Monday, October 31, 2005

And So It Begins

The nomination of Harriet Miers made the Right realize that what they wanted almost as much as a conservative justice was a knock-down, drag out fight. Well, it looks like they will get their wish:

From People for the American Way:
BUSH PUTS DEMANDS OF FAR-RIGHT ABOVE INTERESTS OF AMERICANS WITH HIGH COURT NOMINATION OF RIGHT-WING ACTIVIST ALITO.

PFAW will wage massive national effort to defeat nominee who would dramatically shift balance of Court.
It's hard to see how this is good news for the Country.

Update: From Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today called for the Senate to reject President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Judge Alito would undermine basic reproductive rights, and Planned Parenthood will oppose his confirmation," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA. "It is outrageous that President Bush would replace a moderate conservative like Justice O'Connor with a conservative hardliner. There is no room on the court for someone with a judicial philosophy that places at risk the rights, freedoms, and liberties that Americans hold dear."
From NARAL:
NARAL Pro-Choice America announced its opposition to President Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In choosing Alito, President Bush gave into the demands of his far-right base and is attempting to replace the moderate O’Connor with someone who would move the court in a direction that threatens fundamental freedoms, including a woman’s right to choose as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.
Samuel Alito’s record reveals troubling elements that place him well outside the American mainstream


If you're interested in reading a lot more of these knee-jerk reactions, the Washingtomn Post Supreme Court Blog is compiling them.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the most interesting adjective used to describe judicial nominees these days is "divisive." Anyone with any opinion other than mine can be considered divisive.

But in the context of Roe v Wade there are two large factions in this country for which there is no middle ground. Therefore, almost by definition, any nominee with an opinion one way or another is divisive. In fact, to follow the logic of PFAW, NARAL, PPFA and the other usual suspects, what they want is a candidate that is "divisive" in the other direction.

--Scoggin