And it begins.

While it’s been quite the sad day as Alito has been confirmed, Liberal Oasis discusses what we can do now with the battle for the Supreme Court. Check it out.

Join the Conversation

  • Bad_Feminist

    From my blog, Bad Feminist: Yay! The Senate has confirmed Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court in a 58-42 vote. For the most part, I agree with Alito’s conservative judicial philosophy despite my strong beliefs in feminist and progressive politics. The Constitution is not what it would have been had I written it. It doesn’t protect minority groups the way I would have liked it to. It doesn’t protect women the way I would have liked it to. It doesn’t protect people’s autonomy or their bodily integrity in the ways that I would have liked it to. I don’t believe that it protects women’s right to choose abortion. And yet, I strongly believe that these are flaws in our current Constitution and not in the interpretive abilities of justices like Alito. What our Constitution does give us, however, is a process, by which to amend it and I believe with all my heart that we need to be, and can be, activists for constitutional change. Unfortunately, most feminists and our progressive allies insist instead on fighting the wrong battle, attempting to read into the Constitution what is not there rather than doing the difficult political work of inscribing it there. One day I hope that feminist organizations like NOW, the Feminist Majority, and NARAL will re-invest resources into a long-range plan for constitutional change, rather than dipping into their coffers for every Supreme Court nomination. To me, this is the equivalent for women of spending millions on band-aids to patch up a levee about to burst.

  • countryKyle

    Dear Bad Feminist,

  • bear

    Bad Feminist: Well said.
    Why does everyone hang their hopes on the courts nowadays? If you want change, get out there and do something about it. Whether I liked his rulings or not, my perspective of Rehnquist was that he returned the Court to interpreting laws instead of writing them. I am grateful to the Warren Court for their activism, but I think they stepped out of bounds for the good of the country, as Presidents have done at certain times in our history (Lincoln comes to mind). I think Rehnquist put the task of the Court back to where is it legally supposed to be. If you don’t like the Constitution, change it.
    The best way the Democrats could have stopped Bush’s nominations to the Supreme Court would have been to put up a real leader as a candidate that people would have voted for. While I certainly didn’t vote for Bush, I find it hard to complain too much when the person who got the most votes in the last election picks a nominee he agress with. You want better nominees, start running serious candidates for office (or become a serious candidate yourself).
    We all seem to be angry with the way things are going, but when it comes down to it, what are we really doing about it?