Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Judicial Nominations

Expert Commentary on Judicial Nominations Including the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST

The following experts are available for commentary on judicial nominations including the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito:

Michelle Bernard

Carrie Lukas

Jennifer Braceras

Click here for recent IWF news and commentary on judicial nominations.

For interviews, contact Christie Hobbs at (202) 349-5889 or click here.

This Week...

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST

A roundup of links to coverage of the Alito confirmation:

At What Price Alito? by Robert Novak on Townhall.com

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's statement as he opened floor debate on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

IWF's Press Release on the Alito Confirmation -- The Independent Women�s Forum urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the loaded rhetoric and manufactured charges being bandied about by special interest groups to derail the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

New York Times Editorial -- Mrs. Alito's "crying jag" and why the editors believe her husband shouldn't be confirmed

Bench Memos -- This has got to be one of the most mean-spirited puddles of venom ever to have dripped from the acid pen of the Times

Real Clear Politics --The New York Times' Last Gasp on Alito

Powerline -- Strange Times

L.A. Times -- "Alito vote predictions"

Enraged and Engaged

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST

National Review Online

Ever subtle, feminist groups last week launched the "Enraged and Engaged" campaign in anticipation of Senate hearings on Samuel Alito. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Feminist Majority pledged to mobilize their grassroots activists to warn the public and the vote-wielding senators about the danger Alito poses to America and American women in particular. The hyperbole is familiar to anyone who's followed politics during the last decade: Feminist groups regularly proclaim that nominees, candidates or legislation spell doom for women.

Bush-administration appointees 0 from John Ashcroft and Tommy Thompson to appellate-court nominees Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens, and Charles Pickering Sr., to name but a few- have all been targets. Consider that then NOW president Patricia Ireland declared the battle against Ashcroft's nomination as a fight to stop "the savaging of everything we've worked for," earnestly declaring that the fight was about "saving our rights and constitutional protections." The Senate confirmed Ashcroft and Thompson despite the feminists' dire warnings, and both men served four years. Yet most women would agree that, somehow, they emerged from that Dark Age with their rights intact.

The Chicken Littles of gender politics also have cast spurious aspersions against sensible legislation. In the days before President Clinton signed welfare reform, NOW members protested by fasting and picketing the White House in a "Hungry for Justice" campaign. Months earlier, Ireland hijacked Mother's Day to argue that welfare reform would put women and children in peril: "Women are being handed an eviction notice with a painful message: If you are poor and on welfare, then you are not welcome in mainstream society."

As welfare reform's ten-year anniversary approaches, it's clear that the legislation's impact was the opposite of what NOW predicted. Instead of an eviction notice, woman received a ticket out of the humiliating cycle of government dependency. Millions have since regained self-respect through work and rejoined productive society. These women were not the helpless children described by feminists, but rather just needed a push toward self-sufficiency while receiving assistance. As a result of treating women like responsible adults, welfare caseloads, unemployment among single mothers and childhood poverty all have plummeted.

Feminists also demonized President Bush's proposed tax cuts in 2001. NOW warned that tax-rate reductions would "hurt women's physical and economic health as well as the safety of women and families." Hindsight suggests that, again, such comments were off the mark. The Bush tax cuts have been critical in sustaining an economy rattled by terrorist attacks, hurricanes and corporate scandals and helped bring the steady economic growth and low unemployment America today enjoys.

Of course, feminists view George W. Bush himself as the biggest threat to women and so were at their hyperventilating best during the past two presidential elections. In 2004, current NOW president Kim Gandy warned that women's very lives would be endangered by a Bush reelection: "We are in a state of emergency and NOW encourages everyone who cares about women's rights, civil rights, and the constitution to help ensure that Bush does not have another four years to wreak havoc in the United States and around the globe." This echoed earlier warnings from the 2000 campaign, when Ireland implored activists to "fight like women's lives depended on it because they do." In a Halloween event, she compared Bush to a vampire who "will suck our rights away."

There are many on the far left who make the case that President Bush has lived up to this ghoulish characterization. Most mainstream women know that little has changed for them in the past five years, beyond seeing their pay rise through reduced taxes.

So here we go again, with Kim Gandy warning that a Justice Alito would be an unprecedented tragedy for women: "From sexual harassment on the job, to equal opportunities in education, to harassment in the schools, to violence against women, this is a justice who would shift the balance of the Court in the wrong direction." American women have rationally responded with a collective yawn, weary of the increasingly shrill warnings of an anachronistic movement dedicated more to big government than women's progress.

