- ...i love liberty
07.01.05
Today, I received two emails on the same topic.
Here is the first email:
"Early this morning Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court, leaving the first open seat in more than 10 years. As a moderate Justice, she helped protect our rights for decades. With Bush likely to nominate a replacement in a matter of hours or days, our most basic rights and freedoms are suddenly very much up for grabs.
"This is the time to act.
"Its rumored that Bush will nominate a replacement as quickly as this Tuesday. In the next few days Bush, the Senate and the media will all be will be listening very carefully—gauging the public reaction to this vacancy and deciding how far they can go.
"That's why we've launched an emergency petition calling on our Senators to do what it takes in the crucial weeks ahead to protect our rights. We're aiming to deliver 250,000 signatures and comments by Tuesday. Please add your voice today.
"The only clear indication from Bush about who he might nominate is that he intends to follow the example of his two "model" judges—Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.* These two have weighed in from the far-right fringe for decades, and another judge in their mold could shift the balance on the Court significantly.
"On Capitol Hill, today's resignation unleashed a swarm of right-wing fringe groups and corporate lobbyists pushing for a nominee who will favor narrow prejudice and greed over the rights of the American people.
"If we can deliver 250,000 signatures and comments by Tuesday, we can make sure the voice of ordinary Americans can compete with this swarm and tell our senators to stand up for our rights.
"Thank you,
"MoveOn PAC
www.moveonpac.org"
Okay, this is very clearly an extremely democratic statement from a liberal political action committee, but the fears are valid.
Maybe you think this petition is democrat hokum and left-wing fringe hoo-hah, at least take into consideration that everyone's freedoms can be affected. The Supreme Court recently upheld a decision to allow local governments to seize and condemn privately-owned housing and business property to increase private economic development. If your neighborhood stands in the way of a new MegaMall that will 'revitalize the community,' the city can condemn your neighborhood's property and pay you all whatever the city thinks is fair value.
Not only did Judge O'Connor oppose this decision, but Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas voted all against it. It must really be bad when you've got people from both ends of the political spectrum trying to prevent it from becoming law.
*According to MoveOn, and from various other legitimate souces, including, NBC's Meet the Press, November 21, 1999, case history courtesy of People for the American Way, and general public record, here are just a few examples of landmark cases where Scalia or Thomas voted against O'Connor to try to strike down core rights and freedoms. In many cases if they had one more vote they would have succeeded:
"Worker's Rights: Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which protected the right of workers to care for newborn children or gravely ill family members.
"Women's Rights: United States v. Virginia, which allowed women to attend all publicly funded schools. (C'Connor was not on the Court at the time of Roe v. Wade, but has opposed Scalia and Thomas on reproductive freedom issues in such landmark cases as Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
"Church and State: Locke v. Davey, which ensured that states could not be required to fund religious training.
"Environmental Rights: Friends of the Earth , Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., which protected citizens' rights under the Clean Water Act to sue against the illegal dumping of mercury and other toxins.
"Civil Rights: * Dickerson v. U.S., which upheld the "Miranda" guarantee that people accused of crimes are read their rights. * United States v. Fordice, which protected the rights of those still suffering from the effects of state-enforced racial segregation. * Grutter v Bollinger, affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies.
"Civil Liberties:Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which blocked the government from indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges, an attorney, or any basic rights."
..........
I also received the following email from the Human Rights Campaign:
"URGENT: Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement on Friday, July 1.
"Earlier this morning, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from our nation's highest court. Her retirement will have a critical impact on the rights and lives of all Americans. The stage has been set for a high-stakes judicial nomination and confirmation battle in the U.S. Senate.
"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has a long and distinguished record as a consensus builder in a closely divided court. Her retirement is a clarion call to every American that our rights are in grave danger. The loss of Justice O'Connor's moderate voice is a serious threat to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, to women's rights and to protections for racial, ethnic and religious minorities. We must all come together to fight for a replacement who follows in the Justice's tradition.
"George W. Bush has made no secret that he intends to fill any Supreme Court vacancy with someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — two current Supreme Court Justices who bitterly dissented from the Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which overturned sodomy laws in America.
"Your support is critical at this moment while we work to ensure fair and balanced judicial nominations to these life-long appointments.
"From the constitutionality of hate crimes laws to the future course of marriage rights in our country, the Supreme Court will have a profound impact on the lives of every GLBT American in the years ahead. That's why the fight for a fair Supreme Court Justice to replace Justice O'Connor is HRC's most critical campaign right now. We're working in coalition with our allies in women's and civil rights groups to pull out all the stops so that no nominee who is hostile to the rights and dignity of GLBT Americans wins a lifelong seat on the Supreme Court. Your help throughout this fight will be critical.
"Our timing is critical. Anti-gay extremists are already pushing some of the most anti-GLBT judges in history. Who's on their list?
- Michael McConnell, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge. Here's what he has to say about GLBT anti-discrimination statutes, which he opposes: "At bottom, the problem is that anti-discrimination statutes label anti-homosexual feeling as 'discrimination' -- akin to racism. The law thus contains an approval of homosexual behavior."
- Michael Luttig, another U.S. Court of Appeals judge, who has upheld the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy criticizing fair-minded judges for even discussing the issue of whether the military had the right to exclude openly homosexual individuals from service.
"The next Supreme Court Justices could help reverse and even eliminate some of the most important protections currently secured for GLBT Americans--and halt the progress on those we haven't yet secured. Think about it: Privacy. Adoption. Marriage. Benefits. Workplace discrimination. And so much more is at stake with this fight.
"For over a year, we have been working on our Supreme Court plan -- researching possible Supreme Court nominees, partnering with GLBT organizations in states where the battle will be closest, and reaching out to moderate Republican legislators. These actions are the key to ensuring our voice is heard on the Judiciary Committee. In the coming weeks, when the nominee is announced, we will need your continued actions to make sure that our voices are loud and strong. Thank you in advance for your help.
"This is one fight in which we can't afford to underestimate the influence and power of the extremists. With your help, we will match their influence and their dollars.
"Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
HRC President"
Another PAC, and another concern for people. While I am a straight girl, I have friends from every spectrum of the sexuality rainbow. And their rights should be no different than yours and mine.
I shared this letter as well because I'm not fundraising for a PAC, but I'm trying to raise awareness to issues that I find important. Give or don't give a donation, but at least open your mind a little wider.
Generally, I don't care about politics, or what's going on in the news. If it isn't mentioned in the 2 minute headlines update on the Today Show, I'll either hear about it later, or else it isn't that important to me.
I don't care what the hell you do in the bedroom, except for the whole hurting other people/jailbait thing I talked about last month, and I certainly don't think that the issue of whether or not you're having heterosexual sex or homosexual sex should determine your rights as a human being, and a citizen of the United States of America.
The idea that someone else can govern my body, my relationships, and my rights however the hell they want to, scares me. I don't want to live according to someone else's agenda, unless I am willingly doing so.
It's very sobering.
And it made me think a little more about issues than I normally do.
Hopefully it'll do the same for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment