-Caveat Lector- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: The Supreme Court as Scare Tactic; Response to Steinem (Nader) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:19:53 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Eisenscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: ? To: undisclosed-recipients:; The Supreme Court as Scare Tactic Jeff Milchen, Pacific News Service October 31, 2000 The Supreme Court has been placed in the spotlight in the presidential race once again, but despite all the attention, citizens receive few facts from either major party candidate. Gore's campaign has played the fear game, using the Supreme Court as trump. "We can't let George Bush select justices" is the refrain sung with hints of back-alley abortions. The idea that Republicans will nominate justices that threaten women's reproductive choices has been repeated uncritically so often that voters start to believe it. But it's an argument that wilts under scrutiny. Indeed, if you ask Democrats to name a progressive justice appointed by a Democratic president, you'll likely face blank stares. Today's court includes two Clinton nominees, but many legal scholars consider them less progressive than Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens, both nominated by Republicans -- the former by George W. Bush's dad. The Gore campaign invokes Roe v Wade at every opportunity, but fails to mention that the court issuing that decision was dominated by six Republican-nominated judges. The decision itself was written by Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee. Any honest Democrat also would acknowledge that one of the strongest progressive forces on the Court over the last 50 years was William Brennan, another Republican (Eisenhower) nominee. So should civil liberties advocates rally for Bush? Hardly. But it is worth noting that in presenting justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as legitimate examples of what progressives fear, Gore's boosters ignore that Supreme Court justices' voting records often differ tremendously from the ideology of the presidents who nominate them. Choosing presidents based on their likely Supreme Court nominees is a shaky proposition. Remember also that the party controlling the Senate has the ultimate power to confirm or deny nominations. As a Senator, Gore voted to confirm Scalia, a justice he now touts as an example of why progressives must defeat Bush by voting for Gore and not for Ralph Nader. Gore's own record should give pause to pro-choice voters. In the House of Representatives, Gore and Republican vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney voted identically -- "pro-life" -- on 13 of 14 abortion-related issues during the six years they served together. Gore's votes gained him an 84% approval rating from the National Right to Life League (NRLC.org). His votes changed substantially in the Senate, but still he voted for the Hyde Amendment, restricting access to abortion for poor women. More troubling, he contends his views on abortion have "never changed." Despite these facts, organizations allegedly protecting the interests of pro-choice women have joined Gore's scare campaign. A new commercial by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (view at NARAL.org) claims that Bush's goal is "ending legal abortion" and warns, "Before voting Nader, consider the risk." If the risk NARAL refers to is the risk that most women in the U.S. could be without easy access to abortion, it's too late. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 83 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion providers. In rural areas, the number climbs to 93 percent. Gore may be closer to NARAL positions than Bush is, but the "hero vs. villain" scenario is fraud. While the abortion issue gets most coverage, citizens concerned with personal freedom should examine the courts' broader impact, particularly the ongoing erosion of Bill of Rights protections in the name of suppressing "terrorism," government-disfavored drugs, and even political dissent. Nominees of both major parties have disappointed Bill of Rights supporters on these issues in recent years. Discussion of Supreme Court actions often overlooks the fact that the court traditionally has been a follower, not a leader, of public opinion and will likely continue in that role regardless of who is president. Given the overwhelming public support for Roe v Wade, I'd bet against Bush appointing a justice who would overturn that decision -- such an act would be self-inflicted sabotage for his career and party. Appointments to the federal judiciary do deserve serious consideration when we choose our president, but too many Americans have strong opinions on the topic based on inadequate or false information. Before citizens succumb to voting out of fear rather than conviction, we should consider one thought: how can we expect our elected officials to vote their conscience if we don't? Jeff Milchen is the director of <http://www.ReclaimDemocracy.org>ReclaimDemocracy.<http://www.ReclaimDemocracy.org>org. ________________________ ============================================ This response to the "Gloria Steinem top ten reasons not to vote for Nader" is from Ellen Shaffer, who is a left-activist working for health care reform and is a former labor organizer. ........................... The point, now that Nader has shaken things up, is to take advantage of this and get the Democrats to move to the left. I agree that there is a difference between Gore and Bush on some important issues, particularly for my friends in DC who depend to some extent on the Clinton administration for their ability to get anything done. But why do we have a Republican Congress for the 1st time in 40 years? How come we've been unable to take it back for 6 years of Clinton/Gore third way politics? The administration's deliberate coalition building with the right leaves no room for a progressive shift. Even when Clinton wants to do something progressive like relieve third world debt, he can't do it unless someone goes out and convinces the Republicans (which has been done) because he has shot the left in the kneecaps. Jesse Jackson's campaign contributed to getting more local black and progressive leaders, and Democratic members of Congress, elected in 1988, when Dukakis lost at the top; Clinton lost the Congress in 1994. (And if it weren't for Ross Perot drawing votes away from the Republicans in 1992 and 1996, it's not clear to me that Clinton would've won, either, masterful politician though he is.) Gloria Steinem should be directing her energies at the Democrats and getting them to reorient their agenda to building an electoral majority that gives some legitimacy to progressive politics, instead of the "third way" politics that marginalize them. Every time I hear Gore say he won't hire one additional federal employee I want to leave the country. And Winona LaDuke did agree to run with Nader, even though Gloria seems to think she shouldn't have. I will probably vote for Gore because I've seen national politics up front and Bush is too scary. But I don't think the Democrats will win on the prayer that most people are like me; they're not. They're going to vote based on who is appealing to them, and if the Democrats aren't they will lose, and need to re-think their politics. Hopefully the Congress, where individual members are running more aggressive and progressive campaigns, will come back to the Ds. (And hopefully they will know what to do with it when that happens, although they didn't in 1992-94.) - Ellen FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. --- Sponsor's Message -------------------------------------- Get Only the Best Lists! Get a daily profile of the best lists at Topica, FREE! http://click.topica.com/aaaaPIb1dc1Ab1jclkc/BestLists ------------------------------------------------------------ ______________________________________________ You can subscribe to Solidarity4Ever by sending a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and unsubscribe by sending an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it to the list moderator at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who will determine whether it is appropriate for redistribution. You can temporarily suspend delivery by sending a request to the same address. Notify the moderator at the time you want delivery resumed. You can also manage this function yourself by going to the list at <www.igc.topica.com/lists/Solidarity4Ever. ___________________________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
