Update [2005-7-24 15:37:12 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. Because kid oakland should be on the front page. Edited to bring more text above the fold. The question for Roberts is clear. "Do you accept that Roe is settled law that you will not vote to overturn?"
This one is simple.
We need to come together. We need to stand united.
We must be prepared to filibuster, if it comes to that, a nominee who will not publicly state that he or she supports a woman's right to choose.
Among the many questions that we have for any nominee that George Bush might put before us, there is one question, given the balance of the Supreme Court, and this President's stated positions on abortion, that is central:
Do you support the substantive consequence of Roe, upheld in Casey, guaranteeing that abortion be safe and legal in all fifty states?
Justice Ginsburg, in her nomination hearings was unequivocal on this:
[The right to an abortion] is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.
We should expect no less an affirmation from any nominee. Our question is not about Judge Roberts's technical views on Roe, or on Casey. Our question is not asking him to state how he might rule in any future case. In this, we need to be clear. We intend to ask Judge Roberts to state before the nation his support for the pragmatic consequence of Roe.
Abortion has been safe and legal in all fifty states since
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
People understand that. Millions of women have had abortions under the care of their doctors and without the interference of law enforcement since that decision. That was the
consequence of
Roe. Where does Judge Roberts stand? We have a right to know in simple terms that every American can understand.
And we must say, forthrightly, that if it comes to down to the rights of every American woman vs. the preference of a single nominee in how he anwsers questions, not about the law, but about rights women have been living with for over thirty years in this nation, we stand with the broad interests of American women every time.
You see, the Democratic party represents two very simple things in this regard that we need to make extraordinarily clear to the public:
- we are pro-choice
- we are for civil rights
It's that simple.
We choose Supreme Court Justices in part for their legal brilliance and understanding of the law, but that is a separate matter, in my mind, from the essential quality we look for in a Supreme Court Justice: an understanding of the consequence of the law, it's import and effect on our day to day lives. People understand that. Our greatest Justices have understood that. It is to the point, and it is central to how we will evaluate Judge Roberts.
This isn't a debate about technicalities of the law or narrow issues of judicial precedent. You see, Judge Roberts may have interesting technical views on Brown v. Board of Education. He may have valid legal opinions about that decision that he is reluctant to spell out precisely lest he pre-judge a future case. But the public has a broad right and interest to know that Judge Roberts will publicly state that enforced segragation in public schools was wrong, and is a part of our nation's past.
It is exactly the same with abortion. That kind of fundamental issue creates a broad right for the public to know where a nominee stands before that nominee is confirmed to a life-time appointment on the Supreme Court of the United States. There should be no stealth here. The nominee should understand that in answering our Senators he is speaking to us, the people. This is a political process, and we have a significant right to know where he stands so that we might advise our Senators how to vote.
Roe vs. Wade was decided over three decades ago. It enjoys broad suppport and it is a decision whose consequence, whose substance, is put into practice every day, in every single state, by thousands of individual American citizens who have abortions. We should not go back to a time when this was not the case, and abortion was unsafe and illegal in much of the nation. And no United States Senator representing anyone much less the Democratic Party, should do anything but stand firmly on that ground.
Indeed, we need to tell the nation clearly where we stand. We need to give Judge Roberts a clear understanding that he will be asked this question, among the many questions we will ask him. And Judge Roberts and the nation must know that how he answers that question will have consequences.
It's that simple.
.
.
I mentioned unity. I'd like to address that right now:
In my view, taking divisive public stands against "single issue" Democrats and talking about embracing "pro-life candidates" in the run up to the Senate confimation hearings about Roberts is a grave political mistake.
I think those who've made those kind of statements don't realize one salient point: The abortion debate is driven by single issue voters on the other side, and always has been. The abortion debate is driven by those who want to take away a fundamental right.
Now, the Democratic Party is for women's rights. As a function of that, we, all of us, standing together, will defend a woman's right to choose as a federally protected civil right, enunciated in Roe and upheld in Casey, not because those cases were perfectly argued but simply because the substantive underlying value, the right to control one's own body, is so fundamental.
Choosing this moment to belittle and mischaracterize abortion rights advocates, and to call them "single issue" is extraordinarily wrong-headed and ill-timed. I am dissappointed in any Democrat who would attack women who are fighting to defend their civil rights from narrow-minded single issue zealots. Women who are defending themselves are not the problem here. Women's rights, as with civil rights, with gay rights, and the rights of the disabled, belong to all of us or they belong to none of us. We stand together on this, or we will watch as Mississippi and North Dakota and even Ohio, pass legislation making abortion a crime. (You want pragmatism? Try one fight now versus fights in all fifty states later.)
A GOP that endorses criminalizing abortion is the problem. The single issue voters who have driven abortion as a wedge issue for three decades with the cynical support of the GOP are the problem. George Bush and his desire to impose his religious views on others is the problem here. The "single issue" abortion zealots are in a position to achieve a Supreme Court Nomination that may well bring them closer to their long-held goal: making abortion a crime in as many states they possibly can.
We must stand together against that. And in standing together we may well find that a majority in this nation stands with us, and shares our values and pragmatism on this issue. However, if we don't stand now, that majority, I am sure, will not magically emerge.
Please put me on the record in favor of the Democratic Senate taking a firm stand on Judge Roberts based on his public answer about the right to choose.
In this, I proudly stand side by side with all those who believe that when it comes to fundamental rights: we either stand together, or we hang alone.
Update: Please see this discussion with QWQ about the formulation of my point...it was productive imo....here.