Schlafly Takes on the Judiciary
Phyllis Schlafly is back. In fairness, the conservative lawyer best remembered for her outspoken opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment never went away. Through her Eagle Forum, she has continued to promote her "pro-family" agenda. In her new book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, she takes on the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, for "assaulting the Constitution." The book's Web site bears praise from former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III and one-time Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
At SCOTUSBlog, Jason Harrow presents a two-part interview with Schlafly. In part one, Schlafly tells Harrow that President Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Waren for chief justice was "a colossal mistake." But she says that the brand of judicial activism for which Warren is known preceded his tenure as chief. In fact, she says, it started with the Dred Scott decision:
"Warren-style judicial supremacy did not start with Marbury v. Madison, which was a decision of relatively limited reach. The prime example of pre-Warren judicial supremacy was Dred Scott v. Sanford, which the liberals don't like to talk about because it is so embarrassing. That's why they like to cite Marbury."
In part two of the interview, Schlafly says that Justice O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court "solely because she is a woman." Asked by Harrow whether O'Connor, as the first woman on the Supreme Court, had an obligation "to work for a society that is more equitable to her gender," Schlafly dismisses the question as falsely assuming that women are disadvantaged in America. She continues:
"I don't think any Justice should be biased in favor of his or her own personal characteristics. Should a short Justice 'work for' people who are short? Should an elderly Justice 'work for' the elderly? Should a fat umpire 'work for' players who are fat? Of course not. Such an approach should disqualify Justices from their obligation to impart justice fairly to all, like an umpire."
As for her view of how Justices Roberts and Alito might shape the court, she says: "I hope the Supreme Court justices will go back to their proper role of calling the balls and strikes and not changing or rewriting our Constitution."
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 27, 2006 at 05:34 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)