The "Enraged and Engaged" campaign will no doubt continue slurring Judge Alito as (the latest) Armageddon for women. Thankfully, most won't buy it. As the mild-mannered and thoughtful judge has show this week, the feminist screeching is best tuned out.

Carrie Lukas, an NRO contributor, is the director of policy at the Independent Women's Forum.

The End of Borking

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST

The Battle of Princeton: Borking has lost its bite(By Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal) -- Senator Kennedy's thuggish behavior yesterday led to the moment the public is going to remember from the Alito hearings. Kennedy's viciousness caused the nominee's wife to burst into tears and leave the room.

Enraged and Engaged: The "women of the Left" whine again(By Carrie Lukas, National Review Online)--- Ever subtle, feminist groups last week launched the "Enraged and Engaged" campaign in anticipation of Senate hearings on Samuel Alito.

The Chairman and the Toddler (By Todd Gaziano, Townhall.com) -- An inside look at Teddy Kennedy's ineffective tantrum.

The Ship of Fools Finally Pushes Off (By Charlotte Allen, IWF Inkwell) -- Hey, it's all over!

Martha Alito: Everywife-- Senator Kennedy's thuggish behavior yesterday led to the moment the public is going to remember from the Alito hearings. Kennedy's viciousness caused the nominee's wife to burst into tears and leave the room.

Senator Kennedy's thuggish behavior yesterday led to the moment the public is going to remember from the Alito hearings. Kennedy's viciousness caused the nominee's wife to burst into tears and leave the room.

The Democrats' Last Gasbag Stand -- Here is the National Public Radio report on yesterday's grandstand-fest by Ted Kennedy, who had for some reason decided he needed to subpoena records that are right at the Library of Congress...

IWF's Press Release on the Alito Confirmation Hearing --The Independent Women's Forum urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the loaded rhetoric and manufactured charges being bandied about by special interest groups to derail the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Enemies Like These, Does Alito Need Friends?(By Charlotte Allen, IWF Inkwell) --- Holy cow, they're so desperate! If you didn't think until today that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is clearly a shoo-in for Senate confirmation, you will after you read some of the pathetic tactics our liberal friends are mustering in the hopes of beating him down at the hearings...

My Marxist take on the Alito hearings... (By Charlotte Hays, IWF Inkwell) --"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." Karl Marx

The confirmation hearings of Robert Bork occurred as tragedy, but Sam Alito's hearings, which so far look to have a better outcome, are occurring as farce.

Keep talking, Joe(Powerline blog) -- I part company with those who find Joe Biden's questioning of judicial nominees tedious. For my money, he puts on the best show in town. That's because to me stream of consciousness is almost always fascinating, even if the "streamer" isn't.

Sam Alito's America and Ours(By Maggie Gallagher for Townhall.com) -- The most moving part of Sam Alito's Senate testimony Monday was about his immigrant father: "He grew up in poverty. Although he graduated at the top of his high school class, he had no money for college. And he was set to work in a factory, but at the last minute, a kind person in the Trenton area arranged for him to receive a $50 scholarship." It was enough to buy tuition at a local college and "one used suit." It was enough to change a man's life.

The Left is Already Talking Filibuster

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202)349-5889

(Washington, DC) The Independent Women's Forum urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the loaded rhetoric and manufactured charges being bandied about by special interest groups to derail the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With nearly 30 years of judicial service and a record of the utmost fairness and professionalism, Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Nevertheless, he is opposed by members of the far Left who view the courts as a means of promoting their own social agenda.

"We are concerned that some on the Left are already discussing a possible filibuster of Alito's nomination," said IWF visiting fellow, Jennifer Braceras. "These special interest groups are not interested in whether this nominee is qualified or whether he will serve the nation with integrity and respect for the judicial process. They care only whether he will rule the way they want him to rule in specific hot button cases."

The Independent Women's Forum urges the Judiciary Committee to reject litmus tests and to avoid questioning Judge Alito about specific matters that may come before him in the future. Judge Alito deserves a fair process and a straight up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.

Judge Samuel Alito an Excellent Choice to Succeed Sandra Day O'Connor

Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:00:00 EST

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 349-5889

Washington, DC-- The Independent Women's Forum applauds the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to the United States Supreme Court.

"Judge Alito is a highly-qualified candidate who has demonstrated his strong commitment to the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law. It is clear from his record and his statements that his judicial philosophy is one we support, that as a judge he will interpret the law, not make law," said Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum.

"Contrary to claims by some feminist groups that Alito is an extremist who will set back women's rights, IWF believes that Judge Alito is a fair-minded judge whose record will show that he is well within the mainstream. We look forward to the confirmation process," continued Pfotenhauer.

Judge Alito has served on the Third Circuit with distinction since 1990 when he was unanimously confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. President Bush announced that Judge Alito is his choice to fill the vacancy created when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement earlier this year.

IWF Supports Nomination of Harriet Miers to the High Court

Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone:(202) 394-5889

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum supports the president's nomination today of Harriet Miers to fill the seat vacated by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"Ms. Miers has had a long and distinguished career as one of the foremost lawyers in the country makes her a well qualified candidate. Members from both sides of the aisle have recognized her professional achievements and qualifications and recommended her to the President as a nominee," said IWF senior vice president Michelle Bernard.

"While IWF supports the nomination of Harriet Miers to be associate justice of the Supreme Court, IWF rejects the feminist argument that the seat to which she was nominated is a 'woman's seat.'" continued Bernard. "In originally nominating John Roberts to replace Justice O'Connor, the President laid to rest the notion that any one sex or ethnic group owns a particular seat on the Court. Having established that principle last summer, and having elevated John Roberts to be chief justice, the President was free to make this selection free from concerns of gender politics."

"The president selected his trusted friend and attorney Harriet Miers. We do not doubt that Ms. Miers is qualified for the post, and for that reason, the Senate should act quickly to confirm her," added Bernard.

"Only time will tell whether Ms. Miers will be a justice who understands the difference between law and politics and who exercises her judicial power with restraint. We are cautiously optimistic."

Testimony of Jennifer Braceras on Behalf of Judge John Roberts

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Statement of Jennifer Cabranes Braceras
Visiting Fellow, Independent Women's Forum and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States

Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy, Members of the Committee:

My name is Jennifer Braceras. I am a resident of Massachusetts and a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Hispanic National Bar Association. I am a visiting fellow with the Independent Women's Forum, and I am privileged to serve, by appointment of the President, as a commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Since my graduation from Harvard Law School in 1994, I have served as a law clerk to two federal judges, practiced employment law at a major Boston law firm, and taught and conducted research on education law and federal anti-discrimination law.

I am pleased to be here today to support the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be chief justice of the United States.

Although I do not know Judge Roberts personally, I am generally familiar with his professional background and public record. His distinguished career and his testimony before this Committee make clear to even the most casual observer that Judge Roberts is eminently well qualified for the post.

Despite his obvious qualifications, however, opponents of Judge Roberts criticize his record on a variety of matters that loosely fall under the umbrella of civil rights. These critics allege that Judge Roberts's confirmation to be Chief Justice will somehow be harmful to women or minorities. These charges are, at best, misplaced and, at worst, deliberately misleading attacks that would have been leveled against anyone nominated to the High Court by this President. There are at least five reasons why such criticisms should not shake our confidence in Judge Roberts.

First, many of the criticisms of Judge Roberts involve positions he advocated as a lawyer in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Some of the subjects that have elicited adverse comment by interest groups purporting to represent various segments of American society include: (1) school busing, (2) the theory of comparable worth (which is often mischievously conflated with the very different concept of equal pay for men and women), (3) racial quotas, and (4) the expansion of voting rights legislation to seek equal electoral results as opposed to equal access. In all of these maters, published reports indicate that the positions taken by John Roberts as a lawyer for the Reagan and Bush administrations are entirely consistent with the views of the American people and fully within the political mainstream.

In any event, the arguments expressed by Judge Roberts as a young man, decades ago, were the policy judgments of an executive branch lawyer on behalf of the administrations for which he worked -- not the views of a neutral umpire asked to rule on the constitutionality of particular legislation. Judge Roberts understands that the role of a judge is fundamentally different from that of an advocate or legal adviser, and he has proven that he can exercise the judicial power with restraint. His view of the judicial function does not contemplate the imposition of his own policy preferences from the bench. This proven commitment to judicial restraint should give Americans of all political viewpoints great comfort.

