On Friday, April 15, 2005, The New York Times broke the story that Frist would participate:

As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky mega church the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Senate Democrats have strongly criticized Frist for participating in the controversial event. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement in which he said, "This is a democracy, not a theocracy."

The second factor, which explains Senator Frist's actions more than anything else, is 2008 Presidential politics. The Washington Post explained it this way:

While Democrats and Republicans alike say the filibuster issue is a matter of high principles and constitutional rights, Frist's choice is inextricably linked to presidential politics. At least two GOP colleagues who are pressing him to seek the rule change -- George Allen (Va.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.) -- also are weighing presidential bids. Both of them are wooing key conservatives clamoring for the filibuster ban.

Some independent analysts say that Frist -- a comparative newcomer to politics who unexpectedly gained the majority leader's post in early 2003 -- has created his own dilemma, and his handling of it will be a sign of whether he has the skills to seriously vie for the White House.

"I think Senator Frist has backed himself into a corner where I don't see how he can avoid pulling the nuclear trigger," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. In terms of a presidential race, Cook said, "it hurts if he doesn't come up with the votes. But it also hurts him if the Senate comes to a grinding halt and can't get anything done. I think the guy's in a real jam."

While Republicans have been quick to object to Democratic opposition to Bush Administration judicial nominees, the truth is that the filibuster has long been a tool of the minority party, regardless of which party was in the White House.

As Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) recently told Chris Matthews on Hardball, the GOP has been guilty of blocking judicial nominations during Democratic administrations:

"During the Clinton Administration, the GOP blocked many judicial nominees by failing to hold hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. "

To put this issue in even more context, the Democrats have supported the vast majority of Bush Administration judicial nominees. To date, Democrats have filibustered 10 of Bush's judicial nominations and they have approved 95 percent of his nominations to the federal bench.

Why should the "nuclear option" be a concern for Revolutionary Women?

While the filibuster debate is ostensibly about the judicial nomination process, the truth is that the GOP leadership is willing to do whatever is necessary to place extreme, right wing activist judges on the bench. The Republicans hope that these judicial nominees will be more willing to get involved in the personal decisions of Americans- particularly those related to personal issues such as reproductive healthcare. In recent weeks the headlines have been dominated by a number of issues where the far right hopes to see future judicial intervention.

In March we saw the extreme measures the conservative right would go to with the Terry Schiavo case. The movement to involve Congress and the Courts in this case was led by many in the anti-choice movement. Randall Terry of Operation Rescue was on the front lines of this debate as the spokesperson for Terri Schiavo's parents. After the Schiavo case concluded, Majority Leader Tom DeLay issued this threat to the federal judges who did not intervene:

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Visit the website of Think Progress for more.

In another startling development, states across the country have started to pass laws that allow pharmacists the power to deny filling prescriptions based on "ethical or religious principles." Most often they are refusing to stock or distribute birth control pills. Visit Planned Parenthood for more information.

Thankfully several Democratic governors, including Janet Napolitano in Arizona and Rod Blagojevich in Illinois are fighting back and vetoing such bills and demanding that pharmacists not interfere between a woman and her doctor.

Perhaps most importantly, this is all a build up to the expected battle over Supreme Court nominations and the attempt by the far right to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Conservative columnist David Brooks summed up the rationale for the "nuclear option" in an op-ed in the New York Times on Thursday, April 21, 2005:

"Majority parties have often contemplated changing the filibuster rules, but they have always turned back because the costs are so high. But, fired by passions over abortion, Republican leaders have subordinated every other consideration to the need to overturn Roe v. Wade."

With a number of Supreme Court vacancies expected in the near future, it is critical for women who care about their rights to get involved now. Stopping the GOP's effort to end the filibuster for judicial nominations is about defending your rights. Send a message to Congress that you won't stand back and allow your personal freedoms to be eroded.

