Editorially Speaking

You've Broken My Heart, Mr. Bush

On September 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. The 13-5 vote sent his nomination to the full Senate where on September 29, he was overwhelmingly confirmed with 56 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting "yes" and only 22 Democrats voting "no." A lot of conservatives are happy about this. I'm not, and I've taken the time to tell you why in this very long editorial, if you're interested. But in order for me to do so, I want you to first take a look at the chart below. I think it accurately portrays the Supreme Court as it was before Mrs. O'Connor's resignation and Mr. Rehnquist's death.

Current Supreme Court Justices (And Appointing President)
Anti-Abortion Justices Swing Justices Pro-Abortion Justices
William Rehnquist - Chief (Nixon) Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan) John Stevens (Ford)
Antonin Scalia (Reagan) Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton)
Clarence Thomas (Bush 41) David Souter (Bush 41) Stephen Breyer (Clinton)

Notice that all the anti-abortion judges were appointed by Republicans. Two of the pro-abortion judges were appointed by a Democrat (Clinton), one by a Republican (Ford). Unfortunately, all the so-called swing judges (read moderate to liberal) were appointed by Republicans (Reagan and Bush 41). What this means is that Democrats consistently do what's expected of them, appointing liberal judges who will uphold abortion, while Republican presidents have consistently been failures when it comes to their stated intentions of turning the Court back to the right. Now, it appears George W. Bush is determined to join this group.

At best, or so it seems to me, Roberts is going to be a moderating influence who will guide the Court further to the left. (This is not just my opinion. Check out Charles Krauthammer's "Roe v. Roberts" article in The Washington Post by clicking here. When doing so, bear in mind that Krauthammer is in favor of "legalized abortion.") Roberts is replacing the only Justice remaining on the Court that had voted against Roe v. Wade. But during the hearings Mr. Roberts made it clear he is not a right-wing ideologue and, therefore, has no preconceived agenda for the Court. This jargon is to be interpreted to mean he is willing to kowtow to the liberal élite in order to be confirmed. He did this by promising them, in essence, he is not going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is, therefore, the wrong man for the job, and Mr. Bush had to know it before nominating him.

Back in 2003, when Roberts testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning his nomination as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he said: "Roe Vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." It is this man—a man who by this statement has distanced himself from Justices Scalia and Thomas—that George W. Bush has nominated to be not just a Supreme Court Justice, but the Chief Justice as well.

In doing so, Mr. Bush has broken my heart and insulted the two sitting justices who deserved a shot at being Chief Justice, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Of the two, Scalia would have been my clear choice, having the most experience as to the workings of the Court, impeccable credentials, intellectual acumen, and the guts to say and do what is right, no matter what. The fact he has not been nominated by Bush to be the Court's chief justice is terribly disappointing to one who has been an ardent watcher and critic of the Court since the seventies, believing it to be the Supreme Court that is the key to this country survival as a Constitutional Republic. Since November 22, 1973, millions and millions of unborn children have been killed in their mothers' wombs in this country and Mr. Roberts has the unmitigated gall to say: "Roe Vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." "Nothing," Mr. Roberts? Then what good do you expect to accomplish as a Supreme Court Justice, especially now that it appears you'll be sitting as the Chief Justice for 25-plus years?

Are we conservatives just plain stupid, or what? We get handed a Supreme Court nomination that will not advance the cause of overturning the most pernicious decision the Supreme Court has ever made, and we are dancing with delight that something is finally being done now that Bush has started to nominate conservative judges. What is wrong with the Republican party? Better yet, what is wrong with conservatives? Can we no longer tell when we are being bamboozled?

George W. Bush is not living up to his promise to restore the Court to judicial sanity. Instead, he has taken the road most traveled—a road that is politically expedient and will, in the end, change nothing. Despite his rhetoric, Mr. Bush has produced nothing but the same old same old. Instead of the judicial, political, and social revolution he promised, all he's given us is the status quo. Under Bush, government has gotten much, much larger. He continues to throw tons of money at every problem that comes along here and abroad. (Didn't Gibbon have something to say about such tactics in his classic The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire?) President Bush has proved himself to be no fiscal conservative, in fact he's just been a "big government" of the worst sort, and now we learn he's no judicial conservative either. Courted and wooed by Bush, the conservative movement in this country has now become his slave. As his property, we "Yes, Massa" practically everything he says and does, dancing a little jig every time he purports to throw some scraps our way. I'll say it again, You've broken my heart, Mr. Bush, and millions of other religious conservatives who believed you were the man who would have enough backbone to do what it takes to set this country back on the right track.

