Connor was...if he replaces her with another "centrist" and replaces Rehnquist with an arch conservative, nothing changes, the court remains the same as it is now.
No, look for 2 very very hard conservatives to replace both O'Connor & Rehnquist...
this is Rove's dream come true, to reward his "christian soldiers" = fundies.

I agree the new nominee wont be a centrist. I should have been more detailed. The new nominee will be what Bush considers to be a centrist (please re-read my post). He will "play" it that way, and maybe get back some of the Republican voters he has lost over the last several months. We have to be diligent, informative and forceful.

Posted by: oncall at July 1, 2005 12:38 PM

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/7/1/145940/5119

Please go to the TruthOut comments, and pay particular attention to the poster listed as "Dangoodbar" - he's a lawyer. He contends that Bu$h will not nominate a radical conservative judge when it comes to Roe v. Wade, and has a long list of reasons why not..... VERY, VERY informative...!!!!!

A quote I used to keep under the plexiglass on my desk when I was dispatching in emergency situations: "If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, you just don't understand the gravity of the situation."

Take a deep breath..., exhale slowly.... We already know the Rovian slime machine will go into full throttle, so we're expecting that. Now, we have to calmly look past the dust devil to the reality behind it.....

TUT WRITES TO HER SENATOR.....

Dear Mr. Santorum,

In a few short days, the President will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court. I am writing to you today, requesting that you stand up for the rights and interests of all Pennsylvanians, and all Americans during this process. We will hear all too much about conservatives and liberals, activist judges, and litmus tests. We will hear about filibusters, and advice and consent.

I am asking you to remember that you do not owe the President rubber stamp support. Your loyalty should be to the people, not the party. You must know that some of the names being suggested are not suitable for a life appointment. Others are highly qualified. I expect you to work with ALL of the senate.

Your religious leanings are well known. however, not all of us share your fervor, and religion and government should not be married. Please respect those of us who differ from you.

Please do not look highly on a candidate that relishes the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade. Making abortion illegal will not stop it, only make it more dangerous. Instead, please think about how important it is that we all work together to reduce abortions through support and information. As crude as this sounds, sex isn't going away, or be practiced only in the confines of marriage. Sex education and easy to obtain birth control make sense. Women must be allowed to control their own morality.

Please do not support anyone who espouses civil injustices on the gay population of this country. I do not understand how you can simply hide behind bible passages to come out against gays, yet you refuse to accept the science that says homosexuality is not a choice. Embrace equality and justice for gays, not limitations. Do not support a nominee who has made a practice of gay bashing.

Please do not support a nominee who has a record of ruling for corporations that harm the environment. Do not support a nominee that rules against people who have been harmed by pollution or faulty products. Corporations are not people, and humans come before money, profit, and protection from liability. Think of people first, last, always.

I have no quarrel with a conservative nominee. I do not expect the President to nominate what you and your party would consider a flaming liberal. Again, we are stuck with the labels that get pinned on us by our political leanings. But, there must be a middle ground for all of us. The President owes ALL of us a nominee that we can respct. He owes the country a jurist that embraces all of us.

I respectfully request that you examine the nominee without your political party in mind, but with people who for many years will be before the Supreme Court, awaiting some kind of decision, that may affect us all.

I am saddened that your record is always party line. I know that you voted three times against additional VA funding, and suddenly you are the author of a new funding bill. I know that it's all politics for you, all the time. You rubber stamp the President without a care for the people. You can change that during this process and come out for the people, not the party. I expect that. I have a right to demand that. I am your employer. You have failed me at every turn, and I am asking you not to fail me in this task.

Thank you

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at July 1, 2005 12:30 PM

I did read that Gonzales is moderate on most things, too moderate for Bu$hCo's rhetoric, and talking heads have said he wouldn't nominate Gonzales.... well, Gonzales is allegedly moderate on most everything - except torture, of course......

"Senate GOP Wants Quick Court Appointment By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Now that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement, the Republican-controlled Senate will try to get her successor in place before the court's new term begins in October.

"I think it is an important objective and I think we can reach it," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who said he doesn't expect Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

Specter will control the confirmation hearings, a task his staffers have been working on for months. Republican staffers speculate that initial hearings won't begin until a month to six weeks after President Bush nominates a successor to give senators time to do their own investigations of the nominee.

Bush will not make a nomination before July 8, the White House said, pushing any possible hearings back until August at the earliest if Specter follows that timetable. "The Judiciary Committee is prepared to proceed at any time, given a reasonable period time for preparation," he said.

Both Republican and Democrats on the committee want time to conduct their own investigations of the nominee before the hearings.

