The Autobiography of Clarence Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas’ memoirs will finally be released on October 1st--coincidentally, the first day of the Supreme Court's 2007-2008 term. Several years ago, news broke that he had signed a deal with HarperCollins to pen his life story in his own words. In fact, the publishing giant was so confident that the book would be a success that Thomas squeezed an astounding $1.5 million advance out of the deal – an amount which dwarfed previous arrangements with former Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor. People are particularly interested to read his account of his 1991 confirmation. Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron certainly intends to read the book. She told McClatchy News Service, “I am a regular patron of our public library, so I will be ordering it from there. I am a reader of both fiction and non-fiction, whatever this book is."

To read the full McClatchy article covering this story, click here.

Nan Aron Takes on the Washington Post

Alliance for Justice President, Nan Aron, wrote an Op-Ed which ran in today’s Washington Post. In it, she refuted the claims in a recent George Will column and a Washington Post editorial. Both repeated the right-wing talking points that opposition to Judge Southwick revolves around only two cases. As Aron pointed out:

The opposition doesn't stem from anecdote but analysis, analysis that reveals overwhelmingly one-sided patterns. The Post said that opponents of Southwick “haven't made their case.” But this argument doesn't reflect the most substantive points that opponents raise.

A nominee's record is the best predictor of what he or she will do on the bench. Southwick's record predicts that those in the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction have much to fear regarding their legal rights and protections. Moreover -- and overlooked by The Post -- the patterns in Southwick's record fit this administration's pattern of behavior.

For with the assistance of conservative activists, allies in the Senate and in well-funded interest groups, and the amen chorus of commentators such as Will, George W. Bush has appointed a succession of appellate judges who will serve his administration's ideological agenda long after he has left office.

While Nan hasn’t stopped the right wing from distorting the truth about Judge Southwick, at least someone is presenting the facts about his record.

Bush Administration: Not Just Appointing Judges

At the same time that the Bush administration has been working hard to pack the federal bench with ultraconservative judges, some other judges feel that the administration’s rhetoric – aided by allies such as Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) who said that he can see why people react to unpopular decisions with violence against judges – has been making it harder, even dangerous, for them to do their jobs.

Several judges discussed threats they have received for unpopular opinions at a recent American Bar Association panel. One of the judges involved in the Terry Schiavo case received death threats and now uses an alias and keeps looking over his shoulder. Operation Rescue posted his home phone and address on their website.

A New Jersey Supreme Court Justice had his home phone number and address read on a radio show after the court’s same-sex marriage ruling. He received a letter informing him “that the show's prime audience included white supremacists, skinheads and members of both the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan.” And another judge – who held members of Operation Rescue in contempt for violating a court order prohibiting them from harassing doctors – had “both her office and cell phones … flooded with ‘hate messages.’ [She] said she was placed under 24-hour police protection too, but found out ‘only much later ... that there had been certain kinds of death threats against me.’”

According to the article, “many judges believe the current presidential administration has exacerbated the problem by blaming unpopular rulings on ‘activist judges.’” So the Bush administration’s rhetoric has not only served to put judges on the bench who are hostile to individual rights and liberties, but it places in danger the many judges who are just doing their jobs without an ideological agenda.

Justice Breyer Needs Our Help

Justice Breyer discussed the difficulty of the past Supreme Court term and his unbounded faith in the justice system in an address at the ABA’s annual meeting. Despite the disappointment of being in dissent in too many cases, Justice Breyer stated that he is proud that ours is a system in which “disputes over race and other deeply emotional issues are worked out ‘in the courts, not in the streets.’” But Justice Breyer added that the public needs to take more of a stake in the judiciary:

[T]he story of the American legal system needs to be told and retold, Breyer said, because it “floats on the sea of public acceptance.” He said he worries that the busy general public does not see that it has a direct stake in the preservation of an independent judiciary, which contributes to economic stability and the protection of minorities. The message needs to be transmitted to the next generation.

Justice Breyer is right. As the last Supreme Court term made abundantly clear, judicial decisions have real impacts on regular Americans. But the majority of cases – which are just as important – are decided in the lower federal courts. Senators are currently considering right wing judicial nominees like Judge Leslie Southwick of Mississippi. They need to hear from their constituents that judges are important. They must stop confirming judges who are hostile to individual liberties, constitutional rights, and environmental protections.

Southwick Goes to the Floor

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 to send the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the full Senate. The nine Republicans on the committee voted in favor of Southwick’s nomination, along with one Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California. The other nine Democrats voted against his nomination. Senators Durbin, Schumer, Cardin, Leahy and Kennedy spoke out against Judge Southwick and reviewed his horrible record of ruling against consumers, employees and racial minorities. Senators Specter and Feinstein spoke in favor of Judge Southwick’s confirmation, and accused his opponents of unfairly portraying his record and focusing on only one or two cases.

