Marcia Greenberger: Thank you very much. Thank you all so much for joining us today for this important conversation about the Supreme Court and what's at risk for women. My name is Marcia Greenberger and I am the co-president of the National Women's Law Center. The Center is an organization that has been fighting for over 30 years to advance and protect women's rights. We work to improve women's health and to secure their reproductive rights. We fight discrimination at work and at school. We are working to achieve retirement security for women and on many other issues that are so critical to women and girls across the country. And because our past gains are increasingly threatened by a judiciary that is becoming more and more hostile to women's rights and family security, we are working especially hard now on judicial nominations. to stay on top of the issue, we hope you'll check our blog at nominationwatch.org and also watch for alerts from the center on late-breaking developments. We are very pleased to have Senator Barbara Boxer joining us for this call, and I will tell you a little bit more about her and her amazing contributions to protect women's rights in a minute. But first I want to thank the hundreds of participants we have joining us live on the phone from across the country, and countless others participating live online.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: We've already received so many wonderful insightful questions from many of you and we're going to launch right into answering some of those right now. And in addition, if at any time during the call you wish to submit a live question please email nominationwatch@nwlc.org. That's nominationwatch@nwlc.org for any live question you want to submit. We will try to get to as many of your questions as we can. Barbara Boxer is an extraordinary senator from California, and at the moment, she is on the Senate floor. There is a vote on an amendment that she has introduced dealing with pesticides, an environmental issue of great importance, obviously to women and their families. We're expecting the vote will end any minute, and that she will join us just right off the Senate floor as soon as the vote is concluded. So as soon as she joins us, I will give an introduction to Senator Boxer, and what I will do is begin with some of the questions that have been directed to me, and we'll go to Senator Boxer as soon as the vote on her amendment is concluded.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: So let me ask a question from Chevy Chase, Md., and then respond. Can you give some examples of how the Supreme Court and other courts have an impact on our everyday lives as working women, mothers, young and old-? And that, I must say, is a pretty basic and important question because so many people think, “oh, well, the courts, they are just dealing with issues that don't have anything to do with me,” but nothing could be further from the truth. And whether it's some of the lower federal courts or in the Supreme Court, they are very vital to everyone in this country, and no more is that true than in the case of women. And let me give you a couple examples. The Supreme Court, interprets all of our basic laws that protect against discrimination: discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in getting credit, discrimination in schools, the right to equal pay, protection against sexual harassment. And we have in the Supreme Court over the years, a series of decisions that have interpreted the laws that give us these protections, and women in particular as we know, really need them. And the court decides whether our laws are going to have meaning or not. It's true in the area of family and medical leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act ensures that anyone with an illness or disability or a dependant who needs their care can take unpaid leave and doesn't have to lose their job when they need to deal with family emergencies or their own sickness or illness or disability. The Supreme Court has decided to reach the effectiveness of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court -- and needless to say, for so many parents and so many kids, safety in kids couldn't be a more important issue.

Can Congress prohibit guns in schools? These are issues that the Supreme Court has decided that affect our daily lives and of course there's a lot of attention to the issue of the right to choose, abortion rights for women, rights to contraception, our very basic right to privacy. A lot of the decisions are 5-4 just hanging by a thread. The Supreme Court just by 5-4 said Congress can pass a law that prohibits guns in schools. By 5-4 the Supreme Court said Congress can't require the states to protect against age discrimination. On the other hand, we've won some important decisions 5-4 involving sexual harassment, involving Title IX and young women's access to sports and protection against sexual harassment in schools as well … on our basic laws that deal with equal opportunity in the workplace, on affirmative action for women and people of color. These are issues that are so important. And in the right to choose, a 5-4 decision basically upholding the about of women to have to choose abortion when their lives are at stake. These are key issues affecting the everyday lives of women, and unfortunately many of them being decided, life and death issues, by 5-4.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: There's another question here from Santa Cruz, Calif. We'll go around the coast and other parts of the country as well. Why should young women care about judicial nominations?