Specter said he would not endorse waiting until after the August recess for the president to make a nomination. Conservative groups fear a nominee would get savaged during the break before the Senate could vote on confirmation.

"I don't know it will make a difference," Specter said.

Senators already have been discussing whether and how to limit the number of witnesses but no final decision has been made. GOP staffers have said hearings could go on for at least a week or more to accommodate senators, the nominee and the people who want to speak against the nominee and on the nominee's behalf.

At the conclusion of the hearings, Specter will call a committee vote at the next available committee meeting. While Democrats have said they expect to question the nominee thoroughly, Supreme Court nominations traditionally advance to the full Senate for a vote even if they get negative recommendations from the Judiciary Committee.

Specter, who is fighting cancer, has said he also expects to shepherd the nomination on the Senate floor. If Specter is not available, former committee chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would do it.

If the nomination is controversial, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will likely have to decide whether to try to block Democrats from using a filibuster to block confirmation.

Seven Democrats and seven Republicans have signed a pact pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. At the same time, they agreed to oppose attempts by GOP leaders to change filibuster procedures."

KOS is right. The times ARE extraordinary. These justices will be around when our GRANDCHILDREN are adults. THIS DECISION MUST NOT BE MADE IN HASTE!!!

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050701/from_oconnor_to_consensus.php
From O'Connor To Consensus

Perhaps I am wrong about this thought, but wouldn't it be prudent to start urging that all liberal/sprogressives expect in an appointment is for an appointment 'In the Mold of O'Connor'.

Perhaps if it is understood right now that all we want is a nonideological moderate in the mold of O'Connor, we won't get tagged as expecting a progressive jusrists.

Another frame might be that if the judicial leanings of O'Connor were good enough for Ronald Reagan, a similar appointment should be good enough for W.

Perhaps we could call it the O'Connor test or the Ronald Reagan test for her replacment when they start throwing the expected litimus test frame at us. Litmus test will surely be the right's code for the appointment to be staunchly against Roe v Wade. i.e. just as when Thomas swore to Specter he had no litmus test and had not in fact made any comments ever about Roe v Wade.

tutter: Specter has always sworn that he is pro choice and supports prochoice nominees even after Clarence Thomas(I have never trusted or believed that even when NARAL supported his re-election). Perhaps folks in Pa need to start reminding Arlen that we have not forgotten his staunch support of Thomas. At least I haven't forgotten that he was the Senator most responsible for his being on the bench today. Forget about Santorum. Our objective there should be to 'isolate Santorum' as part of the idological wing of the Republican party, b/c tutter we know and respect that Bob Casey, is not an ideologue, but also against abortion rights like Santorum.

"Perhaps I am wrong about this thought, but wouldn't it be prudent to start urging that all liberal/sprogressives expect in an appointment is for an appointment 'In the Mold of O'Connor'.

Perhaps if it is understood right now that all we want is a nonideological moderate in the mold of O'Connor, we won't get tagged as expecting a progressive jusrists.

Another frame might be that if the judicial leanings of O'Connor were good enough for Ronald Reagan, a similar appointment should be good enough for W."

Ira:

Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050701/bolton_and_iran.php
Bolton and Iran

And, let's not forget that Bolton could be snuck in as a recess appointment.....

Something about that smirk this morning when Chimperor was talking about O'Connor puts me on guard.... he's going to do something nasty, and sooner rather than later.....

oncall suggested logically yesterday that Bolton might actually be the person responsible for the Valerie Plame leak (his personality and propensity for smash mouth tactics suggests oncall might be right).
In the event that W now thinks that we are distracted by the Supreme Ct. appointment, and can now strong arm the Senate to approve Bolton(threatening to cancel the filibuster agreement for the Supreme Ct nomination), might it then be possible to raise the Bolton/Plame connection?
We are in for the fight of our lives.

Here's Sirotablog on the Rove strategy: "first nominate a wild-eyed lunatic ... either the lunatic gets appointed, or the lunatic loses, and then Bush puts up someone a shade less crazy - but equally as conservative - as the 'compromise.'"
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/07/karl-roves-supreme-court-strategy.html

From MoveOn ~
That's why we've launched an emergency petition calling on our Senators to do what it takes in the crucial weeks ahead to protect our rights. We're aiming to deliver 250,000 signatures and comments by Tuesday. Please add your voice today:

http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourrights?id=5729-5487162-hP_AWe7NbW6ttndAKJB7MA&t=3

If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.) http://pfaw.kintera.org/mobileresponse

Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue. http://www.savethecourt.org/Volunteer

Recruit friends and family members to the cause.
http://www.savethecourt.org/10Friends

Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.
http://savethecourt.kintera.org/WriteThePresident

Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

From ProChoiceAmerica.org ~
Please tell your Senators to oppose any nominee who puts ideology first and women last. Take action here: http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/scotus_nonominee/dwx5g3r1783wd8

"might it then be possible to raise the Bolton/Plame connection?"

