The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations (by John Nichols at The Nation)

[marmar]

BLOG | Posted 04/18/2007 @ 1:24pm
The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations

John Nichols

How should Americans react to the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to uphold restrictions on abortion that place new and potentially dangerous limits on access to necessary medical care for women?

Certainly, the great mass of Americans who support a woman's right to choose should be concerned that the court has upheld the first nationwide ban on a specific abortion procedure. As Planned Parenthood Federation of American lawyer Eve Gartner, who argued before the court regarding this case, says, "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. Today the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients. This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

It is absolutely appropriate to be concerned, frustrated, even angry, But concern, frustration and anger do not necessarily count for a lot in politics.

That is why there is much to be said for the response of People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas to the decision to uphold the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Act" that was enacted after Republicans took charge of both the House and Senate in 2OO3.

"Today's 5-4 decision is further proof that the confirmation of right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court has disastrous consequences for Americans' rights and liberties," said Neas. "The replacement of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with ultraconservative Justice Samuel Alito has brought the Court to the brink of judicial disaster."
...(snip)...

Voting to overturn the act were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

If O'Connor were still on the court, would the decision have gone the other way? Almost certainly.

Alito is not leaving anytime soon.

But Stevens, Ginsburg and potentially others might.

Neas says, "Today's decision will energize a crucial public conversation with presidential candidates about the importance of future Supreme Court justices."

As usual, Neas is turning attention in the right direction. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=187372