ACTION STEPS

The most important step you can take is to call your United States Senators TODAY. The main switchboard number at the U.S. Capitol is 202-224-3121.

Democratic Senators need to know their constituents are supporting them. You can help strengthen their resolve.

Republican Senators need to know that their actions are being watched and that constituents are strongly opposed to changing the rules.

In addition, there are several Republican Senators who will make the difference. Let these Senators know where you stand. Your voice matters! The Democrats must get 7 votes from across the aisle to beat back this challenge to your rights.

Senators that have already indicated they are opposed to the rule change:
Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) 202-224-2921
John McCain (Arizona) 202-224-2235
Olympia Snowe (Maine) 202-224-5344

Senators that will cast the deciding votes:
Susan Collins (Maine) 202-224-2523
Mike DeWine (Ohio) 202-224-2315
Chuck Hegel (Nebraska) 202-224-4224
Gordon Smith (Oregon) 202-224-3753
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) 202-224-4254
John Sununu (New Hampshire) 202-224-2841
John Warner (Virginia) 202-224-2023

Maybe people who think the pay gap is a myth are folks not struggling to pay for the family essentials of groceries, child care and medical needs. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) reminds us, "41 percent of women are their families' sole source of income. When women earn more, an entire family benefits. We must ensure equal pay for women and families." We agree.

THIS IS WHY WE FIGHT TO SAVE GUARANTEED BENEFITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY

American women continue to feel the consequences of this large and growing pay gap when they retire. Because women earn less, they have less left over at the end of each month to save for their own retirement. And women are much less likely to have other sources of income such as pensions. Older women depend on Social Security to make ends meet. Without it, more than half of all women seniors would live in poverty.

Despite earning just 76 cents to every dollar a man earns, women cannot pay 76% of their rent or 76% of the gas bills. Democrats across the country honor the contributions that women make everyday. Democrats will continue to fight for equal pay, and other issues important to women, such as Social Security. Women can't afford Bush's privatization scheme which threatens to reduce their guaranteed benefits and ties them to the ups-and-downs of the stock market."

ENERGY BILL DISASTER

While women's paychecks keep coming up short, gas prices are eating up what little bit of cash is left once the monthly bills are paid! As gas prices surge over $2 per gallon, Bush and the Washington Republicans are scrambling to use the crisis to push through their right-wing agenda while giving the appearance of doing something.

The only thing rising faster than gas prices right now is the influence that the energy industry wields over the Republican Party. For Republicans to use public anxiety over energy prices to push a bill written by and for oil companies is politics at its worst. American families need leaders who will work to lower gas prices, not work to increase energy industry profits.

In March, the Senate enacted one of Bush's key energy proposals: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. Now, Bush claims that passing the energy bill is the next step. The House is currently considering an energy bill that is nearly identical to a measure that passed the House in 2003 but failed in the Senate. This energy bill is a staggering special interest giveaway that hurts the environment and does nothing to reduce gas prices.

So who stands to gain from this Republican energy proposal?

Moms driving carpools: NO
Families with daily errands: NO
Women driving to night classes: NO

Big Energy Companies: YES
Oil companies with MTBE lawsuits: YES
Bush Campaign Donors with oil ties: YES

House Republican Energy Bill Is a Tax Giveaway to Big Energy Companies.

According to the Washington Post, the bill House Republicans moved this week contains $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry. These are the same companies enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.

And what a surprise - House Leader Tom DeLay (R) found time amidst his denial of ethical lapses to write into the legislation a special provision that would protect chemical makers from any MTBE liability after 2003. Where are more than a dozen companies affected by MTBE lawsuits headquartered? Why it's Texas, the same state House Leader Tom DeLay and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Rep. Joe Barton (R) represent. An MTBE waiver just happens to be a top priority of the oil refining industry.