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well, for young women, needless to say, the stakes are the highest in the sense that all of these are issues young women will face through their lifetimes. And what we've seen especially in the case of this administration is a desire to appoint people to the federal bench who are young and who will be on the bench for 20, 30 years and more. There is so much public attention right now to Chief Justice Rehnquist, and whether he's going to step down. Well, he was appointed to the Supreme Court over 30 years ago and he has been ruling on all of these issues. The Family Medical Leave Act. Who even heard of the Family Medical Leave Act 30 years ago? Women's right to choose. The laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Title IX. It was just a brand-new law passed just after he went on the court. So for young women, these nominees to the Supreme Court and the federal court are going to be deciding their rights throughout their lives. And they are deciding rights that affect young women right this very minute. We’re seeing some of the judges who were appointed and nominated to lower courts questioning whether there's even a constitutionally protected right to privacy, which has been the bedrock principle that has allowed access to contraception. Imagine if young women were told today that they had no right to access to contraception. Forty years ago, just 40 years ago, the state of Connecticut had a law in place that said even married couples had no right to get access to contraception with a doctor's prescription or in any other way. It was the Supreme Court in a famous decision, the Griswold case that said just 40 years ago that we as Americans have a right to privacy and the right to secure access to contraception. When now we have judges appointed that criticized the fact that we have any rights to privacy, these basic rights are at risk and they will affect young women particularly.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: We have another question. We'll go from California to Rochester, N.Y. Writing a letter or making a phone call often isn't enough to make your voice heard, especially if you are young and not in a position of power. What else could young women be doing to influence the policies of our government and community?

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: This is such a key question, of course, for young people and for everyone. And it's an important question for any of our public policies, but in no instance more important than in the area of the courts. And we know with all of the rumors about the Supreme Court that we could be facing a vacancy on the Supreme Court to be announced at any moment. And I think that if anything has become clear over the last several elections, both federal, presidential, and on the state level too. How close many of these elections are, how much just a few votes can make all the difference in who wins, who loses, and the direction of our country. And so people need to speak out and realize that they, as individuals, not only as voters, but also as interested citizens, can have enormous power with their elected officials if they make their views known. And that means young or old, speak out and speak up. Writing a letter and making a phone call is important. Don’t dismiss that. I must say writing a letter to Congress these days may not be the most effective thing because of the way the mail works, but faxing, emailing, making a phone call, calling a local office, especially for a senator because senators are the ones who confirm judicial appointments. It is critical. Also, it's really important to make sure that you alert your friends and your family to what's at stake. And urge them to speak out too. And those are the kinds of things that can make an enormous difference. Young people have amazing networks. And the Internet and email these days keep people in touch in ways that they never did before, and young people are incredibly well-positioned and able to get the word out and encourage their friends and family to speak up too, and of course also to volunteer with organizations that are working on these issues in your community and nationally. And again, just a reminder, please, watch for the alerts from the National Women’s Law Center to give you a sense of where some of these fights are.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Here's a question from Redwood City, Calif. And hopefully we'll be hearing from Senator Boxer soon, and I know she'll be pleased to know how many people from California are asking questions. The question is: I hear some pundits suggest Roe v. Wade will never actually be overturned by the Supreme Court. How likely do you think it is that a more conservative Supreme Court would overturn Roe? If that doesn't happen, where do you see the future of abortion rights in America in 10 years? Will we have even greater restraints?