There now seems little chance of this happening. So much, then, for Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservatism." You may be thinking, "Allan, my man, get a grip on yourself, for all is not yet lost." Perhaps, but it just may be that you're the one who needs to get a grip on yourself. The sky may be actually falling, but you're so comfortable with the way things are that all you're able to do is smirk and feel sorry for poor ol' Chicken Little—someone you think who really doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. But suppose you're wrong? If you are, there are all kinds of ramifications—personally, socially, economically, politically, and spiritually. I'll not bore you with my commentary on each of these, but simply leave you to your own surmisings.

But suppose I'm wrong and you're right. Then George W. Bush is as smooth a political operative as there ever has been, willing to use stealth and deception to make appointments to the Supreme Court who are really not what they say they are and will eventually take part in overturning Roe v. Wade. Not a very pretty picture, is it? Add to this the fact that this would mean Judge Roberts, despite his so-called impeccable credentials, is a bald-faced liar who is only playing the political game that must be played if he is to get appointed to the Court. Then, when the time is right, he'll reveal his true colors. Again, not a very pretty sight, is it?

Believe it or not, I've actually heard this sort of strategy being hoped for, and approved of, by some conservatives. "This is just the way it has to be done in this day and age," they say. Maybe so, but wouldn't such behavior serve as a clear indictment of those who would stoop to such machinations, along with the political climate that would reward such unseemly behavior? Unfortunately, and it grieves me to say so, this is the way it seems to be in America at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

But It Didn't Have To Be This Way

It didn't have to be this way, but it is. Judicial activism has re-written the Constitution to the point that this country is barely what it once was. The liberal policy-making that has characterized the Court since the time of Roosevelt's appointments has not been abated. A succession of fairly conservative presidents—Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, continued the status quo. Reagan's appointments did a little better, at least creating a minority opposed to political judging. Bush 41 added a bit to that minority with the nomination of Thomas, but he failed with Souter. Forbidden by the electorate a second term, he was unable to redeem himself and Bill Clinton got to appoint two very liberal judges during his time in the White House. Now, George W. has tipped his hand by refusing, in his first opportunity, to nominate a judge who will do his or her part to overturn Roe. Why? Ah, that's the question that intrigues me the most, and in the space that follows I'll attempt to give you what I think is the answer to this question.

Some Of The Historical Background

On July 1, 1987, President Ronald Reagan announced his nomination of Robert H. Bork as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His statement was succinct:

Well, it's with great pleasure and deep respect for his extraordinary abilities that I today announce my intention to nominate United States Court of Appeals Judge Robert H. Bork to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Bork is recognized as a premier constitutional authority. His outstanding intellect and unrivaled scholarly credentials are reflected in his thoughtful examination of the broad, fundamental legal issues of our times. When confirmed by the Senate as an appellate judge in 1982, the American Bar association gave him its highest rating: "exceptionally well qualified." On the bench, he has been well prepared, evenhanded, and open-minded.

In taking this action today, I'm mindful of the importance of this nomination. The Supreme Court of the United States is custodian of our Constitution. Justices of the Supreme Court must not only be jurists of the highest competence; they must be attentive to the specific rights guaranteed in our Constitution and proper role of the courts in our democratic system.

Judge Bork, widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restraint, shares my view that judges' personal preferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations. The guiding principle of judicial restraint recognizes that under the Constitution it is the exclusive province of the legislatures to enact laws and the role of the courts to interpret them.

We're fortunate to be able to draw upon such an impressive legal mind, an experienced judge and a man who already has devoted so much of his life to public service. He'll bring credit to the Court and his colleagues, as well as to his country and the Constitution (Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 761, July 1, 1987).

Within an hour of these words, Edward M. Kennedy, that senatorial paragon of American virtue and heroism (?), delivered the following nationally televised speech from the floor of the Senate:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim or [sic] government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy (133 Cong. Rec. S9188-S9189, daily ed. July 1, 1987).