What is MTBE? MTBE is a dangerous chemical used in gasoline to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from cars and dissolves easily in water, does not readily cling to soil, so it moves rapidly into the ground-making it likely to seep into water supplies. Its powerful turpentine-like taste and odor make water undrinkable. Contamination usually results from leaks at gasoline stations. [New York Times, 4/15/05]

Energy Bill Is Payoff for Campaign Contributions

• Joe Barton, House Energy Committee Chairman And a Close DeLay Associate, Received $1.8 Million in Campaign Contributions from Energy Industry.
• Barton Chose Staffers Close to DeLay and MTBE Producers. Key hires for the Energy Committee staff have backgrounds as either former lobbyists for Energy Companies of MTBE producers.
• At least 22 energy company executives and their spouses were either "Pioneers" or "Rangers" [fundraising levels for Bush Cheney campaign], according to the Washington Post.

Former Tom DeLay Aide Admits that Energy Bill Will Not Solve Gas Price Problem, But Only Gives Appearance of Doing Something.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "Politically, it doesn't matter if such provisions deal with the long term, said [Stuart Roy, a Republican strategist and former aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)]."

It may not stem gas prices, but environmental groups say the energy bill includes delays in important and tough standards to reduce air pollution in smoggy areas and exempt certain oil and gas activities from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act. Maybe those issues would have been discussed - had the Bush administration included environmental groups in the development of a national energy plan. But the Bush administration had a busy calendar, meeting instead with energy industry representatives. Task force officials met with 118 energy groups. Environmental, academics and consumer groups received a total of 19 opportunities for inclusion. And remember that in April 2001, Ken Lay transferred to Vice President Cheney a wish list memo detailing Enron's positions on energy...wish lists that were quite similar to sections of Cheney's energy plan.

At least we know here we stand with the Bush administration and the Washington Republicans. We stand with all the other hard-working Americans at the gas pump wondering just who is making profits off our gas purchases.

IT AIN'T OVER TILL THE FAT MAN SINGS

This week's new update on the ethical lapses for House GOP Leader Tom DeLay: DeLay invited donors to share a skybox with him at a Three Tenors concert, a skybox paid for by super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is currently under investigation by the Senate. Just two months after the concert, DeLay voted against gambling legislation that Abramoff was lobbying against. The skybox tickets were worth thousands of dollars, and DeLay never reported the gift. Learn more at the updated casefile for DeLay 'The Scandal Man.'

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/DeLaycasefile/index.html

COMMITTEE VOTE ON CONTROVERSIAL JUDGE COULD LEAD TO NUCLEAR OPTION

In what many observers view as the opening salvo in the judicial confirmation battle, the Republicans on the Judiciary committee voted along party-lines to approve the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Democrats strongly oppose Brown's nomination, and the Senate Republican leadership is threatening to use the so-called nuclear option to silence Democrats and approve her nomination on a party-line vote.

Democrats oppose Ms. Brown's nomination because her record does not reflect the solid American mainstream values that she's supposed to be donning a black robe to defend. But even more troubling is the Republicans' threat to detonate our nation's 200-year-old tradition of checks and balances and appoint someone, who has been judged unfit for the judiciary by her peers on the California Bar, to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

Listed below is just a sample of Ms. Brown's out-of-the-mainstream record:

California Bar Found Brown To Be "Unqualified" For State Court. When Brown was nominated to the California state supreme court in 1996, she was found "unqualified" by the California state bar evaluation committee because she was "prone to inserting conservative personal views into her appellate opinions" and because of complaints that she was "insensitive to established precedent." [Los Angeles Times, 4/26/96]

President of California Black Lawyers Association Opposes Brown's Nomination. "The most serious opposition to Brown's nomination could come from groups such as the California Association of Black Lawyers. 'Although we would like to see an African American female be elevated to a higher court, especially eventually to the Supreme Court, we do not see how we can support someone who is diametrically opposed to our goals,' said Gillian Small, the group's president. Brown is African American." [Sacramento Bee, 7/26/03]