Yes. Yes. Yes. Progressives have to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Its not JUST the President, its the entire neocon movement. Weaken it everywhere and the cracks will turn to fissures, like tectonic plates.

No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on
Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of
Divisiveness in Congress-Want Bi-Partisan Solutions-New Zogby Poll
Released: June 30, 2005
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush's job approval stood at a previous low of 44%-but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President's address, and the results show no discernible "bump" in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President's job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority. In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President's numbers, more "Red State" voters-that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004-now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President's handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view.

The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans-as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States-just 36% say
they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the "Blue States" that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush's fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

Americans Tiring of Partisan Division on Capital Hill
The same survey finds that a 55% majority of voters believe the two parties are too focused on their respective bases, and as a result, compromise-and results-have become impossible in Washington. Just 36% in the poll rejected that notion, saying the parties' organization provides as broad a base as possible, and that compromise is occurring. A follow-up question found that seven-in-ten (70%) voters believe the parties should be broad-based, and should pursue compromise-while less than one-in-four (23%) favored putting base issues first, even if it means nothing is accomplished.

These views are held by members of both major political parties, as well as independents, although Republicans, whose party controls both houses of Congress, are more likely to favor the parties focusing on the desires of their base than are Democrats and independents, with 31% of Republicans favoring this approach-more than the 20% of Democrats and 17% of independents who hold that view.

Pollster John Zogby: "The nation continues to be split down the middle but there appears to be a deep and growing concern about how polarized we are. The President tried to address the situation on the ground in Iraq and hoped to allay the fears of the nation. It looks like that did not happen. Meanwhile, opposition to the war reveals that Americans are just as hostile and intense as they were the day after the 2004 election. The message seems to be pretty clear for Mr. Bush: lay off the partisan rhetoric and work to find compromise solutions."

Zogby International conducted interviews of 905 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from June 27 to 29, 2005. The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. ++

It is my understanding that the chamber of commerce crowd does not have the same ideological motives that the Dobson wing has. Their agenda is primarily interested in terminating all tort claims, worker rights, environmental regulations, and the minumum wage. The Dobson wing could care less about that and is is strictly concerned about cultural issues like abortion, prayer in school, and harassing gays. It seems logical that our strategy ought to be to divide and conquer. Each of them will be spending tens of millions in the nomination battle and Rove's job will be to unite or at least coalesce their message. We need a strategy to put them at loggerheads; to stir up a conflict b/w the two rather than allowing them to unite their message and double their strength.

http://www.alternet.org/story/23290/
Economic Independence Day

OT, but related to the holiday. It helps to know why we must be extra-vigilant in the very near future when we know MSM will be occupied about the O'Connor resignation (remember, she said she would resign when a nominee was voted to her post) and 4th entertainment and fireworks, so we must watch for those pesky dust devils and see through them to what's really going on in the background with the bully's strong-arm tactics....

McClellan said the White House would 'consult' with Senate Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and expressed hope that Democrats would not block a vote on the president's pick.

"I can't imagine that the Democrats would want to engage in controversial tactics when it comes to a nominee for the Supreme Court," he said.

Interesting turn of phrase. We will consult with Dems(i.e. shove our extreme nomination down your throats) just don't you don't dare try and stop us ("with controversial tactics"). We get your message W, just understand we are not about to once again be rolled by you and your henchmen.

The first words out of their mouths are already confrontational.

I just wandered over to a couple of rabid rightwing blogs (better left un-named)to see what dust-devils (lol, nonnyO) they are churning up over SCOTUS news. One thread has a poll going on, "which nominee would most make libs explode?"
The winning consensus so far seems to be "Robert Bork".

On the other hand, I just caught some of Sen John Warner, R-VA. speech today before the Senate (via Cspan2). He was using his time to ask Bu$h to try "to be a uniter, not a divider" over the SC nominee.
With all due respect to Sen Warner, one of the leading voices of the Senate's 14 "moderates"...I don't think your president is going to listen to any voice of reason. Bu$h has been waiting too long to make his mark permanent on the highest court. Look at the choices he rammed through at the appellate level. Any bets Bu$h will "go moderate" now??? Not likely...

