Supreme Court Battle of a Lifetime

By Kari Lydersen, AlterNet. Posted June 17, 2003.

Reproductive rights, environmental protections and civil liberties could all be in danger if the one or two rumored vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court this summer are filled by right-wing Bush nominees.

With many Supreme Court decisions on key issues in the pipeline, and many decisions that could be overturned, conservative and progressive groups are already in high gear preparing for the likely vacancies, after hearing of the impending retirements of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, 73, and/or William Rehnquist, 78.

On the left, a coalition of groups including the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, Naral Pro-Choice America Foundation and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have started lobbying, grassroots mobilizing, fundraising and public awareness campaigns to make sure they and their constituents have a say in who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

The Loss of Choice

On June 8, Naral launched a national TV ad campaign. The 30-second spot depicts a woman reading a newspaper with the headline, "Abortion Outlawed! -- Court Overturns Right to Choose," and then goes back in time through the political events leading up to the decision. The ad ends with a voiceover saying, "There's still time to protect your right to choose."

Naral hopes that the ads, part of a multi-million dollar campaign called Choice for America, will help prevent the storyline in the commercial from becoming reality. Naral is also launching an internet campaign and will begin running shorter statewide TV spots in Oregon, Wisconsin and Iowa in mid-June. Naral notes that the Supreme Court and Congress are already teetering on the brink as far as supporting reproductive choice, and that 300 anti-choice laws have been passed in states in the past few years.

"The likelihood that there will be vacancies on the Supreme Court in a matter of weeks is extremely high," said Naral president Kate Michelman in a statement. "The moment is upon pro-choice America to come together to save our liberties and our constitutional freedoms.'"

Respect for the Environment

The Alliance for Justice, a D.C.-based group with the specific mission of examining judicial nominees, has hired extra staff to work on the Supreme Court issue and has compiled dossiers of background information on eight potential nominees.

The Sierra Club is also running an intense lobbying campaign of its own, aimed at ensuring that justices friendly to the environment -- or at the very least moderate on environmental issues -- fill any Supreme Court vacancies.

"The court is so divided right now, the biggest impact would come if Sandra Day O'Connor retires," noted Sierra Club senior attorney David Bookbinder. "She's one of two swing votes. If Rehnquist retired it wouldn't really matter because he's so conservative anyway, it would be hard for Bush to find someone more conservative. But then that could be an opportunity to get someone better on."

Bookbinder noted that while it may be unrealistic to get a real pro-environment nominee on the court, the Sierra Club hopes to prevent the nomination of hard-line conservative candidates with no respect for the environment. "We approve the president's nominees most of the time; we are very flexible," said Bookbinder. "It's the real crazies we have a problem with. We have had some big battles."

Stepping Down

The last time a justice retired was 1994, when the retiring Harry A. Blackmun was replaced by Stephen Breyer. This nine-year interval between appointees is the longest since 1823. Day O'Connor and Rehnquist, both Republicans, would be likely to step down during Bush's presidency rather than after it so he can appoint a Republican in their places.

The Bush administration has reported that while there are dozens of potential nominees to fill the vacancies, there are under 10 likely candidates so far. There is a 51-48 Republican majority in the Senate (along with one independent), but on several lower court nominations Democrats have filibustered to block votes on at least two right-wing Bush nominees. Conservative groups are afraid Democrats will do the same thing with right-wing Supreme Court nominees, so they are trying to change filibuster rules, saying the potential to filibuster means there is a de facto need for a 60-vote majority (enough to break a filibuster) for a win.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »