The Future of the Supreme Court

Updated November 8, 2004

With Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist undergoing radiation and chemotherapy treatment for thyroid cancer, a Supreme Court vacancy appears imminent. More vacancies are virtually guaranteed due to the age and poor health of three other Supreme Court justices: John Paul Stevens, 84, Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71.

Now, a president with a disgraceful record on women's rights and civil rights will appoint one, perhaps as many as four, Supreme Court justices-including the next chief justice.

Bush's First Term: 200 Lifetime Federal Judges

George W. Bush will not only affect the direction of this country for the next four years, but will appoint lifetime justices to the Supreme Court who can impact reproductive rights, civil rights, hate crimes, the environment and the workplace for decades.

This country has been witness to a determined effort over the past quarter century to reshape the federal judiciary and restrict individual liberties while increasing corporate power. Bush played a large role in this radical remodeling of the judiciary. The record-setting 200 lifetime appointments confirmed during his first term stacked the federal courts with ultra-conservative, right-wing justices, demonstrating little respect for the hard-won rights of women in the U.S.

In his first press conference after the elections, Bush claimed that he now has "the will of the people at my back." Although he leads a deeply divided country, Bush believes that the "American people have spoken" and he was granted a mandate to continue on his steadfast course toward right-wing, neo-conservative control of the judiciary.

While Bush rarely discusses his plans for the Supreme Court, his appointments thus far leave women with a bleak outlook for the future of the judicial system.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush named ultra-conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—both prime offenders of women's rights—as the Supreme Court justices he most admired. Both men voted in 1992 to limit abortion access and scale back Roe v. Wade. A narrow 5-to-4 majority managed to keep Roe's core liberties intact. In their dissent, Thomas and Scalia said, "We believe Roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled."

The appointment of one more conservative justice will tip the Supreme Court balance and women could lose what is left of the reproductive freedom granted by Roe, along with 30 years of civil rights progress.

At both the final presidential debate and the Nov. 4 press conference Bush said, "I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law," but the interpretation he hopes for translates into disaster for women.

A Delicate Balance

Many 5-4 split rulings in the recent past demonstrate the already merciless conservatism that dominates the Supreme Court.

In Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), the Court voted 5-4 to prohibit individuals and communities from using federal courts to stop actions by their state governments that disproportionately hurt minorities. One vote overturned 30 years of law and practice that allowed such state rules and laws to be challenged under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), five justices allowed the Boy Scouts to continue discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

One vote in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) saved reproductive rights by reversing an abortion procedures ban that would have outlawed most of the safest abortion procedures commonly used after 13 weeks of pregnancy.

And don't forget that one vote on the Supreme Court declared Bush the 43rd president in 2000. Without that decision, we would not be in the situation we are today.

Democratic Senators Must Filibuster Nominees

To uphold and protect women's hard-won rights, activists must demand their senators block every ultra-conservative Supreme Court nominee. Filibustering may be our only recourse to prevent a right-wing court majority that would turn the clock to the 1950s for women, people of color and other disenfranchised groups.