A yes on Roberts is not the only "right vote"

I'm tired of having letters not printed, so here they are.

---

September 24, 2005

To: the Washington Post

While I agree with your view that there should not be a
"strongly partisan component" to the Supreme Court
confirmation process, I think you are missing a critical
factor in the decision of five of the eight Democrats on the
Senate Judiciary Committee to vote against the nomination of
Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice ("The Right Vote," Sept.
24). That factor is President Bush's broader relationship to
the judiciary, a record of genuinely unprecedented partisanship.

Judge Roberts is a qualified nominee with decades of excellent
service to his corporate and Republican Party clients, but he
has limited experience as a judge and simply has not faced a
range of cases approaching that which he will encounter if he
spends the foreseeable future leading the judicial branch.
The current Republican assault on the independent judiciary is
so dangerous to the nation's legal system that I find it easy
to understand the Democrats' reluctance to confirm a candidate
for Chief Justice with no discernible track record and no
professed views on the most important issues.

Your editorial complains that Democrats "will oppose any
nominee from this administration" and that the pressure from
liberal lobbying groups is "truly intense." By contrast, I am
impressed that leaders of nonprofit organizations that work on
behalf of civil rights, consumers, women, gays and lesbians,
immigration rights, disability rights, environmentalism, and
public-interest law have finally managed to persuade our party
to stand up for us. President Bush should not appoint another
stealth candidate for the Court's second opening.

---

Friday, September 2, 2005
To: Time Magazine
Subject: President feels pain...of those overpaying for gas?

You say that Bush "stumbles in his initial handling" of the
crisis in New Orleans, but "has a history of righting itself"
(Sept. 1). That's like saying that Janet Reno "stumbled" in
responding to Waco. President Bush's speech Thursday was
astonishing---with his palpable sympathy toward those of us
paying fifty cents extra for gas, and his profound lack of
basic compassion for Americans living without food, water, or
sanitation. For Bush to say on national television that help
is on the way, "but the private sector needs to do its part as
well," goes beyond abdicating leadership; it is obscene. I
feel ill imagining Karl Rove's efforts to arrange a Friday
photo op in New Orleans.

[That one produced a letter back the next day saying basically "we paid attention to your letter and we are thinking of maybe printing it but we're not sure yet."]

---

Monday, August 29, 2005
To: the New York Times
Subject: Women's peace activism is nothing new

In her timely look at the role of mothers in the resurgent
antiwar movement, Elisabeth Bumiller is right to point out
that in Vietnam, “the demonstrations were largely led by young
men, who were subject to the draft” ("In the Struggle Over the
Iraq War, Women are On the Front Line," Aug. 29). But when
she attributes this “striking change" to events that have
"happened in 40 years," Bumiller would do well to brush up on
her history.

Women were highly influential peace activists in the World War
I era. The first Congressional vote cast by a woman was
Jeannette Rankin’s vote against entering World War I, at a
time before federal woman suffrage. Rankin cast the only vote
in Congress against World War II; she went on, at age 88, to
lead over 5,000 women in a 1968 march on Washington against
the Vietnam War.