What’s At Stake

Just in case you’re wondering, here’s what’s at stake in the in the upcoming battle to decide who will take O’Connor’s place on the Supreme Court.

A Scalia-Thomas majority would not only reverse more than seven decades of Supreme Court legal precedents, but could also return us to a situation America faced in the first third of the 20th Century, when progressive legislation, like child labor laws, was adopted by Congress and signed by the President, but repeatedly rejected on constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court.

A shift of one or two votes would reverse Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of reproductive freedom and the right to privacy. But that would just be the beginning. Among those rights that could be drastically redefined if just one or two hard-right justices join the Court are:

Privacy Rights: Reversal of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) would authorize criminal prosecution of private sexual conduct by consenting adults. And reversal of Ferguson v. Charleston (2001) would allow hospitals to test pregnant women without their knowledge or consent for suspected drug use and give the results to police.

Civil Rights and Discrimination: Reversal of Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. (2005) would allow retaliation against those who complain about illegal sex discrimination in education. Reversal of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) would forbid affirmative action by state universities. Reversal of J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994) would allow sex discrimination in jury selection.

Reversal of Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) would mean that improper and unnecessary institutionalization of disabled persons would no longer be considered a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Church – State Separation: Reversal of Lee v. Weisman (1992) and Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) would eliminate true government neutrality toward religion and authorize government-sponsored prayer at graduation and other public school events.

Workers’ Rights and Consumer Protection: Reversal of Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990) would allow government employees to be fired for belonging to the “wrong” political party. And reversal of Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) would invalidate important state laws protecting HMO patients’ rights in more than 40 states.

Environmental Protection: Reversal of Alaska Department of Conservation v. EPA (2004) would strip the EPA of the authority to prevent damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail to do so.

Campaign Finance Reform: Reversal of the part of the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that the far right opposes would invalidate limits on individual campaign contributions. And reversal of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) would invalidate most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.

Like I’ve been saying since November, in a few more years, you’ll hardly recognize this country.

Sorry to sound so dour, but as I see it, this administration isn’t inclined to listen to anyone who doesn’t square with their ideology, and the Senate Democrats have all but forfeited the game already. The religious right is still looking for its payback for helping get Bush back into office, and this would surely be a way to pay them off and shut them up for a good while.