It mattered not that it was all a pack of lies, for war had been declared. Liberals were not about to have their Supreme Court come under the influence of a man "widely regarded as the most prominent and intellectually powerful advocate of judicial restraint" then extant and one who shared Ronald Reagan's view that "judges' personal preferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations." What followed was one of the ugliest spectacles in the annals of Supreme Court nominations. Roe v. Wade, one of the most blatant examples of social engineering by judicial fiat in the history of the American Republic, had to be defended even if it involved a U.S. Senator standing before the American public and telling the most outlandish lies conceivable about an honorable man of the law. The following four months were a shameless display of just how far the liberals would go to protect Roe and their other social manipulations (present and future). Judge Bork was so savaged that being "borked" has come to represent being unmercifully treated by one's opponents. In the process, which ended with his rejection by the full Senate on October 23, 1987, Judge Bork was painted as "out of the mainstream" of American jurisprudence. What this actually meant was this: Judge Bork was not outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence at all. He was, in fact, perhaps the foremost proponent of mainstream jurisprudence and it was because of this that he had to be defeated at all cost. Why? Because he would, if given the opportunity, no doubt vote to reverse Roe v. Wade.

In this view, the liberals were astutely aware of what was at stake. With Bork's defeat, Ronald Reagan first nominated Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who decided to step down when his previous pot-smoking was made public. He then nominated Judge Anthony Kennedy, who was supposed to be a judicial conservative, but wasn't. Justice Kennedy, who could have voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (and there's no doubt that Bork would have), made a last-moment switch, according to Justice Harry Blackmun's personal papers, siding with the four other justices who wished to preserve Roe. As he continued to "evolve," Kennedy turned out, along with O'Connor, to be one of two so-called "swing votes." Therefore, we can see that the defeat of Judge Robert H. Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was not just a tragedy for Judge Bork, but it was a critical turning point in the righteous effort to reverse the moral malignancy that has ravaged millions upon millions of unborn Americans in their mothers' wombs since that fateful November day some thirty-two years ago.

Since then, anyone nominated to the Supreme Court who the liberals think might be likely to reverse Roe, if given the chance, have been labeled "out of the mainstream" of current American jurisprudence. We have heard the charge made over and over again, and it has been very effective. In fact, the whole nominating process has been changed dramatically. With Senators now acting as the protectors of what they have erroneously determined, for social and political reasons, to be the orthodox judicial doctrine, Supreme Court nominees have been forced to politic for their appointments, essentially making campaign promises not to upset the liberal judicial apple cart. This, in effect, is what Roberts has now done, and this is why I am so disappointed with George W. Bush and the political game he has consented to.

In his insightful book, The Tempting Of America: The Political Seduction Of The Law, published in 1990, Judge Bork had this to say about his defeat:

The greatest impact of what occurred, however, may not be simply the precedent set but what the knowledge that such a campaign is always possible will do to the calculations of other actors in the process (p. 346).

He went on to say:

A president who wants to avoid a battle like mine, and most presidents would prefer to [do so], is likely to nominate men and women who have not written much, and certainly nothing that could be regarded as controversial by left-leaning senators and groups. People who have thought much about the role proper to judges are likely, however, to have written or spoken on the subject. The tendency, therefore, will be to nominate and confirm persons whose performance once on the bench cannot be accurately, or perhaps even roughly, predicted either by the President or by the Senate (p. 348).

Finally, he said:

When the Court is perceived as a political rather than a legal institution, nominees will be treated like political candidates, campaigns will be waged in public, lobbying of senators and the media will be intense, the nominee will be questioned about how he will vote, and he will be pressed to make campaign promises about adhering to or rejecting particular doctrines (p. 348).

What Judge Bork feared is now the way things are and we have all seen it played out before our own eyes in the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. He was even assigned an actor cum politician cum television star to "schmooze" senators and other key players in this highly political game. He made his campaign promises, making it clear that he believes that: "Roe Vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Consequently, Roberts was all but confirmed when nominated by the President. There would be only token resistance from the usual suspects. Therefore, no matter what George W. Bush may accomplish in the remainder of his term, even if he wins the war on terror, which I don't believe he will, he has broken my heart in that he has fallen to power politics, surrendering his integrity to a shameful lie that served to provide him the margin of victory needed in both of his elections. What a shameful, sordid, and disgraceful thing!

