[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 68 (Friday, May 20, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   THE 51ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION DECISION

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN

                         of the virgin islands

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 19, 2005

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, today when civil liberties are under 
attack, and anti-poverty, anti-immigrant, anti-affirmative action, 
conservative ideology dictates everything from science to whether 
social safety nets will continue to exist; we cannot afford to lose the 
protection of a fair and impartial court.
  When minorities and otherwise powerless groups had no other 
protection of our rights, the courts have been the only refuge and 
remedy. As we commemorate the 51st Anniversary of the Brown vs. Board 
of Education, we are reminded of the importance of those who are 
nominated to the judiciary system.
  Brown vs. the Board of Education was a landmark decision, whose 
intention is still being fulfilled. One test that we can use as the 
Senate comes to the brink of disaster, over the final remaining seven 
judges, is whether based on their past decisions and behavior on the 
bench, would we have had such a landmark decision such as ``Brown'' had 
they been on the bench in 1954. I think we can say not!
  Federal judges are immensely powerful--all cases raising 
constitutional issues, including school prayer, abortion, and freedom 
of speech are heard before a single federal judge at the trial level 
and a panel of federal judges on appeal. All judges are expected to 
follow the law, not their personal convictions, but one can get a sense 
of how a judge thinks by looking at previous rulings as well as 
writings and comments.
  The nominees at issue are radical conservatives whose views are far 
to the right of the mainstream on issues such as abortion, the 
environment, and the worker protection. And their terms are not two, 
four or six years. Should they be confirmed, we would be subject to 
their dangerous judicial activism for life.
  That is why the threshold must be high and their judicial history 
weighed heavily against the values of this country upon which our 
Constitution was founded.

                          ____________________