Second, it is clear from the public record that Judge Roberts supports the vigorous enforcement of our nation's anti-discrimination laws. In his executive branch memos, Judge Roberts repeatedly defended the "bedrock principle of treating people on the basis of merit without regard to race or sex" and argued numerous times for the executive branch to prosecute fully claims of unequal treatment.

Third, as an advocate, Judge Roberts has been on both sides of controversial civil rights questions, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. This broad experience should give the American people faith in Judge Roberts's ability to understand all sides of complex issues, his willingness to listen to all arguments, and his ability to judge each case fairly and according to the law.

Fourth, Judge Roberts has a strong commitment to equal opportunity and the anti-discrimination principle embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment and codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There can be no doubt that Judge Roberts is committed to the idea that people should be treated as individuals not as members of perceived social or ethnic enclaves with group grievances. He has written that "before the law we do not stand as black or white, Gentile or Jew, Hispanic or Anglo, but only as Americans entitled to equal justice." Certainly, there is nothing "extreme" or "unusual" about this view. To the contrary, it embodies the American ideal. It reflects the aspirations of the Fourteenth, which were given life by the Court in Brown v. Board of Education and by the framers of the 1964 Act. And it embodies the credo of Dr. Martin Luther King when he eloquently proclaimed that people should be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Finally, irresponsible rhetoric that a Court led by Judge Roberts would "turn back the clock" on civil rights misinterprets the role of the Court in our democracy. Our Constitution guarantees certain basic rights, which the courts must, of course, enforce. But it is not for the courts to expand upon constitutional rights or to create new rights out of whole cloth. That is the job of legislatures (both state and federal). The legislative branches, acting within the scope of their constitutional authority, can create additional rights or expand upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If citizens are in any way dissatisfied with the scope or reach of the Constitution or current statutes, it is to their democratically elected representatives that they should turn. The record makes clear that Judge Roberts respects this separation of powers and that he has faith in our democracy and in you, our elected representatives.

On occasion, we have seen the Court reject an expansive reading of civil rights statutes only to have Congress clarify the law and explicitly broaden civil rights protections. And that is as it should be. Congress has an obligation to be clear about the protections it bestows. It is not the role of the Court to expand upon the work of our democratically elected representatives. The Supreme Court, therefore, is not the last word on civil rights�-- or any other issue for that matter. Each of the three branches of government has a role to play, and Judge Roberts respects and understands these distinct roles.

On other rare occasions, we have seen the Court strike down laws broadly aimed at civil rights on the ground that the statute conflicts with the Constitution. But even in these circumstances it is improper to say that the Court has taken away anyone�s rights. Courts can neither create nor take away rights. Rather, their role, as Judge Roberts clearly understands, is to determine the constitutional authority of government, both state and federal. When government exceeds its constitutional authority or tramples on rights protected by the Constitution, the Court is correct to invalidate that action.

It is judges, like John Roberts, who take seriously the Constitution's restrictions on government power that are the true guardians of our civil rights and civil liberties. Those who are concerned with the rights of the minority surely should prefer a Court that faithfully and properly polices the boundaries of government over a Court that would abdicate the power of judicial review in blind deference to the political branches.

Judge Roberts has demonstrated a strong commitment to the vigorous enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws and to the bedrock principles of judicial restraint, judicial review, and equal opportunity. I am, therefore, honored to testify in favor of Judge Roberts's nomination. He will be a justice of whom all Americans will be proud, and I respectfully urge the Senate to confirm him as the next chief justice of the United States.

IWF Visiting Fellow Testifies at Judge Roberts' Confirmation Hearings

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 349-5889

WASHINGTON, DC -- Jennifer Braceras, visiting fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, will be among the witnesses testifying at Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s confirmation hearing today. In addition to her work with IWF, Ms. Braceras currently serves as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and teaches courses in anti-discrimination law as an adjunct professor at Suffolk Law School in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Like the nominee, Jennifer is a legal star and a graduate of Harvard Law School," said IWF president Nancy Pfotenhauer. "Jennifer has distinguished herself as an expert in anti-discrimination law and equal protection clause jurisprudence, as a research fellow at Harvard Law School, and as a lawyer at the distinguished Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray, where she counseled a variety of institutions on employment-related law. We know the committee and the American public will benefit from her expertise and extensive knowledge in this area of the law," continued Pfotenhauer.

Ms. Braceras has also served IWF as an expert on judicial nominations and has appeared recently as an expert on CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other major networks. She also has provided commentary on politics, culture and law for such publications as the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online and The Weekly Standard.