A Return To The Sanctity-Of-Life Ethic Is Our Only Hope

Will and Emma, my first grandchildren, were recently born in a Memphis, TN hospital. For almost nine months they lived in the very secure abode of their mother's stomach. Secure, not because the law of the land protected them, for it most certainly did not. By law, either one, or both, of them could have been legally killed by their mother with her trusted physician acting as an accomplice. They were secure those nine months because my daughter and her husband are both Christians who believe in a sanctity-of-life ethic that says human life is to be protected beginning in the mother's womb and continuing throughout life. However, if she was not so inclined, Will and Emma could have been killed by my daughter and there isn't a thing I or anyone else could have done about it, including her husband. Why? Because Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It should not be, and many legal scholars, conservatives and liberals alike, have said so. But John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States thinks there is "nothing" in his personal views that would prevent him from "fully and faithfully applying that precedent" of Roe. Folks, this is not just where we're headed, it's where we are, and it's a pathetic commentary on our culture of death.

A Strategy Of Hope Vs. Bush's Capitulation

As I pointed out in my August editorial, I had ardently hoped and prayed that Mr. Bush would not surrender to the liberal establishment's ultimatum. I was disappointed that it appeared he had decided to do just that by appointing Roberts. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I don't have any expectations the President will do the right thing and nominate a so-called "ideologue" who would be sure to overturn Roe when given the chance. (Isn't it interesting how these liberals are able to control even our language as they refer to any judge who favors abortion on demand as being a member of the judicial mainstream and any judge who doesn't as a right-wing radical ideologue who is bent on returning American society to those dark days of slavery and to the time when no one had the so-called "right to privacy" that provided mothers with the legal imprimatur to terminate the life of her unborn child?)

If Mr. Bush had been determined to fight back, his nominee to replace O'Connor would have been someone who was sure to overturn Roe when given a chance—someone like Janice Rodgers Brown, a black female judge now sitting on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and who is a New Testament Christian. Mrs. Brown has proven herself to be an outstanding conservative judge and superb thinker who drives the liberal establishment absolutely bonkers. In a press release, the People For The American Way, an organization that is about as liberal as they come, identified Judge Brown as being "to the right of Thomas and Scalia" (see that release here). They have accused her of being "insensitive to established precedent," which means she would vote, when given the opportunity, to overturn Roe. It has also been noted by this less than august bunch of social manipulators that Judge Brown is known for having the unmitigated gall to include "conservative political views into her appellate opinions." In other words, in the modern judiciary of the liberal establishment, there is absolutely no room for conservative opinions or the judges who hold them.

But some say, "As was demonstrated in the '87 defeat of Robert H. Bork, there's absolutely no way someone like Janice Rodgers Brown could be appointed to the Supreme Court today." "Therefore," they continue, "Bush did pretty good in nominating Roberts, as he is the next best thing to a genuine ideologue." Unfortunately, such a refrain is as likely to be found on the lips of a conservative as it is on anyone else. But why? Didn't George W. Bush win the presidency? Does not the present Congress consist of a majority of Republicans? Why, then, can't a truly conservative judge get a seat on the highest court in the land? I'll tell you why. It's because the Republicans, with "W" as their leader, have wimped out, surrendered, totally capitulated, or however else you want to describe it. They came to power at a very critical time, maybe the last chance this country will have to turn things around before the Lord finally judges it, and they blinked. Turned into a bunch of girly-men by a liberalized, feminized culture that defiantly says if you take away from me the "right" to legally kill my children in utero, if and when I want to, then I'll kill them in back alleys or even resort to mutilating them with coat hangers and various other instruments that I'll use, in turn, to pry these parasites from my body with my own bloody hands if I have to. What a picture. But this is precisely the culture of death that has won the culture war and now permeates this once great nation. Bush could have fought, but he didn't. Now, many conservatives are resigned to the fact that vehemently resisting and trying to defeat this culture of death is not the politically expedient thing to do. But if not now, when? Will we wait until we conservatives are further marginalized? Will we wait until they begin to arrest us, confiscate our property, and cart us off to the gulag? Again, if not now, when?