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: This obviously is a question that affects all of us across the country, the first issue is -- could it really happen that Roe v. Wade would actually be overturned by the Supreme Court? And I have to say, and it's with enormous sadness and distress that I say it -- I do believe that Roe v. Wade really could be overturned. And that would be an extraordinary event in the history of this country to think that a fundamental right and civil liberty would have been taken away when our whole history has been to expand rights, not take them away. But what we've seen with Roe v. Wade is a series of the appointments to the Supreme Court of people who have made their minds up that they want to overturn Roe v. Wade. And for this administration and President, I have a shocking thing to say -- with all of the federal nominations that he has made so far, to lower appellate courts, not one includes a person who has any public record in support of Roe v. Wade. And President Bush said during both his campaigns in 2000 and 2004, that he will pick justices to the Supreme Court that are in the mold of Justices Thomas and Scalia who are already on the Supreme Court. Those two justices have said in their written opinions that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And in fact, so has Justice Rehnquist. So we have nine justices on the Supreme Court: three of them have said explicitly that if it were up to them, and they were in the majority, they would overturn Roe v. Wade. One other justice now, we're up to four, has already voted to allow states to restrict women's access to abortions, even when their health is put at risk by the restriction. And that is a major, major cutback. So we now have now four justices out of nine who have either said Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned explicitly or it ought to be restricted very seriously. And that means even if it isn't overturned, in a very short period of time, depending on vacancies, we're only one vote away from serious restrictions that could all but make abortion unattainable for most women in this country, including women who need it because of their health. So it is a very serious issue.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: There’s another question. And this is from Joliet, Ill. The question is: Why does everyone focus on abortion when discussing women's rights, but never equal pay, violence against women, etc. Well, I think there is an enormous amount of attention to Roe v. Wade because just as I said, so much is at risk. And we are so close to seeing Roe v. Wade either being overturned outright or being cut back so severely that most women will not be able to have access to a safe and legal abortion if they need it. Even when they have serious health needs that require the abortion. So it's understandable, with justices on the Supreme Court and many federal lower court judges being nominated and on the bench now who say they want to see Roe v. Wade overturned that, there's a lot of debate about it. But of course that really isn't all that is at stake, as important as that is. Equal pay is another issue. We’ve had 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court where our core laws like Title VII that prohibit sex discrimination in employment have been interpreted very, very narrowly, and we've had a case just in this term in the Supreme Court, a Title IX case that prohibits sex discrimination in schools where 5-4, the Supreme Court held that when a teacher or a coach speaks out to protect those students, those girls that are in his class, that that teacher is protected by Title IX against being fired and retaliated against for in essence being a whistleblower for those girls' rights. if we couldn't have teachers and coaches speak out when they see illegal sex discrimination in schools, what kind of effective Title IX law could we have? But we only have that right now by 5-4. And I could go on with some of the other issues too. And I know Senator Boxer she feels so strongly about this, will talk about the range of issues that are at stake for women and their families. And I know Senator Boxer will be on with us any minute now. But let me just say one other thing about violence against women.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Women in this country fought long and hard to pass the Violence Against Women Act a number of years ago. But the Supreme Court said that Congress couldn't give women a right to go to court and enforce the protections -- that the Violence Against Women Act provided. One of the decisions we lost just by the slimmest vote. So these are really, really are critical issues that again, deal with the ability to earn a living, the ability to get an education. The ability to be safe in our homes and in our schools.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: I've got some live questions that I wanted to ask, one from Portland, Maine. The question is: I would like to know where some of the current Supreme Court justices stand on issues that are important to women. An excellent question.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: We've got nine justices. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have been very explicit in their views. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade. They have voted, fortunately, in dissent, but repeatedly, to narrow our civil rights laws that protect women. For example, in the case in the Supreme Court just this term that we won 5-4, Justices Scalia and Thomas said teachers and coaches can be fired when they try to protect girls against sex discrimination. They said in other cases that girls are not protected when they are sexually harassed by their peers in class even though women have that protection in the workplace. They said they couldn’t pass the Violence Against Women Act. They said they would not require states to live up to the Age Discrimination Act to protect against discrimination for older workers, so critical for women as well as men. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, in most of those instances, Justice Rehnquist has agreed with them, but interestingly, not all. Justice Rehnquist has not been a supporter of women's rights in most instances, but, he has sometimes -- he has sometimes actually been supportive such as in the area of the Family Medical Leave Act where he disagrees with Justices Thomas and Scalia. But he has been mostly on the side of limiting women's rights in school, in the workplace, and certainly has supported overturning Roe v. Wade. Another justice has a mixed position but unfortunately he often, too, has been one that has voted against women's rights. He’s done that in the area of employment discrimination, in the area of Title IX and students' rights. He’s done that in the area of wanting to narrow Roe v. Wade very seriously, again, in the context where women's health wouldn't be protected. And although on occasion he has been a supporter of women's rights, not often been.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Senator Boxer is off the floor, and as soon as she can get connected to the call, she will be with us to answer questions. As I heard she was joining us, I was answering a question about where the justices were on the Supreme Court. And I must say that we have a swing justice in Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who has often made the difference between women having their rights and losing them. And many of these 5-4 decisions are because Justice O’Conner has sided with women's rights, whether it's in the area of saving Roe v. Wade, or just this term with Title IX and protecting against retaliation for those that speak up on behalf of female students in schools on sexual harassment protections, and the list goes on.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Thank you Senator Boxer, this is Marcia Greenberger. We've been waiting for you and are so pleased. We did tell the listeners you were fighting about pesticides and protection of family health.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: That's right. Because the EPA was about to accept studies that involved doses of pesticides, can you believe this --- for pregnant women, fetuses, and new borns. So we passed ad moratorium and we're hoping that that survives, and they will stop this ridiculous situation.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well, I wanted to say that you have been a tireless champion of women's rights and in protecting families across the country, and nothing could be a better testament to how effective you are and what an extraordinary leader you are.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Oh, thank you. Thank you, Marcia.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: And I want to say also that you are a tenacious leader in the fight over judicial nominations as, well.,I for one will never forget, as is true for women across the country, when you led women at the House of Representatives in the famous march over to the Senate way back in 1991 during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings when the Senate Jujudiciary Committee refused to hear from Anita Hill, and you have really made a sea change of a difference in the role of women in politics. We have a woman on the Judiciary Committee now. We have women in the Senate thanks to you and thank goodness you're in the Senate now. And we need your leadership now more than ever. We're all watching, needless to say, to see if we have an opening on the Supreme Court, and the prospect of another battle. So we know that you will be helping to lead that battle, and couldn't thank you more.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Well, I'm ready for whatever comes. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: S So let me give you a question from Diamond Bar, California: . Senator Boxer, what impact will the nomination and confirmation of the wrong judges have on women's rights?