Click here to read Ms. Braceras' testimony.

Roberts' Opposition to Initiatives Like 'Comparable Worth' Commendable - Not Proof of Anti-Woman Bias

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 EDT

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum is disappointed by the efforts of those who would characterize Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as anti-woman due to his lack of support for initiatives such as "comparable worth."

"The attempt by some on the left to portray John Roberts as hostile to women is simply silly," said IWF visiting fellow Jennifer Braceras.

"John Roberts has a strong record of supporting women's rights and, indeed, is married to a strong, professional woman. It is true that in the 1980s John Roberts, like the majority of Americans, opposed attempts by radical feminists to legislatively mandate gender quotas and a Marxist wage-setting system. To say that Roberts is hostile to women because he opposed these radical initiatives simply defies common sense," continued Braceras.

Last week the American Bar Association unanimously voted to give Roberts a "well qualified" rating -- their highest rating. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin hearings on his confirmation on September 6.

Click here to read Washington Post coverage of Women for Roberts.

Incomparable Nonsense

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:00:00 EDT

National Review Online

The feminist left's attempt to tar Judge John Roberts as a fan of abortion-clinic bombers failed, so they need a new angle to convince women that he's a threat. The latest crop of memos released by the White House provides a new opening: Roberts doesn't believe in "equal pay" for women.

At least, that's how the mainstream media characterize his sentiments. USA Today's headline warns, "Roberts scoffed at equal pay theory." On Good Morning America, Jessica Yellin described Roberts as having "urged the White House to oppose an effort by some in the women's movement to equalize pay between women and men who do comparable work."

But Roberts's reflections on the danger of the government micromanaging wages were plain common sense. Comparable-worth theory assumes that wages set by the marketplace are unfair to women and that the government will better decide the just compensation for a given job. New York's Senator Hillary Clinton introduced legislation based on this concept earlier this year: Her bill would require that employers pay equal salaries to "equivalent" jobs. While bureaucrats would ponder how to define "equivalent," employers, fearing a flurry of lawsuits, would likely regiment their salary practices.

Women would be the big losers from this new regime. Women tend to want flexible employment arrangements: Many women-- particularly those with children-- willingly trade higher pay for the ability to leave each day at 4 p.m. to pick up the kids from school. Employers may hesitate to offer such options under a new "comparable worth" regime, since bureaucrats thumbing through their records could question why the female manager makes less than her male counterpart.

True comparable-worth advocates aren't just concerned about pay discrepancies within offices or even industries. They want to "correct" the unfair system that results in industries dominated by men, such as truck driving, paying more than those dominated by women, such as elementary-school teaching. Implicit in their logic is the snobbish belief that jobs like teaching deserve more compensation since they require more education, while truck drivers just mindlessly drone from one highway to the next.

The marketplace, however, takes many factors other than education into account when determining compensation. Dr. Warren Farrell, a former board member of the National Organization for Women's New York chapter, details the many criteria that affect pay rates in his recent book, Why Men Earn More. He concludes that men tend to make choices that maximize pay, while women opt for lower pay but a better quality of life.

Men assume more high-risk jobs: 92 percent of occupational deaths befall men. Men take on endeavors that require braving the elements outdoors and are physically grueling. Women avoid jobs that require a great deal of travel or relocation. Even those women who work full-time on average spend fewer hours on the job than full-time working men. And, of course, as Roberts noted, women tend to take more time out of the workforce entirely.

Statistics that show a "gap" between men and women's earnings aren't evidence of discrimination since they fail to account for these factors. Of course, that doesn't stop the feminist movement from trumpeting such numbers to promote the perception that women are members of a victim class in need of big government to save them.

Instead of accepting the feminist claim that they're victims of discrimination, American women should consider the choices that they've made during their lives. Have you always sought to maximize pay? Both men and women likely recognize their career decisions have been more complicated than that. Women in particular are likely to find that salary is often not the driving force behind their employment choices.

This isn't to suggest that there's no such thing as discrimination against women in the workplace, but the statistical differences between men and women's wages alone aren't evidence of discrimination. Moreover, empowering government to "fix" wages so they are more "fair" is a recipe for disaster, particularly for women for whom flexibility is paramount.

Regardless of the mainstream media's spin, Judge Robert's skepticism of the push for "comparable worth" legislation isn't evidence of sexism. It's evidence of good sense.