Repealing Vs. Repeating

Lest you forget what I've said about Roberts, let me make it clear that I don't believe for a moment that he would ever repeat Roe. But that's not good enough, you see, because I don't believe he will repeal it either. Consequently, Roberts was a politically correct shoo-in from the beginning, being acceptable to the liberals, with only token resistance, to admission to their Court. After all, they have every reason to believe that Roberts will be slightly left of Rehnquist. Consequently, the liberals have already warned that it is the next nominee, not Roberts, who they consider to be the most critical. (In this regard, it is interesting to note that on September 28, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Bush a letter urging him not to name to the court any of the three judges who were part of the filibuster compromise that occurred back in June—Judge William J. Pryor Jr., Judge Priscilla R. Owen, and Judge Janice Rodgers Brown. The letter threatened, in part, "The nomination of any of these individuals to the Supreme Court would represent an unnecessary provocation and would be met by substantial opposition in the Senate." Bush, I fear, will continue to wilt before such ungodly brashness of the liberal élite, which means Judge Brown et al. is not about to be nominated to take O'Connor's seat. I hope I'm wrong about this. We will soon see, as Bush's announcement of his next nominee is imminent.) This means the liberals will, if forced to do so, allow the appointment of anyone to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor who is not to the right of John Roberts. This would be considered a win-win situation, for politically this will give the President another opportunity to appoint a "judicial conservative" who will not vote to overturn Roe. But be sure of this, in the interim, the liberals, who are consummate politicians, will fight vigorously for Mr. Bush to nominate a full-fledged moderate to replace O'Connor. They will do this because they want to be sure that Bush is not snookering them with stealth judges who will renege on their campaign promises not to overturn Roe. "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure" (2 Tim. 1:15). Therefore, they will pull out all stops to defeat any nominee they believe might, if given the chance, vote to repeal Roe. They will do everything and anything to keep Mr. Bush "honest." So, there will be a fight like you've never seen for any judicial conservative the President nominates for the O'Connor seat. Nevertheless, when everything is said and done, they will settle for someone who is not to the right of Roberts. Bush will have his "victory" touted by the conservative spin machine and politics will continue its dirty little game while millions of perfectly innocent children in their mothers' wombs continue to be murdered at unprecedented rates by the culture of death.

Although Janice Rodgers Brown is reported to be on Mr. Bush's short list for nomination to the Supreme Court, I really don't think she has that proverbial snowball's chance of being nominated, much less confirmed. But what a fight it could have been. Listen to what this woman, who is the closest thing to Robert Bork in her stated opinions that I have read behind, had to say in a speech before the Federalist Society at the University of Chicago Law School back in April, 2000:

At this moment, it seems likely leviathan [by using this term she surely refers to government unrestrained by a Constitution of laws] will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege, war in the streets, unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible (for the full speech, click here).

She concluded with the following story and admonition:

I will close with a story I like a lot. It's a true story. It happened on June 10, 1990. A British Airways jet bound for Malaga, Spain, took off from Birmingham, England. It was expected to be a routine flight. As the jet climbed through the 23,000-foot level, there was a loud bang; the cockpit windshield directly in front of the captain blew out. The sudden decompression sucked Captain Lancaster out of his seatbelt and into the hole left by the windscreen. A steward who happened to be in the cockpit managed to snag the captain's feet as he hurtled past. Another steward rushed onto the flight deck, strapped himself into the captain's chair and, helped by other members of the crew, clung with all his strength to the captain. The slipstream was so fierce, they were unable to drag the pilot back into the plane. His clothing was ripped from his body. With Lancaster plastered against the nose of the jet, the co-pilot donned an oxygen mask and flew the plane to Southampton—approximately 15 minutes away—and landed safely. The captain had a fractured elbow, wrist and thumb; a mild case of frostbite, but was otherwise unharmed.