Brown On Seniors: Cannibalizing Their Grandchildren. Brown: "Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much 'free' stuff as the political system will permit them to extract." [pfaw.org; Dissenting opinion in Stevenson v. Superior Court, 941 P.2d 1157,1177, 1187 (Cal. 1997)]

Brown On Affirmative Action: Rejecting History, Doing A Disservice. Brown's dissenting opinion in a controversial case concerning affirmative action was severely criticized by the California Supreme Court's chief justice. The Chief Justice said her opinion incorrectly claimed that past Supreme Court decisions approving affirmative action were "wrongly decided" and that her analysis "represents a serious distortion of history and does a grave disservice to the sincerely held views of a significant segment of our populace." [Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose; 12 P.3d 1068]

Brown On Choice: Requiring Paternal Notification. "Brown could be in trouble for having issued such a strong dissent in the parental consent case - 1997's American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, in which the majority struck down a law that would have required minors to get permission before having abortions." [Legal Times, 3/3/03; New York Times, 12/27/02]

Environmental Advocates Strenuously Object To Brown. She has also denounced the Supreme Court's landmark ruling U.S. v. Carolene Products; a view which, if adopted, according to a wide array of environmental advocates, "would signal the death-knell for a vast range of health, labor, and environmental standards it enacted during the last century." [ http://www.earthjustice.org/]

Brown Has Come Out Against Sexual Harassment Protections. On the California Supreme Court, Brown has taken positions that would undermine legal protections against harassment, including sexual harassment, in the workplace. She would have struck down an injunction against the continued use of obscenities and ethnic slurs like "wetback" against Latino employees, and she even raised doubts about whether women subjected to offensive verbal conduct of a sexual nature can challenge it as sexual harassment under Title VII, despite well-established, longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedents finding that such conduct is illegal. [Dissenting opinion in Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 980 P.2d 846 (Cal. 1999)]

Brown's Views Endanger Gender Discriminations Protection Law. According to the National Women's Law Center, "Brown's views threaten the progress that has been made over the last 30 years in invalidating harmful gender discrimination in the law under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as protection of a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy under the constitutional right to privacy. She has said that judicial decision-making should rest on 'natural law,' which could turn the clock back to the time when the 'laws of nature and God' were explicitly used by the courts to justify sex discrimination based on archaic notions about women's roles and 'nature.' And she has attacked the courts for protecting fundamental rights not written expressly in the Constitution (and the right to privacy is not mentioned explicitly), and, when the state Supreme Court struck down an abortion restriction, she protested in dissent that the majority had subjected the restriction to 'an inherently insurmountable level of scrutiny' and that 'the judgment call belongs to the Legislature.'" [NWLC 11/03; American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 940 P.2d at 891 (Cal. 1997).]

DEMOCRATS TAKING THE LEAD
FIGHTING TO TAKE BACK OUR STATE LEGISLATURES

Colorado Sen. President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D) is enjoying her new majority party status in the Colorado Legislature this year. Colorado was one state where Democrats wrestled back control of their State Legislature after years of GOP control. But Leader Fitz-Gerald isn't stopping at Colorado - she's coming to your state! Fitz-Gerald is the President of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, a national political organization dedicated to the election and retention of Democratic control in State Legislatures across the country. Fitz-Gerald and the DLCC work in the grassroots, arming Democrats with the tools necessary to modernize and professionalize state legislative campaigns to be competitive in today's electoral environment. The Week in Review applauds this Democratic Leader and encourages women to consider running for office.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

CALLER: I'm bothered by the statistic that they use to support Equal Pay Day. They make it sound like women only earn 76 percent of a man.

LIMBAUGH: I know. That is BS. I mean, that's a 30-year-old figures, and it has changed. They don't update it, just like the Reverend Jackson doesn't update the racial progress we make in the country. He'd be out of business if he did, and so would the female equal-pay crowd.

Rush Limbaugh Show, April 15, Media Matters for America