|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Another Judicial Nominee - Michael Fisher for the 3rd Circuit
Feminist News Wire
Quote:
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Pennsylvania Attorney General Michael Fisher to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Fisher opposes the right to abortion, and as a state legislator and Attorney General has advocated draconian restrictions, including requiring spousal consent, in order to limit women's access to abortion. Fisher also opposes requiring health insurance plans to cover the cost of contraception, as they cover the costs of other drugs.
Fisher's nomination continues the trend of the administration selecting far-right nominees for the federal judiciary. In fact, according to a Philadelphia Daily News report, four women, all recommended by the Republican Senators of Pennsylvania, were rejected for this nomination because they were not sufficiently anti-abortion.
Just three months before his nomination, a federal jury found that Fisher violated the federal civil rights of two state employees by retaliating against them for reporting suspected wrongdoing. The case is being appealed to the Third Circuit--the very court to which Fisher has been nominated. During the hearing yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed concern about a nominee to the federal bench having committed such a serious act, saying, "I am troubled by the jury verdict."
|
Independent Judiciary Report on Fisher
Quote:
His record reflects a strong opposition to reproductive rights, hostility to rights for gays and lesbians, insufficient commitment to the separation of church and state, vigorous advocacy for the death penalty, unrelenting support of gun rights organizations, and opposition to important environmental and workers� rights initiatives.
* * *
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Fisher strongly favored denying citizens access to family planning services. For example, he opposed not only state funding for contraceptive services, 31 but also mandatory coverage for contraceptive in prescription drug plans.32 Furthermore, Fisher supported public health care funding for religious groups that would have denied women access to family planning services, and commented that to do otherwise would constitute �an attempt to force the very people myself and the President would like to see delivering the social services that they believe are important to the public� to act against their religious beliefs.33
. . .
Separation of Church and State
Throughout his career, Fisher has been outspoken about his religious beliefs and the role that religion should play in public policy and public life. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Fisher stated:
- We believe that faith-based delivery of social services is not only the economical way to go, but it�s a smart way to go . . . I recognize the importance of the separation between church and state, but I also recognize the important role that God and Jesus Christ have played in my life. We need to make sure that religion, and faith in God and faith in our country continue to play an important role with Pennsylvanians . . . [y]ou can�t separate your public life from your private life.86
In 1996, Fisher sparked outrage when he attempted to make it a crime to disrupt events such as St. Patrick�s Day parades in response to protests by gays and lesbians in Boston over their exclusion from that city�s parade.87 He explained this and his advertising campaign targeting the �small and biased band of bigots� as an attempt to promote �religious tolerance.�88 Additionally, during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Fisher sent a letter to thousands of Catholics across the state of Pennsylvania urging their support and emphasizing that he �shares the church�s viewpoints on abortion, school vouchers, and homosexual partnerships.�89
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court refused to allow Pennsylvania to exempt religious publications and other items of worship from the state�s sales tax. 90 Fisher�s press secretary noted Fisher�s displeasure with the decision, and commented, �Pennsylvanians should be encouraged to read the Bible, not be taxed for it.�91
Furthermore, in 2003 Fisher urged the Third Circuit to reverse a district court ruling ordering that a plaque of the Ten Commandments be removed from a Chester County courthouse.92 Fisher argued that the district court erred in part by failing to consider that the plaque was displayed on an exterior wall, adjacent to an entrance that is permanently closed.93 Furthermore, Fisher claimed that the district court erred by ignoring the historical significance of the plaque because the Ten Commandments are �not only a biblical text, but a statement of historical law displayed on the wall of a building in which laws are administered.�94 Thus, Fisher concluded, the plaque�s �primary function� is an endorsement of law, not religion. 95
...
|
|
10-18-2003, 12:05 AM