We find ourselves, like the captain, in a situation that is hopeless but not yet desperate. The arcs of history, culture, philosophy, and science all seem to be converging on this temporal instant. Familiar arrangements are coming apart; valuable things are torn from our hands, snatched away by the decompression of our fragile ark of culture. But, it is too soon to despair. [I don't know how she may feel about this five years later.] The collapse of the old system may be the crucible of a new vision. We must get a grip on what we can and hold on. Hold on with all the energy and imagination and ferocity we possess. Hold on even while we accept the darkness. We know not what miracles may happen; what heroic possibilities exist. We may be only moments away from a new dawn.

I really like this woman; but nope, there's doesn't seem to be a snowball's chance of her making it to the Supreme Court in the current environment, for anyone who writes and thinks the way she does is definitely "outside the mainstream" of modern American jurisprudence, according to the rantings of the liberal establishment and the media that perpetuates and disseminates its propaganda. What a fight it would have been if Bush had been prepared to use the bully pulpit to inform the citizens of what is really at stake and that it is way past time for the liberal establishment to still be running the show. And if Bush would have really been geared to expend his political capital to get her appointed, perhaps—just maybe—she could have made it. If he'd been willing to do this, then perhaps unborn Americans in their mothers' wombs could once again be protected by law. Then just maybe this nation could have dodged the bullet of God's judgment, but I fear it is now too late. I'd like to be wrong about all this. I would like to think there is light at the end of the tunnel, but I'm fairly certain that we're not in a tunnel, but a hole.

Finally, I want to say just one more thing about Appellate Judge Janice Rodgers Brown and the battle that would surely have followed her nomination. One can often tell a lot about someone by who his or her enemies are. Take a look, then, at the enemies' list of this modest, brilliant, conservative black woman, understanding that all of them have taken a public stand against her appointment as a judge, and realize, just from perusing it, how George W. Bush missed a wonderful opportunity to engage the blatantly arrogant enemies of America's unborn with both barrels blazing:

Organizations Opposed to Brown

National, State, and Regional Organizations

ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights
Advocates for the West
Alabama Environmental Council
Alliance for Justice
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Association of University Women
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Lands Alliance
American Planning Association
American Rivers
Americans for Democratic Action
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Amigos Bravos
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Buckey Forest Council
Center For Biological Diversity
Center for Medicare Advocacy
Citizens Coal Council
Clean Air Council
Clean Water Action
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Clean Water Action Council
Coast Alliance
Committee for Judicial Independence
Committee for the Preservation of the Lake Purdy Area
Community Rights Counsel
Congressional Black Caucus
Defenders of Wildlife
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Earth WINS
Endangered Species Coalition
Equal Justice Society
Feminist Majority
Friends of the Earth
Friends of Hurricane Creek
Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest
Gray Panthers
Great Rivers Environmental Law Center
Hurricane Creekkeeper
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Legal Momentum, formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
Mineral Policy Center
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill - Delaware
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC)
National Bar Association
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Jewish Women - California
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Health Law Program
Natural Heritage Institute
National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Senior Citizens Law Center
National Urban League
National Women's Law Center
Natural Heritage Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Northwest Environmental Advocates
Oilfield Waste Policy Institute
Omni Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
People For the American Way
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Service Employees International Union
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
Sierra Club
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project
The Foundation For Global Sustainability
The Wilderness Society
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Valley Watch, Inc.
Washington Environmental Council
Western Land Exchange Project
Wild Alabama
Women Employed

California State and Regional Organizations
Black Women Lawyers of Los Angeles
California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
California Association of Black Lawyers
California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
California League of Conservation Voters
California National Organization for Women
California Native Plant Society
California Women's Law Center
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Law Foundation
Equality California
John Muir Project
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of California
NARAL Pro-Choice California
National Council of Jewish Women - California
National Council of Jewish Women - Los Angeles
National Women's Political Caucus of California
Pacific Institute for Women's Health
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles
San Francisco La Raza Lawyers
SEIU Local 99
Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles
Unitarian-Universalist Project Freedom of Religion
Western Law Center for Disability Rights
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project

What a glorious battle it could have been. What a wonderfully courage president George W. Bush might have become. Now, he will always be remembered, as least by this religiously oriented conservative, as the president who, at the beginning of the new millennium, could have turned things around for the innocent unborn, but instead, simply made a pathetic spectacle of himself with his own peculiar brand of political hand washing.

(All editorials are written by Allan Turner. You can contact him at allan@allanturner.com )

Return To Front Page