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Well, clearly it will have a huge impact because so many of our rights have been won through the courts you. A lot of people don't realize that. I mean, certainly the Congress and no President ever protected a woman's right to choose. That's something I've introduced year after year since I've been in the House of Representatives. The only thing between us and the right to choose is the courts. Bottom line: they've protected us. That's one obvious right that we could lose, and not only could it be left to the states, which is terrible for some of our sisters in certain states, but it could be worse than that. They could disallow it completely. And it's very nerve-wracking. And then we have, you know, the right to contraception, which it's hard to believe that was a struggle that the court resolved, and we have the right to privacy and equality in the workplace and protection from sexual harassment. Equal pay, family medical leave it just goes on and on and on, so it just -- it's just an endless array of issues that we could lose.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well, that is very true, and let me give you a call and a question now from South Carolina. Do you agree with the compromise by 14 senators that avoided the nuclear option which would have eliminated filibusters of judicial nominations?

Sen. Barbara Boxer: We had no choice, those of us who believe in the filibuster, and I certainly do. But we had to go along with it because we did not have the votes …We had counted very carefully. The best-case scenario was a tie which Dick Cheney would have broken. So here's the option, you either compromise and get something you can't stand which are three judges you can't stand and preserve the filibuster right or lose all it right then and there and get all the bad judges then not have the right to filibusters, so right, yes, I did support it.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: We were talking about a number of things people could do. I think what you just said about how closely divided the Senate is, just underscores how important it is for people to be speaking up and speaking out and getting their friends and families from across the country to do the same.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: These issues are decided by two or three or four or five Senators. I hope people will look at this because we can't afford to go back, those of us who believe in checks and balances and what our founders built into the constitution, which is the Senate to stop things from happening by requiring a larger vote. This is all hanging in the balance.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well, now here's a question from Takoma Park, Md. As someone who worked long and hard for women's rights and opportunities, how does it make you feel to have to oppose female nominees?

Sen. Barbara Boxer: It's very difficult to have to stand up and put the full force of your power against another woman. But I think our movement has come very far, and it's -- we now have no choice. The worse thing we can have is a female judge or a female senator or a female member of Congress or a female President for that matter who is going to fight against us, who is going to hurt us. And it's the worst possible scenario. I mean, we had for example Janice Rogers Brown who I took the lead against. She got approved with the narrowest of margins, she took a lead in her decisions against women and against their rights and against their rights to equality in the workplace and age discrimination. She even was a dissenting member, the only one to stand up against an African American police officer who was blatantly discriminated against when she tried to get housing, and that hurts us. That hurts us badly. So I think yes it's uncomfortable. Because we all know that role models are important. But a role model who is filled with self-loathing, doesn't help our cause, it sets us back.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Now, a question from Lake Oswego, Oregon. It's so discouraging to see the Senate confirm nominees like the current ones who are disastrous: Owen, Brown, and Pryor. And you've just of course told us about Janice Rogers Brown and her abysmal record, and I can say the National Women's Law Center did oppose her as well. And we felt just as you say, Senator Boxer, on the one hand we wish there were more women on the bench, but they have to be women who care about women and women's rights. So to go back to the question, can you give us some hope for winning some of these battles in the future?

