The Gore campaign has played the fear card to extremes, using the Supreme Court as the trump. “We can’t let George Bush nominate Supreme Court justices” is the refrain sung against images of back-alley abortions.

The idea that Republican nominees threaten women’s reproductive choices has been repeated uncritically so often that unsuspecting voters have begun to believe it. But it’s an argument that wilts under scrutiny.

Ask Democrats to name a progressive justice appointed by their party and you’ll likely be met with blank stares. It’s not surprising because on a court that contains two Clinton nominees, most legal scholars agree that the two most progressive justices have been David Souter and John Paul Stevens, both nominated by Republicans and the former nominated by George W. Bush’s dad!

The Gore campaign invokes the Roe v Wade decision at every opportunity, but conveniently fails to mention that a court dominated by six Republican nominees (including one of the two dissenting justices) decided the case--written by Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun. Any honest Democrat also would acknowledge that the century’s strongest progressive force was William Brennan, another Republican nominee.

So should civil liberties advocates rally for Bush? Hardly. But while presenting justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as legitimate examples of what progressives fear, Gore’s boosters conveniently ignore the fact that the voting records of Supreme Court justices often differ tremendously from the political views of the presidents who nominate them.

Choosing presidents based on their prospective Supreme Court nominees is a shaky proposition at best, and liberals have been disappointed as well by Democrat-appointed justices like Byron White, a Kennedy pick.

Remember that the party-controlled Senate has the ultimate power to confirm or deny nominations. As a Senator, Al Gore voted to confirm Scalia, one of the justices he now hypocritically parades as an example of why progressives must vote (for Gore) against Bush, instead of voting for Ralph Nader or other challengers.

Gore’s record further belies his avowals. In the Senate, he voted for the Hyde Amendment's restrictions on access to abortion for poor women. Previously, in the House of Representatives, Gore gained an 84% approval rating for his “pro-life” votes from the National Right to Life League. Yet Gore now says he “always” has supported a woman’s right to choose.

Despite the facts, organizations that allegedly serve to protect the interests of pro-choice women, not the Democratic Party, have joined the scare campaign. A new commercial by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) warns that Mr. Bush's goal is "ending legal abortion" (an accusation utterly lacking evidence) and concludes, "Before voting Nader, consider the risk." Clinton and Gore have failed to act in any way while abortion was made unavailable in 86% of the counties in the United States during their two terms.

Another ignored issue is that the Supreme Court traditionally has been a follower, not a leader of public opinion, and likely will continue in that reactionary role with either of the dominant parties controlling nominations. George W. Bush is a politician. To think that he would sabotage his career and party deliberately by selecting a judge who would overturn the overwhelmingly popular Roe v Wade borders on the ridiculous.

Rather than focusing narrowly on one issue, we encourage citizens to examine the broader impact of the courts, like the courts’ ongoing erosion of Bill of Rights protections in the name of suppressing “terrorism,” government-disfavored drugs, and even political protest. Justices nominated by both parties have shown disregard for our Constitution by supporting “corporate personhood” and the doctrine of money equaling speech.

Appointments to the federal judiciary are important, and there are real differences between the Democratic and Republican appointments, especially below the level of the Supreme Court. Reasonable people may weigh court appointments heavily in choosing to vote for Bush or Gore, but too many Americans have opinions on this topic without a base of sound information.

Whatever one’s political persuasion, it’s important to recognize that false friends often can do more harm than known adversaries. Before citizens succumb to voting out of fear rather than belief, consider one thought. How can you expect your elected officials to vote their conscience if you don't?

Jeff Milchen is the founder of ReclaimDemocracy.org, a non-profit group dedicated to reviving American democracy and revoking illegitimate corporate power over civic society.

© 2000 Jeff Milchen

Note: ReclaimDemocracy.org is a non-partisan organization and makes no endorsements. We encourage you to support the candidates who have earned your vote.

###