Citing O'Connor's Legacy, Civil Rights Coalition Urges Consensus and Consultation
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 7/5/2005
Civil rights groups are urging the president to choose consensus over division in nominating a Supreme Court justice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.Her resignation, announced July 1, creates a vacancy on the Court for the first time in 11 years and gives President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Court.
"The resignation of Justice O'Connor presents President Bush with two choices - continue the politics of confrontation and division or pursue consultation and consensus. It offers the President an opportunity to be a 'uniter not a divider,'" Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), said.
In a letter to Senators, LCCR urged support for a "thorough and deliberative confirmation process."
"Given the extraordinary impact of the Supreme Court on civil and human rights and on individual liberties in general, and given Justice O'Connor's distinguished record as a frequent independent voice of reason on the Court, the Senate has an obligation, to all Americans, to assert its role as an equal partner in the process of filling her seat on the Court," LCCR said.
At the same time, LCCR called on President Bush "to engage in meaningful consultation with the Senate, prior to announcing any nominee, as Presidents from both parties have done in the past."
O'Connor herself was a consensus candidate, recommended by Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat from Arizona, and nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 to be the first woman on the Court. She was confirmed by a 99-0 vote.
While her nomination generated criticism from both the political left and right, during her time on the Court she proved to be a pivotal swing vote in decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination, and more.
Civil rights organizations have identified a number of 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned if O'Connor is replaced by someone who is not a mainstream nominee, including Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) (affirmative action); Tennessee v. Lane (2004) (rights of individuals with disabilities); Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) (human rights/due process) and Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. Of Educ. (2005) (Title IX).