Fox's "Supreme Court Analyst" C. Boyden Gray is also founder of group pressuring Senate to confirm Bush nominees
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507010004

Fox News featured extended commentary by C. Boyden Gray in its initial coverage of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, identifying Gray as a "Fox Supreme Court Analyst." But how can Fox News hire as a "Supreme Court analyst" someone who also founded the Committee For Justice -- a group committed to ensuring the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees -- without disclosing the conflict to its viewers?

[Click on link to read more]

that is hilarious ontovictory.Just last week I predicted here Bork would be W's nominee to replace Rhinquest, except for his advanced age. I am certain that if Bork were 20 years younger he would be the first one out of the gate for W b/c that is exactly the way he operates (thumb in your eye tactics). Looks like I have learned to read the right's minds (is that what is called an oxymoron). That really is scary.

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at July 1, 2005 03:06 PM

OTV4D: I can't help but think something underhanded is going to happen before the SC nominee is named. Something about that smirk this morning (yes, I actually watched when I found out what the interruption was all about) just made my skin crawl....

Yeah, the pix on TV of the TX plains by the TX WH looked like they'd produce dust devils... and we already know Chimperor's nickname for Rovie is "Turd Blossom..." - Dust Devils just seemed to fit! :-) That is what they create, after all, and what everyone looks at instead of the space around the snakey dust devils, thus the focus is always on the dust devils and not on the space around them.... which is where/when Bu$hCo goes into action when everyone's attention is off them.... We've all been suckered into reacting to snarky utterances and actions by the right wingnuts long enough, IMHO. It's long past time to focus and see reality vs the distractions we've paid attention to in the past....

Senator Ted Kennedy Holds Conference Call with Bloggers on Sandra Day O'Connor's Resignation
1 July 2005

Senator Ted Kennedy just held a conference call with a group of left-wing bloggers to discuss Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation.

After thanking everyone for joining the call, Senator Kennedy said, “We could not have anticipated what we are facing.”

Kennedy has participated in over 20 Supreme Court nominations during his career. He thanked O’Connor for her service to our country, reiterating that she was a mainstream conservative Justice.

Kennedy said, “I hope the President will select someone who served as she did. I urge the president to consult with the Senate on the nominee choice.” He noted that the Senate’s advice role “must not be given the short shift.”

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1194

Satement from JK here - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1193

ira said:

"Another frame might be that if the judicial leanings of O'Connor were good enough for Ronald Reagan, a similar appointment should be good enough for W."

Posted by: Ira at July 1, 2005 01:36 PM

then Sen. John Kerry said:

"This is a time to remember the responsible choice Ronald Reagan made in nominating Justice O'Connor -- it's important to put the country and the Constitution ahead of any political agenda."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1193

[ ira, great minds think alike! ]

I just heard something disturbing on Ed Schultz that hoepfully someone can verify.
Rhinquest who is reportedly very politically savy allegedly sent out a message today that he does not intend to retire. Yea Right.
If that is true my cynical suspicion would be as follows: The Dobson wing will try and argue based upon that pronoucement that the O'Connor replacement is just replacing one seat on the court and whoever is chosen won't really effect the balance of the court.
Of course Rhinquest will then announce his retirement immediately after a right wing jurist is then ramrodded thru the Senate. Just call me cynical.
The ideological bent good enough for Ronald Reagan, should be good enough for W.

Rehnquist typo

In the interest of bipartisanship (and to keep an eye on what is going on), here is an email forwarded by a friend from Alan Keyes:

This is a SPECIAL MESSAGE from Alan Keyes' "Keyes Media Central" and RightMarch.com:

Supreme Court Fight Is ON -- Click Below to Help WIN the Fight Against the Coming Liberal Attacks:
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarch/?a=23

ALERT: The moment we've all been waiting for is finally here.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- one of the "moderate swing votes" on the Supreme Court -- has just announced her retirement.

And already, the sharks on the far left smell blood in the water, and are beginning their feeding frenzy.

WE MUST BE READY TO FIGHT, and make SURE that O'Connor's replacement is one who will finally bring this court BACK, away from its recent trend to "legislate from the bench" -- and from the left.

WE *ARE* READY at RightMarch.com. We haven't spent much time talking about this issue with you, but behind the scenes, we've been preparing to FIGHT HARD...

And you KNOW that we fight harder than ANYONE else on our side! We've NEVER been ones to "pull our punches" or hold ANYTHING back in our fight against the forces of the radical left.

And this time, we've REALLY got our work cut out for us. The Left has already amassed a HUGE JUGGERNAUT against us:

* A coalition of 70 far-left groups, including People for the American Way, leftist labor unions, the Sierra Club, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Organization for Women, has formed to coordinate their efforts against any conservative nominee from President Bush. They've already enlisted Democratic
consultants to prepare TV ads and advise them on strategy to defeat Bush's nominee.