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Yes. We preserved the filibuster, so yes, we have hope because, you know, it's very hard for them to get 60 votes for some of these people. I think, if you remember, Marcia, our fight against Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit. That fight, we won it because we exposed her record. Terrible record. And, you know, it shamed a lot of our colleagues, and it wound up having her back out, and so she took herself out of the race. So there is of course hope because when you shine the light of truth on some of these nominees, you can persuade them to change their mind, go with someone else so there's always hope. We have to have hope in the American people. That's the bottom line. That's why this call is so important. You now know so much more than a lot of folks know, a lot of women know about the importance of the court and the importance of these fights and how they are tied to who is in the Senate. You cannot disconnect who is in the Senate from these battles. That's the bottom line.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: And Senators are supposed to represent their constituents so whatever happens in the elections one way or the other, people do have to speak out and make sure that their Senators know that they care about this. One of the things that's most distressing is they say oh, nobody's paying attention, nobody cares about the court, I can get away with voting for somebody who is going to be hostile on women's issues because my constituents won't pay attention or won't know.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: vIt's so true. There's just not a connection made between who is in the Senate and who is sitting on the courts, but it's very hard. People just say oh, he's a nice guy. Well, he may be a nice guy, but how's he voting on these judges? Is he a rubber stamp for the right wing or weighing in with an independent mind? I've got time for one more question if you've got one more.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: OK. I think the last question and this is from Washington, D.C. is this: what should President Bush do to ensure his nominations get confirmed?

Sen. Barbara Boxer: He should meet with Senator Leahy and the top Republicans and the top Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. He should respect the advice and consent role of the Senate which is built into the constitution. You read the constitution, it doesn't say roll over and play dead. Iit says advice and consent. We're an equal body. The short shrift that George Bush is giving us is amazing. For example on the Ninth Circuit they said do you have any Rrepublicans to recommend? Ii've had some terrific Republicans who believe me would be terrific on the bench. They are not off the charts. But the Adminstration won't listen. So, you know, my hope is that the President will respect the United States Senate. He hasn't at this point. And I don't have great hopes, but since we still have the filibuster, you know, he should respect us, and he should meet with us and try to have a nominee that comes forward who can unite. Now, my idea for Chief if Rehnquist steps down is Sandra Day O'Connor. I think that would be a healing choice. She's moderate a woman, wonderful, respected, terrific. That, I think would flow through Senate like water down a hill and you wouldn't have any bumps in the road so maybe some of you can help me get that idea planted.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well, Sen. Boxer, thank you so very much for taking the time to talk with us today.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Thank you, Marcia, and I just want to say about you for all your tireless efforts and work, boy, you are fantastic, and you know, you give me all these compliments, but I couldn't do what I do unless I had people behind me like you and everyone on this call because it gets lonely sometimes. You know? So thank you.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well we really appreciate your leadership and we know we can count on it, and it's going to continue so we'll all be fighting the good fight with you.

Sen. Barbara Boxer: Thank you. Bye, Marcia. Bye, everyone.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Well, we've just got a couple minutes left of the call, and I do want to thank everybody for joining in with us and again, thank you for, hopefully, working with us on these critically important issues. I want to just mention again, please visit our blog www.nominationwatch.org. We put information up frequently during the week about what's going on with judicial nominations, what's at stake for women., what we're hearing, and so please check it. Check it for all of the late-breaking news, and our analysis that you won't often see in the newspapers, let alone on talk shows or the TV.

_______________________

Marcia Greenberger: Second, we hope you will look in your email inboxes for alerts and information from the National Women's Law Center in the future, and we'll be making suggestions about things you can do to participate and really affect what's going to happen in the days to come with these judicial nominations that are just so important. And third, and also of enormous importance, please enlist as many friends and family and colleagues in this effort as you can. We'll be sending all of you a transcript of this call in the coming days, and we would really appreciate it if you would email it to others and encourage them to sign up to receive these alerts and get information. You can help those who have responsibility in the Senate to decide, regardless of whether they are going to confirm or not, that they will give the kind of searching scrutiny that they need to of any of these nominees, that they won't be a rubber stamp, that Senators will make sure that for decades to come, especially on the Supreme Court, but for the lower courts as well, that we have judges and justices who are going to use their 20 or 30 years on the bench to protect our rights and not take them away. So thank you again so very much for participating with us for fighting the fight with us, and we look forward to staying in touch with you. Goodbye.

_______________________

Moderator: This concludes our Viewpoint discussion with the National Women's Law Center. Please visit Viewpoints for the archived version of this discussion. We apologize for any inconvenience with the capital text format; this will be corrected for the archived transcript. Many thanks for tuning in.

_______________________