Cornerstones of American Democracy

info@iwf.org (Jennifer C. Braceras) — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Originally published October 2002.

A fully-staffed, balanced, and independent judiciary is necessary for the protection of our safety, freedom, and civil rights. Yet today the American justice system is imperiled by an extraordinary number of federal judicial vacancies and by the efforts of special interest groups to prevent the confirmation of qualified judicial nominees and thereby politicize what Alexander Hamilton once referred to as our government's "least dangerous" branch. Of course, political battles over judicial nominees are nothing new. But unlike previous judicial confirmation fights, where special interest groups sought to defeat a particular candidate for the federal bench, the current assault is being waged not simply against a specific individual but against certain judicial philosophies.

In particular, the radical Left has declared war on the bedrock principles of judicial restraint and federalism -- and all those who dare to adhere to them. By painting judicial nominees with a broad brush, the special interest groups hope to avoid having to challenge a particular nominee's qualifications (an almost impossible task, given the resumes of the individuals thus far nominated by President George W. Bush). These groups seek to defeat nominees they do not like without having to engage in messy smear campaigns such as the one launched against Clarence Thomas in 1991. The Left's strategy is simple: convince the American public that judicial restraint and federalism imperil the rights of women and minorities and then label adherents to these philosophies as "hostile to civil rights" and unfit for federal judicial service.

In an attempt to respond to these unfounded attacks, the IWF presents this position paper on judicial restraint and federalism -- two of the cornerstones of American democracy. This paper will examine briefly the role of the courts in American law and provide context for the current debate over federalism and judicial restraint. By defining these principles for a lay audience, we hope to shed some light on the constitutional context for the current confirmation battles. And we hope to educate the public as to why -- contrary to the view espoused by radical special interest groups -- judicial adherence to principles of restraint and federalism is critical to the preservation of democracy, liberty, and freedom for all Americans.

Qualifications, Not Gender Should Be Top Consideration

Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 419-1820

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum rejects recent statements by radical feminist organizations like the Feminist Majority Foundation demanding that the president appoint another woman to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"The notion that gender should be the primary consideration in looking at potential nominees is absurd," IWF senior vice president Michelle D. Bernard stated. "The president should be looking at the most qualified candidates, male or female."

Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, was quoted in yesterday's New York Times as saying, "We're asking for another woman. We should have at least four. We should not be allowed to go back to one. The era of tokenism is over."

"The United States is not a gynocracy," said Bernard. "The idea that men are incapable of serving women's interests and that any male successor would signal a step back for women's rights is outrageous. Sadly, these groups have shown time and time again their willingness to resort such histrionics."

Careful Consideration, Not 'Heated Rhetoric,' Will Decide Successor to Justice O'Connor

Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 419-1820

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum stands in agreement with President Bush, who today urged special interest groups to "tone down the heated rhetoric" as he considers a successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

IWF legal consultant Jennifer C. Braceras stated, "This is the time to reflect upon the career of Justice O'Connor, not to engage in idle speculation about potential replacements."

Braceras continued, "I hope that special interest groups will not politicize the resignation by immediately clamoring for a replacement of one stripe or another. Such behavior is totally inappropriate and demeans both Justice O'Connor and the judicial process."

Justice O'Connor, who served on the Supreme Court for 24 years, announced her retirement last week. President Bush is scheduled to confer with a group of Republican and Democratic senators to discuss the vacancy at the White House on July 11.

IWF Applauds the Distinguished Service of Sandra Day O'Connor

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 419-1820

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum applauds the distinguished service of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who announced today that she is stepping down from the Court, a position she has held with distinction for 24 years.

"As the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor is owed a debt of gratitude by all American women. She has been a respected and measured voice on the Court and one of the most influential women in America," said Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president at the Independent Women's Forum.

"It is almost hard to believe that prior to her appointment in 1981, the thought of a woman serving on the nation's highest court was unheard of. Through her hard work and dedication, she has opened the door for women to serve at the highest levels of the legal profession," continued Bernard.

President Bush has stated that he will offer his nominee in a timely manner so that the Court can continue its business in October. He also urged the Senate to conduct the nomination process in a civil and fair manner.

"Justice O'Connor's resignation comes at a pivotal time in American jurisprudence, as issues such as private property rights, criminal justice, federalism, the rights of immigrants, and affirmative action are being hotly debated throughout the nation's federal courts," said Bernard.