As Alliance for Justice has continually reiterated, in his decade on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, Judge Southwick compiled a record of voting against consumers and employees in divided cases nearly 90% of the time. Moreover, the two cases that have been discussed the most should not be excused lightly. In one he minimized an employee’s use of the “n” word to refer to a co-worker. In another he argued that a woman’s “choice” to engage in a same-sex relationship was a legitimate reason to deny her custody of her child.

Alliance for Justice immediately expressed our disappointment and disbelief at the Judiciary Committee vote. “The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to listen to the American people who voted for change last November. Instead, what we saw today was business as usual in continuing to help President Bush pack the courts,” AFJ President, Nan Aron said. “Senators must recognize the transformation that is taking place on the circuit court level particularly given these judges decide tens of thousands of cases.” Other organizations including the Congressional Black Caucus and Working Assets expressed their outrage as well.

Alliance for Justice will continue to work against Judge Southwick’s confirmation and to ensure his defeat in the full Senate. For more on Judge Southwick’s record click here.

Southwick to be Voted On Tomorrow

Senators Reid and Leahy both spoke on the Senate floor today about the Southwick nomination. They responded to Senator McConnell’s oft-repeated charges that the Democrats are obstructing Judge Southwick’s confirmation for no good reason. Senator Leahy had delayed a vote on Southwick at the request of his Republican colleagues. However, he stated that he was sick of the crying and complaining and that he had scheduled Judge Southwick for a vote in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Please contact the senators on the Judiciary Committee and remind them to vote against bringing Judge Southwick’s nomination to the Senate floor. For more information on all the reasons to oppose Judge Southwick, see here, here and here.

Urge your Senator to oppose Judge Southwick: http://ga1.org/campaign/say_no_to_southwick_2007

Where do we go from Here?

One of the Supreme Court’s most disastrous terms in recent years drew to a close in June, and in many ways it was a disastrous term. The Roberts Court evinced its willingness to dismantle long-standing precedents while refusing to explicitly overturn them. The impact of the loss of Sandra Day O’Connor and the addition of Justices Roberts and Alito was dramatic. The opportunity of the president to appoint these two justices to the Supreme Court will likely be the Bush Administration’s most enduring legacy.

The right wing move of the Court is clear from the fact that conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy is the Court’s new “swing vote.” Justice Kennedy found himself in the majority in virtually every case and often sided with the Court’s four extremely right wing justices. As we projected in October, the Court delivered some controversial opinions that dealt severe blows to individual rights, equality, liberty, and fundamental constitutional protections.

The Roberts Court saved some of its most devastating and far reaching opinions for later in the term, delivering holdings that limited the abilities of female employees to demand equal pay, denied taxpayers the right to challenge the Bush Administration’s use of taxpayer money to support religion, limited the free speech rights of high school students, and undermined the promise of Brown v. Board of Education. Hold on to your hats …

Gonzales v. Carhart: Goodbye to Reproductive Freedom

In April, the Court eviscerated more than thirty years of precedent requiring that abortion restrictions provide an exception to protect a pregnant woman’s health. The Court upheld a federal law banning so-called “partial birth abortions” even though the law had no health exception, prioritizing the health and lives of women and the medical judgment of their doctors behind the desire of Congress to dictate morality. During their confirmation hearings, Justices Alito and Roberts were questioned extensively about their willingness to adhere to precedent and specifically to uphold the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. Both made assurances to the Senate Judiciary Committee that they would respect this and other important precedents. Despite these promises, both justices immediately took the opportunity to abandon this precedent even to the detriment of women’s health.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1; Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education: Goodbye Brown v. Board

In possibly the most discouraging and activist decision of the term, the usual suspects of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy undercut one of our nation’s most cherished precedents. By holding that the attempts of democratically elected school boards to racially integrate their schools were unconstitutional, the Court did significant damage to the promise of racially integrated schools and racial equality that were expressed by the Court in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. Even more than Roe v. Wade, Justices Alito and Roberts had expressed considerable respect for this important precedent at their confirmation hearings. They nevertheless took their first opportunity to undercut that vital decision. As Justice Breyer stated in dissent: “what has happened to stare decisis?. . . this is a decision that the Court and the Nation will come to regret.”

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.: Discrimination OK (if it lasts long enough)

Once again ignoring past precedent, the majority of Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy held that Lilly Ledbetter could not bring a suit for pay discrimination despite being paid less than men in the same position for approximately twenty years. Their reason? Ms. Ledbetter should have brought the case within 180 days of the first act of pay discrimination. No matter that she had no way of learning of the discrepancy until much later or that the discrimination continued for years.