* The far left-wing group People for the American Way, which has been preparing to
fight a Bush Supreme Court nominee for the last four years, has set up a 45-computer war room with 70 phone lines in Washington, D.C. to fight against Bush's nominee.

* NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion-rights group, has signed up 30,000 people in all 50 states to be "rapid responders." Those activists have committed to reaching out to the group's 800,000 members and beyond, to get the message out and to exert pressure on senators, especially Republicans such as Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee.

* MoveOn.org is unleashing a TV ad campaign starting TODAY across the nation, pushing for a liberal judge to be nominated. Their PAC already has a whole stable of ads they plan to saturate the airwaves and print media with. Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the MoveOn PAC, equated it with exercise. "We grow stronger and bigger with every campaign we fight," he said.

Dozens of groups on the Left are already prepared to spend MILLIONS of dollars to attack any conservative nominee that President Bush nominates. If their voices are the only ones being heard by Bush and his advisors, then guess what -- all we'll get is another O'Connor, or even worse, another Souter.

TAKE ACTION: There MUST be No More Souters -- no more "stealth" nominees that pretend to be conservative, then vote with the liberals once they're appointed for life.

OUR voices -- the voices of hard-working, patriotic grassroots Americans across the country -- MUST be heard above the shrill voices of the Left. Please help us make YOUR voice heard now:

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarch/?a=23

Just to let you know, we've been at all of the high-level, "inner circle" meetings of conservative groups in and around D.C. regarding this issue. In fact, we're attending a closed, invitation-only meeting today with senior Republican Senate staff on the upcoming nominations process. We're already coordinating with many groups to fight back against the coming liberal onslaught...

But you KNOW RightMarch.com. You KNOW that NO ONE has been as aggressive in pushing the conservative pro-American agenda as we have. You know that NO ONE is as BOLD and "in your face" in standing up for what is RIGHT on the American political scene.

I can promise you this: With your help, NO ONE will be as strong in pushing BACK against the forces of the Left as we will. Here's what whave ALREADY been planning to do:

* We're going to run NATIOWIDE newspaper ads, demanding that there be "No More Souters", and asking President Bush to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court.

* We're going to run NATIONWIDE radio ads, reaching MILLIONS of listeners, asking Americans to call on their Senators and demand that there be NO JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER allowed for ANY conservative nominated by President Bush.

* We're going to launch new TV ADS across the Internet, touting the need for a Supreme Court justice who simply interprets the Constitution according to the original intent of our founding fathers, rather than legislating from the bench.

President Bush NEEDS to see how much support there is in the heartland of America for a strong conservative judicial nominee, so that he doesn't end up nominating another Souter. OUR VOICES MUST BE HEARD.

But we need YOUR help to do this. We don't have radical left-wing billionaires like George Soros, willing to contribute tens of millions of dollars for this effort. But we DO have hundreds of thousands of members, just like YOU -- who don't want to see this country continuing under the attacks of an out-of-control judiciary.

PLEASE HELP NOW. Any contribution you can make --$10, $25, $35, $50, $100, $500, $1000 -- whatever you can do, it will go a LONG way towards making YOUR voice heard... ABOVE the din coming from the far Left. Please click below to make your best contribution:

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarch/?a=23

We'll keep fighting for conservative American values. Thank you for YOUR help in this fight.

Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

P.S. We've got another top-level meeting with a coalition of conservative organizations this coming Tuesday, as we begin the process of sharing strategies and information to WIN this fight against the forces of the Left. We need you to make your largest possible contribution before Tuesday, so that we can let them know what RightMarch.com is able to do as we run to the battle.

Of course, we've got a lot more grassroots activism we'll be leading the way on, so be sure to "stay tuned". Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help us take on the forces of the far left, and WIN this fight for the Supreme Court! Thank you!

CONTRIBUTE NOW: https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarch/?a=23

Today's events underline why the Judge Prado campaign was such a good idea. Too bad that it didn't have much time to develop.

If the President chooses to attempt to further divide America, based on his measly 3 million majority in a dirty election, then we are compelled to let him know what is at stake.

This nomination is worth shutting down the Senate for, and delivering a few million Democrats to Capitol Hill for.

An interesting viewpoint from a forum poster at truthout.org:

O'Connor's retirement
My initial response was rage and despair, but it only lasted a few nanoseconds. Because I realised, we haven't lost the Supreme Court by O'Connor's retirement; judging by the court's recent decisions -- eminent domain, medical marijuana, the 10 commandments (and those all just in the last couple weeks) -- the court has been lost for a long, long time. At least as far back as Gore v. Bush 2000, and undoubtedly further than that.

