[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25898-25899]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       TIPPING THE BALANCE: GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE SUPREME COURT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, when women and Americans go 
to the polls on Tuesday, I believe there will be two words more 
important and more at stake than any other. These two words are not 
``Democrat'' and ``Republican,'' they are not ``House'' and ``Senate,'' 
and they are not even ``Gore'' and ``Bush.''
  The two words that this election comes down to are ``Supreme Court.'' 
The next President of the United States will appoint at least two or 
three, maybe even more, Supreme Court Justices. He will define our 
constitutional rights not for the next 4 years, but for the next 40.
  If G.W. Bush is elected and the balance of the court tips right, 
which it will, far right, the consequences are clear: civil rights, 
privacy rights, and reproductive rights will be in jeopardy. Our 
environmental protections, affirmative action, and the separation of 
church and State will all be on the line, because the fact is these two 
words, ``Supreme Court,'' can come down to just one vote.
  Right now, one single vote protects a woman's right to choose and 
recognizes her fundamental control over her own body. Both Planned 
Parenthood versus Casey and Stenberg versus Carhart demonstrated that a 
woman's right to choose is fragile. It hangs by the slimmest of margins 
five to four.
  Without the protection of Roe v. Wade, Congress and many State 
legislators have proven that they are willing to pass laws restricting 
abortion procedures, even when a woman's health is at stake. Yet, to 
overturn Roe, to put a woman's health and her very life at risk, G.W. 
Bush would not need to use three appointments or even two. It would 
just take one.
  He says he trusts the people and not the government to make their own 
decisions. He must not be talking about

[[Page 25899]]

women. One vote. There are those who say there is no way to predict. 
They say Justices are independent; that Reagan appointed Sandra Day 
O'Connor, who is pro-choice; that the would-be impact of G.W. Bush on 
the bench is exaggerated.
  But I think that the best way to measure someone is through not what 
they say but what they do. When asked what kind of Justices he would 
appoint to the bench, Governor Bush said very clearly, strict 
constructionists, like Scalia and Thomas, the far right of the current 
court. Governor Bush is not just looking to tip the balance to the 
right, he wants to knock the scales over.
  If Members doubt that Scalia, Thomas, and Bush would wipe out many of 
the protections Americans hold dear and undermine decades of Supreme 
Court decisions, just look at the Scalia and Thomas dissents.
  Scalia, Thomas, and Bush would exempt elections for State judges from 
all provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
  Scalia, Thomas, and Bush would permit sex discrimination in jury 
selection.
  Scalia, Thomas, and Bush would eliminate affirmative action.
  Scalia, Thomas, and Bush would restrict remedies for discrimination, 
while at the same time making it harder to prove discrimination.
  And who would join Scalia, Thomas, and Bush? Let us look at the 
possible short list: J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. He wrote 
the opinion that prevents women from suing their attacker in Federal 
court under the Violence Against Women Act.
  Judge Luttig, along with another potential Bush pick, Fourth Circuit 
Chief Justice J. Harvie Wilkinson, led the charge to overturn the 
Miranda decision that says, you should know your rights if you are 
arrested.
  Judge Emilio Garza said Roe v. Wade may not be constitutional law.
  Justice Samuel Alito is so conservative that he is now referred to as 
``Scalito,'' and Judge Edith Jones, a severe critic of death penalty 
appeals. She overruled a decision that a Texas death row inmate 
deserved a new hearing, even though his lawyer literally slept through 
part of the trial.

                              {time}  1845

  These judges are not the extreme on Bush's list. They are the list. 
They are not the exceptions to the rule, they make the rules, and we 
will have to abide by them.
  If you believe in women's rights, Al Gore should shape the court. If 
you believe that minorities should be counted and respected; if you 
believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty; and if you believe, 
like I do, that justice should be blind and not asleep, Al Gore should 
shape the court.
  Al Gore, not Scalia, Thomas and Bush, should protect our rights for 
the next generation.
  When we vote, we will elect a President for 4 years. Supreme Court 
appointments last a lifetime. Two words, Supreme Court; one vote, one 
choice, Al Gore.

                          ____________________