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.: President Need Not Follow the Constitution

Justice Alito wrote for the majority – Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas – that federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge executive branch violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Yet again showing their distain for precedent, the Court held that, while citizens can challenge Congress’ use of funds to endorse or support religion, they cannot challenge the Bush Administration’s similar use of funds – even funds. This decision leaves no one who can enforce our Constitution’s important guarantee of a separation of church and state.

Philip Morris USA v. Williams: Jury Verdict Too Harsh … for Big Corporation

In a thoroughly confusing 5-4 decision, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito, the Court reversed the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision affirming a jury’s order that Philip Morris pay $79.5 million in punitive damages to a widow whose husband died after smoking all his life. The majority made an unconvincing attempt to differentiate the jury’s illegitimate consideration of harm to other victims from their acceptable consideration of how reprehensible the defendant’s conduct was – based on how many people have been harmed. Huh? The Court overturned the jury and the state courts, ignoring the fact that Phillip Morris had intentionally covered up evidence of the dangers of smoking and the fact that a smaller damage award would be insignificant to the big company and would not serve to deter future misconduct. The Court left open the question of whether the verdict could still stand if the jury did not consider how Philip Morris’s actions harmed other people besides the specific plaintiff in the case.

Massachusetts v. EPA: Environment 1, Right Wing Agenda 0

It was not all bad news early in the term. In one of the few cases where Justice Kennedy broke from Chief Justice Roberts and Alito and joined the Court’s more progressive members, the Court held that the EPA is required to regulated greenhouse gases in an attempt to ameliorate the impact of global warming. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito would have held that the states and other plaintiffs did not have the right to challenge the EPA in court.

Morse v. Frederick: Children Should be Seen and Not Heard

The Court – in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by the Court’s other conservatives – limited the rights of high school students to express themselves. Limiting a 1969 student free speech decision, the Court held that school authorities could suppress speech which purportedly advocated illegal drug use, even when that speech does not take place on school grounds. This holding threatens to limit the ability of teenagers to debate a variety of important issues, including, but not limited to, the wisdom of our country’s “war on drugs.”

After two years of the Roberts Court, it is already obvious that the ability of individual Americans and our democratically elected officials to protect our individual rights and liberties and strive for racial and gender equality have been severely circumscribed. It is scary to think about what our country will look like after several decades of the Roberts Court. At the same time, President Bush continues to nominate judges to our federal district and circuit courts – judges who will decide many more cases than the Supreme Court in the coming years. The Senate Judiciary Committee has the ability and the obligation to refuse to confirm any more of these judges who are so damaging to the rights of ordinary Americans. They should not allow this administration to continue to put its mark on our courts through the appointment of more ultra conservative judges.

For more information about important cases impacting your rights, visit http://www.afj.org/check-the-facts/cases/.

Republicans Force Reid Back into the Ring

On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke out about the Southwick nomination, responding to Senators who have accused the Senate Judiciary Committee of stalling and threatened to shut down the Senate in retaliation. Senator Reid spoke about how quickly the Senate has moved on President Bush’s nominees:

So far this year we have confirmed three court of appeals nominees…. We have also confirmed 22 district court nominees, and we continue to vote on those at a steady pace. The judicial confirmation process is working well. We have confirmed 25 judges. It is certainly working much better than it worked when there was a Republican Senate processing President Clinton's nominees.

Senator Reid went on to discuss the nomination of Judge Southwick and the absurd threats of some Republicans:

The Judiciary Committee has not yet voted on Judge Southwick. But as reported in the press, some Republicans are already threatening to retaliate against the rejection of the Southwick nomination by slowing down Senate business. How much more could they slow it down? What has gone on this year is untoward. Cloture has been filed about 45 times on things that, really, I don't understand why they are doing what they do.

After detailing some of the issues with Judge Southwick’s nomination, Reid reiterated the Senate Judiciary Committee’s role in vetting the president’s nominees:

We have held a hearing. I repeat, during the Clinton administration, almost 70 languished with no hearings. If Southwick has been unable to convince Judiciary Committee members of suitability for the Federal bench, that is his misfortune. … Senator Leahy has stated that anytime Senators Lott and Cochran ask him to put him on the calendar for a vote, he will do so. They haven't asked him to do that yet. …

Republican Senators may disagree with the decision of the Judiciary Committee when and if it comes, but they should not treat it as an affront or an outrage. It is simply the way that the Founders envisioned the Senate would work as a partner with the President in deciding who is entitled to lifetime appointments to the Federal bench.

We commend Reid for speaking out about the Southwick nomination, the importance of judicial nominees and the Senate’s roll in the confirmation process. We hope that the senators on the judiciary committee will take this obligation seriously and not confirm any more judges who have not proven that they are qualified for lifetime appointments.