Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her resignation from the Supreme Court. The only reason I have put up with the Democrats' weak spines over the past year or two (letting Bush get away with his creepy fanatic judicial nominees, Terry Schaivo, not holding anyone accountable for this mess in Iraq...) is because I have been holding out a weak line of hope that they were saving their ammo for this very fight. Especially now as I read a preliminary list of potential appointees. This shit is SCARY, people! Among the supposed contenders:
-Alberto Fucking Gonzales. I doubt it's necessary to say much about the torture memo guy! Another example of Democrats giving in.
-Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Right-wing nutjob who describes the New Deal as "the triumph of our own Socialist revolution." Senate wimps let her right on through to the Court of Appeals.
-Judge Samuel Alito Jr. Voted to uphold spousal-notification rights for abortion in PA in 1991 (later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).
-Federal Judge Emilio Garza. In a 1997 opinion, he wrote that "ontological issues such as abortion are more properly decided in the political and legislative arenas.'' This does not sound like a good idea to me, but just to be sure I Googled the word "ontological". I found this:
Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.
My conclusion: politicians have a hard enough time with simple issues like flag burning and how much brain potential there might be in a vegetative woman, let's leave all this ontological gobbledeygook to be decided IN PRIVATE for god's sake.
-Judge Edith Hollan Jones. Would likely overturn Roe v. Wade.
-Judge J. Michael Luttig. Considered a moderate in comparison with the other nominees, though he has backed parental-notification abortion laws for minors and voted to strike down a law letting rape victims sue their assailants in federal court and to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act.
- Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Also voted to uphold parental notification laws and the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy. Considered the most conservative of the potential nominees. Did I mention he has also voted to strike down a law authorizing suits by rape victims?
To my representatives in Congress: PLEASE, I beg of you, show some spine!!! We are counting on you.