As for Roe v. Wade -- which seems to be the only decision that anyone gives a crap about, to judge from the way it always comes to the fore in any discussion of the Supremes -- it'll get overturned, and the blue states will step up and permit it, the red states will ban it, and those who are poor or trapped in red state hell will get screwed. (And some a**hole will propose a constitutional amendment banning it.) In other words, business as usual. Doesn't please me one bit, and I'll probably be volunteering at some clinic somewhere to help, but there are far more issues that the court will decide that worry me before Roe.

Cyrano:

You're right. The progressives need to show muscle now, especially while the President's numbers are low.

dwahzon: and it will be our young daughters, not most of us that will have to endure a new Supreme Ct. Again the future of this country is in the hands of the genY generation and until they start voting at 60+% then they will get the world and the justice they deserve when they don't participate and can't find the 5 minutes to vote to protect.

I stayed on 2 Denver campuses in the snow in November for days begging students to vote and saw plenty of apathy, so here genY is the court that you told me that you could care less about in Nov. And that excludes the cool Princeton group and many other young activists that seem to give a damn, but to the rest, I say its your apathy that will finally screw you and make you travel to states that won't want to imprison you. The boomer generation had to take to the streets to protest for abortion rights in the 1970s, perhaps one day genY will wake up and have to do the same thing.

Ira,
Most of us that battled for RvW are old and gray. The current generation of young women are most affected by this. Like you, I talked to many young women about how the freedom to own their own bodies could be taken away. It was not important enough for them to get involved.
Those that will be most affected must get involved now. At a recent Edwards speech in Phoenix, about a third of the 500 people in Phoenix were under thirty. Since the speech was at noon time, that is a pretty good turn-out.
So maybe help is on the way? Is it too late?

I think we need to return to something that Oncall mentioned the other day...

We shouldn't back down from meeting challenges like this head-on... (no wimps allowed)... but we also need to discern what is the best use of resources.

What will change this is changing how elections occur... voting reform and media reform.

Or something like that...

I copied much of the discussion into this post in the forum...

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=740&pid=2834&st=0&#entry2834

The boomer generation had to take to the streets to protest for abortion rights in the 1970s, perhaps one day genY will wake up and have to do the same thing.
====================================
Ira,

Who is to blame? The younger generation or their 70's parents?
Most of them lived on their assets, they didn't hand on the torch to them. A minority did, others are in power (yes), and the other kids were able to make their minds all by themselves. Too many king children in the middle...only relying on consumption society.
Between O'Connor and Nike runners, what do they care about? Nike runners.
So, abortion, supreme court...Why should they they care? Unfortunately, they were not brought up to think that way.
Fortunately some think for them.
You have the children you diserve, and it's a hell of a task...

Posted by: dwahzon at July 1, 2005 05:27 PM

Actually, DW, it's the "far more issues" that has me not sleeping at night and had me concerned when I read the news.

And if you look at the recent records of the Appeals Court people who were part of the compromise, then you will see how this extreme right (neoCON) view has been placed into power and the end result is the little guy will get hurt the most!

I know for many it does boil down to abortion rights, but for me, it's the whole kit-and-kaboodle!

Wonder if Rehnquist would prefer to die in office-that way he wouldn't have to face who they put forward......

Andree,
I am not sure I agree with you on this.
I think ideology is set when you start becoming aware of the world around you.
For the boomers, we had MLK to lead us which lead to Nam and RvW and for a lot of use constant involvement (I took many years off in error).
There were progressives in the spotlight to show us the world outside our own measly selves.
The generation at risk now grew into their worldliness during the Reagan/Bush1 years with greed is good and conspicuous consumption. I blame their parents less then the mores and societal pressures of the time. It is going to be hard to change because this is who these people are. It will take a galvanizing event such as an illegal war or denial of long accepted rights or something else to move people.
The children in their teens may see the need to get involved in the same way we got involved in our youth – for maybe the same reasons: illegal war, denial of civil rights, etc.

