Nuclear Option: Not About Senate Rules, But Your Rights Going Up In Smoke

As we head into summer, talk of Republican senators using the ominous "nuclear option" to confirm judicial nominees filibustered by the Democrats is heating up inside the Capital Beltway.

Even though the Senate confirmed more than 200 Bush judicial nominees, Republicans continue to whine and moan about the handful (seven to be exact) that Democrats continue to oppose and are threatening to filibuster. All this juvenile blubbering turned into something much more aggressive as Republicans began talking about using the nuclear option to put a stop to the filibuster entirely, so they can railroad George W. Bush's nominees through Senate confirmation.

Under the nuclear option, Republicans would employ a series of procedural tactics that culminate with the chair of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney, declaring the filibuster inappropriate, thus allowing confirmation of every judicial nominee sent forward by George W. Bush, no matter how extreme.

Not only would the nuclear option land unfit judges on the benches of federal courts, as the name suggests the nuclear option would send our hard-won rights up in smoke.

Yet, that's not what Republicans want you to see. They hype the nuclear option as a way to stop the Democrats from obstructing Senate process and say that each nominee deserves an up or down vote. They seem to think that the Senate's "advice and consent" function for judicial nominees should, in effect, be a rubber stamp for the right-wing Bush agenda.

But don't be fooled. This nuclear option is not about Senate rules, or just these few nominees Democrats continue to filibuster. Republicans want the nuclear option so they can clear an easy path to get the next anti-women, anti-choice justice onto the Supreme Court.

If nominees can no longer be filibustered, Bush could appoint any judge that suits his fancy to the Supreme Court. Since Bush admires justices the likes of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, we fear that whoever he appoints would put generations of women at risk.

Just take a look at two of Bush's judicial appointees that Democrats continue to filibuster.

William H. Pryor

William H. Pryor, nominated to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, holds views at the extreme right of legal thinking. While Attorney General for Alabama, he sought to advance a racial agenda contrary to much of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the last 40 years and distinctly at odds with important precedents that make our country more inclusive and fair.

He has fought to undermine the power of Congress to protect civil and individual rights. He tried to cut back the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Water Act. Pryor filed an amicus brief on behalf of Alabama challenging the Violence Against Women Act, claiming one of its provisions violated states rights.

"Pryor is a threat to our judicial system and to the safety of women in the U.S.," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "For Bush to declare this man a 'distinguished public servant' is a slap in the face to anyone who has worked for equal rights in this country."

Priscilla Owen

Priscilla Owen, nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been criticized as being on the "far right wing" of the Texas court, more extreme than Bush's own appointees to that court while governor.

Time and again, she used the courtroom to further her narrow beliefs, going as far as virtually rewriting Texas laws, rather than interpreting them. For example, Owen supports "stricter interpretation" of the Texas parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. In every case that came before her on the Texas Supreme Court during one review period, she voted against granting a judicial bypass to minor women seeking abortions.

Even ultra-conservative U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez referred to Owen's extremist position in a reproductive rights case as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Democrats filibuster Owen for just reasons. Her judicial record makes it abundantly clear that, if elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals, she would work to curtail the reproductive rights of all women, especially young women, and that her money-over-morality thinking would wreak havoc on civil rights and consumer rights.

We cannot allow Republicans to roll over our rights by granting extremist judges lifetime appointments. NOW remains committed to preserving the filibuster and squelching the dangerous nuclear option.