[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10463-H10464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FUTURE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in just a few short weeks, we will be
electing a new President of the United States on Tuesday, November 7.
This is the centerpiece of our democracy, the election of a President.
The President has his own powers according to the Constitution, but
also the power of appointment of the third branch of government, the
Supreme Court. So a great deal is at stake in this election: the
presidency and the President's appointments to the court.
If the next President appoints just one or two more justices to the
court, and they do not support some of our basic fundamental rights,
fundamental rights could be abolished or curtailed. The Supreme Court's
decisions affect all aspect of our lives including basic civil rights
and day-to-day pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
{time} 2045
It is significant to note, I think, that no Supreme Court justice has
retired in 6 years, the longest interval without a new appointment in
177 years. In the last 50 years, every President except one has
appointed at least one justice, and 8 of the last 10 Presidents have
appointed 2 justices. Court watchers expect several justices to retire
soon, and, thus, the next President is likely to appoint several
justices to fill these vacancies.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because many have asked, well, how do
these elections affect young people in our country? Well, the election
of the President affects them very directly in the decisions that that
President will make but also very directly in terms of his power of
appointment of the court, the Supreme Court, and indeed many, many
scores of Federal Court justices.
As I have said, the Supreme Court makes many decisions that
fundamentally affect and change our lives, and so young people should
be very interested in these judges, this President, and the decisions
that this court will make because it will have an impact for
generations to come.
Soon the court will be deciding cases governing civil rights,
workers' rights, reproductive freedom, voting rights, and campaign
finance reform. The court will decide Congress' authority to apply
Federal laws protecting individuals and our environment to the States,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court will address
electoral redistricting and minority voting rights, free speech,
criminal cases involving unreasonable search and seizure, and the scope
of Federal regulations, really protections and safeguards, for all
Americans.
How do the courts' decisions on these issues affect our lives? For
women, the court has an impact on reproductive freedom. For workers,
the court affects the ability to sue employers who violate employees'
civil rights. Again, for women, the court affects access to family
planning clinics and access to safe and appropriate medical care. For
gay and lesbian Americans, the court affects civil rights protections
and equal opportunity. For people with disabilities, the court affects
protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I asked one volunteer in a political campaign why she was
volunteering, and she said I have looked around, studied the issues,
and I realize that people in politics make decisions about the air I
breathe and the water I drink. The same applies to the Supreme Court,
Mr. Speaker. The court affects the air we breathe and the water we
drink by determining the legality of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act.
This volunteer went on to say, so I guess I should be interested in
politics, at least for as long as I drink water and I breathe air.
Young people should be, and we should all be interested in the court
and the person who will name justices to that court for at least as
long as we breathe air and drink water.
The two issues that I would like to just focus on, in the interest of
time, because I know the hour is late, are a woman's right to choose
and the issue of the protection of our environment and how those issues
will be affected by
[[Page H10464]]
the court. The next President will likely appoint two, perhaps three
Supreme Court justices, enough to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow States
to enact severe and sweeping restrictions on women's reproductive
rights. If the anti-choice majority maintains its control over the
Senate, the Supreme Court nominations of an anti-choice President are
likely to be quickly confirmed.
Governor George Bush is an anti-choice governor with a record to
prove it. In 1999 alone, Governor Bush, along with Michigan's Governor
Engler signed more anti-choice provisions into law than any other
governor in the U.S. Governor Bush has said he believes Roe v. Wade
went too far and has characterized the 1973 ruling as a reach. Governor
Bush has also said that Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most
ardent opponent of abortion on the Supreme Court, would be his model
justice.
Governor Bush wants to end legal reproductive freedom in the U.S. Al
Gore would protect a woman's right to choose. The choice is clear: Pro-
choice Americans must understand that Governor Bush will use the power
of the Presidency to end legal reproductive choice and take away a
woman's right to choose.
In terms of the environment, moving on to that because I know that is
an issue that young people are interested in as well, I mentioned that
Governor Bush has said that his model justice was Justice Scalia.
Sadly, Justice Scalia's environmental philosophy is just as dismal as
some of the other issues that I mentioned here. Legal scholars who have
studied the Supreme Court have found that Justice Scalia sided against
the environment more than any other person in the history of the court.
How bad is his record? Eighty-seven percent of the time an
environmental case came before the Supreme Court Justice Scalia decided
against the environment. In Justice Scalia's world, citizens would not
be allowed to stop pollution just because a company is poisoning their
backyards. In a case decided earlier this year, a factory had dumped
toxic mercury into a nearby river 489 times. How would you like that,
Mr. Speaker, in your backyard? But even though the factory poisoned the
river nearly 500 times, the Justice felt that the court was making it
far too easy to halt an environmental crime.
So when we come to issues that young people are interested in, such
as protecting the environment, this environment that we have only on
loan because it belongs to them, it is their future, we must protect it
in every way that we can. We can do that by our own personal behavior;
through conservation; by the people we elect to office to make
decisions about the environment; by the President of the United States,
who leads the country in protecting our environment and the justices
that he will appoint to the court who will make decisions about the air
we breathe and the water we drink. For as long as we breathe air and
drink water, Mr. Speaker, we should be very interested in those
decisions.
Again, on the issue of a woman's right to choose, which I think is a
matter that is at risk, we are at a crossroads and one that will be
very much affected by the outcome of the election on November 7.
In the interest of time, I will not go into all the other issues, Mr.
Speaker, except to say that November 7 is an important day, a day when
we will be choosing not only a President but that President's
appointees. There is a great deal at stake for young people. I hope
they will pay attention to the election and its ramifications.
____________________