I am in Michigan with my family. We will be returning to our home for July 4 so that I can walk in the local parade with other local progressive groups, and hand out my DCP flyers. My eight year old daughter will be in the parade as she is a member of a local cheerleading group. I have been listnening to some news on the radio today and have read Karen's post above. We can not let the Supreme Court Justice nomination process turn into a single issue debate. We have to clearly state the ALL the issues that we are concerned about. I know this is a serious and profound issue for many, but if we let this debate turn into an abortion referundum we have to consider why we would have let that happen. Personally, I will do all I can to stop the appointment of a judge who intends to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that will not be the only issue that will be part of the discussion. We have to focus on the issues that we consider critical to a America's future. Issues such as health care, enviromental issues, financial opportunity for all, education, foreign policy (Supreme Court decisons can have an effect on Administration foreign policy decisions, as we all know), veterans affairs, gun control, civil rights, electronic communications, and a whole myriad of issues that will evolve as time progresses.

It is obvious that the Right and Left wings are gearing up for a huge confrontation just to prove which side has more political muscle. Let's be the leaders and show what issues are really worth fighting for.

I am in Michigan with my family.

Posted by: oncall at July 1, 2005 07:50 PM

Oncall?

Donde estas?

"We can not let the Supreme Court Justice nomination process turn into a single issue debate. We have to clearly state ALL the issues that we are concerned about. I know this is a serious and profound issue for many, but if we let this debate turn into an abortion referundum we have to consider why we would have let that happen." Oncall

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing the Neocons would like more than to have this supreme court issue turn into "Dems are baby killers." And we're be naive if we think for one minute that that wouldn't happen. It will.

We need to focus on the protection of people's rights over corporate greed. In my view, this is what is really at stake now. The Neocons want corporations to have carte blanche throughout the world, and my guess is that that will be the bigger threat with this next Bush appointment.

Amy and OC,
I agree.

Here is the newspaper link for the LTE's:

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/mail/compose

"The boomer generation had to take to the streets to protest for abortion rights in the 1970s, perhaps one day genY will wake up and have to do the same thing." Ira

And it might not hurt them one bit.

It strikes me whenever I'm working on "women's rights" issues that most - not all - of my fellow workers are my own age - middle. Perhaps it's time to let the younger generation make their own priorities known. Certainly my fellow feminists and I are no longer concerned about our own reproductive rights - we're all beyond that age. Yes, there are some younger folks working, but the majority are not young.

I am much more concerned about a creeping fascism - a corporate dictatorship - than I am about my future granddaughter's right to an abortion.

Don't forget these action alerts:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=742&hl=

and please add any groups you know of that are not listed there.

Amy,
It sounds selfish, but I agree. I believe those who it affects need to decide if they will fight for it. I too am much more concerned about the corporate fascim too. So it boils down to a choice, support extremist judges just to get Roe v Wade overturned or support moderate judges who respect privacy and the constitution. (of course right winged judges use the 14th ammendment to support overturning Roe v Qade, so that is the problem too! It's not like the constitution was really, extremely careful about that point!)

I've never been a one issue person. But I do know too many people who know nothing of the issues and they state that too! But they voted because they want abortions banned.

don't look now, but things are not so swell in Afghanistan, the war we left to go invade Iraq. this from the AP:

Afghan progress in danger of unraveling

DANIEL COONEY
Associated Press Jul. 01, 2005

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan was held up as an example of U.S.-led nation-building just three months ago. But that optimism has succumbed to near-daily ambushes, bombings, execution-style killings and this week's downing of a U.S. military helicopter

From U.S. and U.N. officials to Afghan villagers, fear is growing that this country may be at a seminal moment - with the barrage of violence in danger of overwhelming three years of state-building.

"After the presidential elections last year, everyone was optimistic that we were heading toward a stable, peaceful democracy. But it no longer seems that way," said Malalai Juya, a female candidate in September's upcoming elections. "Everyone is scared now. Security has been getting worse and worse by the day."

The resurgence of the Taliban insurgency could not have come at a worse time - with just 10 weeks remaining before key legislative elections that are the next step toward democracy after a generation of war.

Tuesday's downing of a special forces helicopter - and the loss of an elite military team still missing Friday - reinforced concerns that while American casualties here are far fewer than in Iraq, the rebellion may be fast becoming a mirror of the insurgency there.

continue~
http://tinyurl.com/7jcgu

oncall: this is all about your 8 year old daughter. I rather doubt that any nominee will say anything whatsoever about abortion. The last nominees including O'connor simply answered those questions by evasion.i.e I don't have and opinion about that, I can't answer that question b/c it might come before me if I am on the bench, answers like that. The bottom line is that Dobson will have a veto over whoever the choice is. From a political standpoint Gonzalez is W's logical choice but is probably not conservative enough for him, Dobson or Frist.

The best we can push for is to support someone that is in O'Connor's mold that on ocassion will break from Scalia and Thomas. Hopefully,but doubtfully, there will be a choice with a reasonable judicial temperment that while conservative may actually grow in the roll and may someday be someone we can all be proud of, not a John Bolton or Clarence Thomas clone.

