This is what you're asking for if you vote for George Bush
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist underwent surgery yesterday related to "a recent
diagnosis of thyroid cancer." Rehnquist's serious condition – even as
he is expected to return to the bench on Monday – "gave fresh prominence to the future of the Supreme Court." Bush has said publicly that the Supreme Court justices he admires are arch conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If re-elected, it is possible Bush could get three or more appointments, "enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land."
The result: "Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could
be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free
to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money
to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect
inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical
leave and environmental protections could disappear."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE:
In the second presidential debate Bush was asked, given the
opportunity, who he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Bush responded
that he wouldn't pick a judge who supported "the Dred Scott case,
which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed
slavery because of personal property rights." Why would President Bush
reference Dred Scott v. Sandford, which hasn't been good law since the
end of the Civil War? Because "to the Christian right, 'Dred Scott' turns out to be a code word for 'Roe v. Wade.'"
Dred Scott has been compared to Roe v. Wade by prominent conservatives
such as George Will, Peggy Noonan and Michael Novak. By referencing
Dred Scott, Bush made it clear that "he would never, ever appoint a
Supreme Court justice who condoned Roe." If Roe v. Wade is overturned,
"there's a good chance that 30 states, home to more than 70 million women, will outlaw abortions within a year; some states may take only weeks." (For more on Bush's misuse of the Dred Scott decision read this new column from American Progress).
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD CRIMINALIZE PRIVATE SEXUAL CONDUCT: If Scalia and Thomas controlled the Court, "states could once again criminalize private, consensual conduct between adults,
and could prevent local governments from enacting even the most basic
anti-discrimination protections for gay men and lesbians." Last year,
when the Court ruled that the police violated a gay man's right to
liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex
there, Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD END FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and Medical Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one."
Last year, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia and Thomas voted to
strike it down, arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing the
law.
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD ALLOW STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION:
Justice Thomas has suggested that "despite many Supreme Court rulings
to the contrary...the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a
religion may not apply to the states." If that view prevailed, "states could adopt particular religions and use tax money to proselytize for them."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE SEX DISCRIMINATION: If Scalia and Thomas were in charge, "public universities, such as the Virginia Military Institute, would be able to discriminate against women in admissions."
Also, federal law "could no longer be used to protect students from
sexual harassment or other types of discrimination at the hands of
other students."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards
while a supervisor looked on." The beating left the inmate "with a
swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate." The Court
ruled that the inmate's treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia and Thomas
dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the
'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered."
A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD GUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS:
A Scalia/Thomas majority would make short work of the law that protects
our air, water and land. Scalia and Thomas, for example, voted to strip
the EPA "of the authority to prevent damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail to do so." Already, federal judges appointed by Bush "were less sympathetic to environmentalists' pleadings than those appointed by previous Republican presidents... ruling in favor of environmental challenges 17 percent of the time."
