|
Californians
for Fair and Independent Judges Urges Consultation Not Confrontation
on Supreme Court Justice Nominee
SAN
FRANCISCO/LOS ANGELES (July 1, 2005) - Californians for Fair and
Independent Judges, a coalition of more than 50 organizations
working to protect the independence of the federal courts, today
urged the President and the Senate to seek consensus across partisan
lines to nominate a Supreme Court justice to succeed the retiring
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The
member organizations of Californians for Fair and Independent
Judges (CFIJ) represent a wide spectrum of communities and causes:
environmental, civil rights, civil liberties, reproductive rights,
faith based, ethnic, labor, disability, gay rights, seniors, and
women's communities.
"The
Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting our Constitution
and laws," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice
Society, a CFIJ member organization. "Its nine justices serve
for life and their decisions directly influence the lives of every
American. Senators from both parties should be involved in selecting
the nominee who will succeed Justice O'Connor."
"President
Bush should consult with both Republican and Democratic Senators
to identify and nominate a jurist respected by both sides,"
said Maria Blanco, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights, a CFIJ member organization. "Selecting
a strongly ideological judge would create a bitter and divisive
confirmation fight."
"The
President should choose consensus over confrontation," said
Susan Lerner, founder and chair of the Committee for Judicial
Independence, a CIFJ member organization. "We're not asking
the President to overlook a conservative judge; in fact there
are many moderate conservatives who could win broad, bipartisan
support. The President should not pick a fight by choosing a nominee
whose views are out of step with the majority of everyday Americans."
In
addition to Paterson, Blanco and Lerner, the following subject
matter experts are available to speak with the media about the
importance of the President and the Senate seeking consensus on
the next Supreme Court justice nominee:
Shannon
Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights, (415) 392.6257, ext.
310
Rev. Peter Laarman, Progressive Christians Uniting, (626) 644-3122
Kathy Spillar, Feminist Majority, (310) 556-2500
Mary-Jane Wagle, Planned Parenthood LA, (323) 223-4462, ext. 3213
# #
#
Media
Contact:
Keith Kamisugi, Equal Justice Society (for CFIJ)
kkamisugi@equaljusticesociety.org
(415) 876-0589, (877) 835-5679
-------------------------------------------------
KEY
5-4 RULINGS IN WHICH SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR WAS DECISIVE
Sandra
Day O'Connor has been the deciding vote in many important Supreme
Court decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection,
personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination,
and more. If she is replaced by someone who doesn't share her
fair and impartial perspective, these are among the key 5-4 decisions
in danger of being overturned:
Grutter
v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities
to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase
educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity
on campus.
Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the
Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action
to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation
agency fails to act.
Rush
Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving
people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried
to deny them treatment.
Hunt
v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to
take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.
Tennessee
v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be
physically accessible to the disabled.
Hibbs
v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state
tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.
Zadvydas
v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely
detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even
if no other country would accept that person.
Brentwood
Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001)
affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating
interscholastic sports.
Lee
v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality
toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable
at graduations and other public school events.
Brown
v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source
of funding for legal assistance for the poor.
Morse
v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination
provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions
that choose party candidates.
Federal
Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee
(2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that
are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution
limits.
McConnell
v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political
parties' use of unlimited soft money contributions.
Stenberg
v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial
birth abortion
McCreary
County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government
neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments
displays in several courthouses
Jackson
v. Birmingham Bd. Of Educ. (2005) ruled that federal law protects
against retaliation against someone for complaining about illegal
sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs.
|
