July 17, 2005
By Matthew Hansen
Lincoln Journal Star
It's a vacancy that liberals and conservatives agree is vitally important because her replacement may swing the court on such hot-button issues as abortion, gay marriage, the separation of church and state and the environment.
"We do have two independent senators who don't necessarily follow party lines," says Dean Dennhardt, a local spokesman for Progress for America, a conservative group. "So there's an opportunity here for Nebraskans, for our leaders, to have a voice during this thing."
Recognizing this, Progress for America's national leadership is planning to spend money on television ads and direct mailings in Nebraska, he says. The local chapter will hold press conferences and talk to as many Nebraskans as possible about why they should support Bush's as-yet unnamed nominee.
The level of organization is stunning at this stage of the nomination and confirmation process, but also necessary if Progress for America wants to leave an impression on the state's citizens and politicians, he says.
"We remember the Bork nomination, what the left did during that nomination," Dennhardt says, referencing President Ronald Reagan's failed attempt to place Robert Bork on the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago. "We just refuse to let that happen to this president's nominee."
Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in 1987 after a memorable battle.
The Judicial Confirmation Network, another influential conservative group expected to support whomever Bush nominates, also plans to spend money in Nebraska.
The Nebraska Family Council and Family First already have joined the local chapter, says Christine Vanderford, a Lincoln lawyer and the local organizer for the Judicial Confirmation Network.
These groups are clearly interested in banning legal abortions, which conservatives see as newly possible because of the retirement of the pro-choice O'Connor, but the Judicial Confirmation Network also cares about a plethora of conservative issues Vanderford feels have been ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past.
"A judge's stance on Roe is important, but that's not the only issue, so don't paint it that way," Vanderford says. "Generally I'd like to see less judicial activism, more religious freedom, more religious expression."
Click here for full story
|