In the end its a Hobson's choice; there probably are no good choices that W will give the time of day to.

In any event we should not become so obsessed with this decision that things like SS Privatization or unnecessarry additional tax cuts slip through and forgotten about.

If we learn anything from this it should be that we need to be paying more attention to who we will support as our governors and who will be in our state legislatures where the seat of power will be in your daughter's lifetime oncall.

Sorry I am down on the GenY gang. I have a great activist 25 year old nephew as many here have, but I just feel strongly that our institutions of higher learning are so rightfully concerned with producing job skills for our college students that community activisim which was so impt to my generation is rare today. That is why the war continues and why college aged women are now on the cusp of losing many of the rights their parents have enjoyed(and to some extent taken for granted)including their right to privacy.
Teach Your Children Wel...

"Perhaps it's time to let the younger generation make their own priorities known."

Sorry to generalize, but political activism is the exception today. I tried engaging people in my office bld today about how upset I was with O'Connor resignation and pretty much all I heard was isn't it great July 4 and a day off is here and wow I got a paycheck.

Unfortunately Gen Y is stuck with a difficult economy, and ever competitive race to get into good colleges and even harder time getting into professional schools, exploding school loans, an ever changing business climate that means they will change careers numerous times, and a tough time finding good employment with healthcare. No wonder many are worried, screwed up and that political activism and setting priorites Amy is so difficult for them and probably the last thing on their minds. I here that all the time from my teacher in laws. They claim to have little time for political activism and tremendous economic pressures; that is there priority; getting out of school with good enough grades to get a decent job that pays their bills and provides healthcare.

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at July 1, 2005 09:04 PM

Bush has the chance to go down in history as having done more damage to the United States, and its interests, than Bin Laden could possibly hope to do.

But that's our Dubya - doing for America what he did for Harken and Arbusto.

sorry for the typos and rambling thought tonight its just a sense of pessimism and frustration.

No wonder many are worried, screwed up and that political activism and setting priorites Amy is so difficult for them and probably the last thing on their minds. I hear that all the time from my teacher in laws about their students. They claim to have little time for political activism and tremendous economic pressures; that is their priority; getting out of school with good enough grades to get a decent job that pays their bills and provides healthcare.

Religious Coalition Calls On Bush To Protect Reproductive Rights

Statement of Reverend Carlton Veazey, President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

July 1, 2005 -- Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has served the nation with distinction and dignity, bringing a moderate voice to the U.S. Supreme Court that has been crucial in ensuring the Constitutional right of privacy that safeguards women's health. On the occasion of her retirement, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice calls on President Bush and the United States Senate to work in consultation to select a nominee who will uphold this right of privacy that dates from the turn of the 20th Century and encompasses an individual's most private decisions about contraception, family planning, and abortion. We applaud President Bush's statement that the administration will consult with the Senate in selecting a nominee. A careful thorough process with the full advice and consent of the Senate is essential in reassuring Americans that their safety, security and rights will be protected under the law.

--There is more and I read it at the "Light up the Darkness" blog.

Glad to see the almost instantaneous organization. Heard about Sandra while driving into work. Came home to emails from NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
I am impressed. Then all the particulars on this blog. Thanks for updating this internet-blocked wage slave!!

Teach Your Children Wel...

Posted by: Ira at July 1, 2005 09:09 PM

I spent a few hours this afternoon with one of my undergrad students (age 20) and I feel MUCH better. She completely got the Roe v Wade issues, and the concerns she has seem balanced and clear.

The college students who just graduated came into college and 9-11 happened--they are a more aware group than the ones immediately preceding them--but not as aware as those following them.

(This is a fairly gross generalization, but one that seems to be holding up in general.)

Check out the cover of the New Yorker.

It shows a sad Uncle Sam sitting at the head of his birthday party table, festooned with balloons and party plates labelled with little flags from the "coalition of the willing," but all the chairs are empty.

The war has already begun on the fight to get Bush out. Huge signage today on the corners "IMPEACH BUSH" with www.com are showing up all over this town....but I live in liberal oasis. O'Conner as a conservative had integrity and made likewise decisions. I may not have always agreed with them,but at least she wasn't scary.....march on, CALL,DONATE to the DNC!!

Don't forget these action alerts:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=742&hl=

and please add any groups you know of that are not listed there.

Folks,

I think we need to create a list--maybe in the forum--of all issues that the future nominee might represent, not just Roe v wade. Then we need to list the organizations who will be fighting for these too. We can not sink or swim on Roe v Wade!