Over a year ago C. Boyden Gray established the Committee for Justice “to offset the influence of People For the American Way” (Washington Post, July 23, 2002) and to lobby on behalf of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominations. A year later, after having witnessed several of Mr. Gray's antics, watched his two televisions ads attacking People For the American Way and seen media coverage of the Committee for Justice's fundraisers sponsored by members of the Bush family and allied corporate interests, two conclusions can be drawn...
Mr. Gray and the Committee for Justice have repeatedly stated that the filibusters of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen are unprecedented and unconstitutional. These assertions are patently wrong. In fact, Boyden Gray himself, on John McLaughlin’s One on One program in 2001, stated “it was appropriate” for senators to mount a filibuster against an appellate judicial nominee, and that senators were “entitled to do it under the rules of the Senate.”
The Supreme Court’s 2002-2003 Term underlined the importance of future nominations to the Court. The justices remain narrowly divided on a number of key issues concerning civil and constitutional rights, and came within one or two votes of adopting extreme positions advanced by Justices Thomas and Scalia in several important cases.
At the blockbuster end of the Supreme Court’s 2002-2003 Term, several close decisions helped distinguish the term as a monumental one for civil rights and civil liberties. According to a new analysis by People For the American Way Foundation of the Court’s key decisions in these areas, several rulings demonstrated how the Court’s divisions could spell disaster for these and other individual rights and protections if another right-wing justice or two joins the Court’s ranks.
For all those who have ever questioned the importance of the Senate’s bipartisan rejection of Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination in 1987, this week’s Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and privacy should be a resounding answer.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has repeatedly charged that senators and activists are opposing confirmation of Bush nominees because of their religious beliefs. These charges poison an already divisive judicial nominations atmosphere, especially in advance of a possible Supreme Court vacancy and nomination.
With a Supreme Court retirement possible in a matter of days, PFAW Foundation has updated Courting Disaster to get the word out about what is at stake should the High Court tilt any further to the right.
What would the actual impact be on Americans' rights and freedoms if the views of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas become the majority views on the Supreme Court? This report examines Scalia's and Thomas's opinions to answer that question, focusing on cases in which Scalia and Thomas have been in the minority on the Court, and the answer is nothing short of chilling.