by Elenora Giddings Ivory

How do we break the partisan logjam and nominate candidates that not only respect our constitutional principles but can be accepted by both parties?

Over the next few years, the Judiciary Committee of the Senate is expected to review nominees for appointment to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other justices. Appellate Division and District Court vacancies across the United States are periodic.

It is a rare occasion when the historic religious community speaks out on the issue of the appointment of judges. As a 501-c-3 organization, we are prohibited from lending support or opposition to a particular elected or appointed public official. However, it is not beyond the scope of our authority to say something about a process where there may be an injustice or disregard of civil rights.

The advocacy community has been quietly watching the judicial nomination process over several years and now has begun to come forward to raise distinct concerns that go beyond the individuals who seek appointment to these benches.

Civil rights, through the interpretation of law, are in the balance with each appointment to the courts. Out of a deep concern for the fundamental civil rights of all people, the religious community lifts up our concerns on this topic.

Over recent years, our democracy has matured. We now accept the fact that certain rights and privileges must be available to all who claim this nation as their own. As judicial candidates are reviewed, we urge the President and the Senate to seek those persons who would evaluate the behavior and actions of an individual, a corporation, or even a legislative body - as to how the questions of fact in a case may have either violated or upheld the agreed upon laws of society. This requires judges who start with profound respect for our constitutional principles.

Within the religious traditions of the interfaith community, we understand the position of judge to be the one who stands as the protector of the traditions and tenets that have been handed down to us by our prophets, apostles and revered adjudicators.

At the same time, we would be the first to say that our laws have not always been perfect. They have, in the past, denied civil rights to women and people of color. But we corrected many of these blemishes through the legislative process, based on the advocacy of the people. To name just a few:

• The right to worship and speak freely;
• The right to express our political opinion by our vote;
• The right to equal protection;
• Equal access to housing; and
• Equal opportunity to employment.

We join our voice with others who call your attention to civil rights, women's rights, environmental, worker, consumer and disability rights. We ask that the Judiciary Committee in the Senate appoint justices who would be fair and balanced. We need a federal judiciary that will protect the rights and safety of all Americans.

Those who come before our court system must not come to understand that their fate rests in the interpretation of the law based on the personal bias of the judge before whom they stand, instead of being judged by the law resulting from many public debates, debates that lead to the development of the law under which they are being judged.

We understand the primary responsibility of a judge to be one that does not judge the law itself, but judges the behavior of the person who stands before him or her as the one who has been accused of being in violation of that law. Neither do we understand it to be the prerogative of a judge to make new laws based on an ideology that may be seen as either conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, right or left.

We have witnessed the stalemating of appointments during both a Democrat- and a Republican- controlled process. The stalemating has hurt the very people our civil rights have been designed to protect. Empty judicial benches have led to backlog and only serve to deny both the plaintiff and the defendants the right to a speedy trial.

On the other hand, we know that our constitutional rights are too important to rush these appointments. We urge the President of the United States, and the Senate, to make deliberate, well-informed decisions in considering confirmations for the Supreme Court, Appellate and District Courts, and to refuse to act on any nomination that has not received full and complete scrutiny to assure fairness.

Judicial appointments are lifetime. The long-term consequences could be devastating with the wrong person in place. These judges are often the court of last resort for virtually all Americans. Senators have a constitutional duty to make these determinations carefully.

Advocates may want to contact their Senators. Urge them to take seriously the confirmation process so that our court system reflects fairness for all who may come before it and invokes respect from all citizens. The information above can be the basis of your letter or phone call or email.

The number of vacant seats changes as appointments are made (following confirmation in the Senate). To keep up-to-date on the latest numbers and particular seats, you may want to visit the Federal Judiciary Web site and type in 'vacancy' in the search feature. You may want to see if your regional courts are filled.

General Assembly:

The Church and Criminal Justice: Toward a Theology of Criminal Justice (excerpts from the 1978 statement of the PCUS, pp. 194-204)

While the Christian Faith in itself cannot provide the details of a good justice system, it can and should speak about the fundamental motives and final goals of a criminal justice system . . . and some criteria for evaluating actual practices . . .the crucial question is whether and how we can put justice and love together.

Guidelines for Evaluating the Criminal Justice System: Justice should guarantee and defend especially the rights of those who are the weakest, most vulnerable, most likely to be forgotten, exploited, or oppressed, most unable to help or defend themselves. Since the criminal justice system is part of the social fabric, injustices and social ills should be addressed within the larger context of political, social, and economic realities in our society; the criminal justice system should not be expected to cope with the results of various social problems. Influences and practices of discrimination based on racial, ethnic, sexual, or political identification should be eliminated.

(Article updated from original PC(USA) February 2003 Washington Office publication.)

Energy Bill Passes Senate

by Carolynn Race

On June 28th, the Senate passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (85-12), with 49 Republicans, 35 Democrats and one independent in support. The House passed their version of energy legislation in April. The Washington Post noted:

"After years of partisan bickering over energy policy, the Senate struck a bipartisan deal that would benefit the booming oil industry but that also begins to address the concerns of Democrats and environmentalists that more needs to be done to conserve energy and develop cleaner energy alternatives."

The Post also remarked, "By contrast, the version of the energy bill that the House approved in April is heavily tilted toward providing incentives for traditional energy production." At press time, both chambers are expected to appoint conferees to work out the differences. How do the two bills differ? How do they work to protect (or harm) God's creation for ecology and justice?

First, why should Presbyterians be concerned? In 1981, the Presbyterian Church in the United States and The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America passed The Power to Speak Truth to Power:

"The world must develop means of meeting its energy needs from sources that are sustainable over a long term - essentially renewable resources. In the course of achieving this goal, provision must be made
to assure an equitable distribution of sufficient energy to support basic human needs worldwide as an initial and minimum objective, to alleviate human suffering and permit people and societies to receive and respond to God's love."

(Minutes, 1981, UPC, p. 293 and PCUS p. 127)

[Author's note: The General Assembly called on the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to update its 1981 energy policy. The Committee is expected to bring an updated policy to the 2006 General Assembly.]

Subsequent denominational policies have addressed the issues of energy policy and climate change, including A Call to Halt Mass Extinction, which "called on the U.S., other governments, national and multinational corporations, and others to desist from large-scale projects, such as megadam construction and oil exploration and drilling in vulnerable regions, that devastate ecosystems, threaten wildlife survival, and displace indigenous people. It called upon Congress and the Bush Administration, together with industry, agriculture, and individuals, to face the compelling urgency to promote energy conservation and efficiency and also to accelerate the transition from a fossil fuel base to a solar-hydrogen base for the economy." (213th General Assembly, 2001, Minutes, pp. 473-474)

The United States still lacks a national energy policy based on justice and sustainability. Why? For the last few years, Congress has been in a stalemate on how to devise a national energy policy (which would be the first omnibus energy legislation since the Energy Policy Act of 1992). Several factors have been impediments, including regional differences on the role various energy production and delivery mechanisms play into the economy, ideological differences on climate change and its causes, and divergent opinions about whether a focus on increased conservation or increased production is more appropriate to meet future energy needs.

In the last Congress, the Senate blocked final passage of energy legislation because the majority of Senators opposed exempting manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits. MTBE has contaminated drinking water in hundreds of communities. This year, the House version includes such protections, but the Senate version does not.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Domenici (R-NM) and Ranking Member Bingaman (D-NM) worked together on the Senate's bipartisan bill. Senators voted, 53-44, to amend the legislation to include a "Sense of the Senate" Resolution offered by Sens. Bingaman and Specter (R-PA). The resolution is not binding, but it marks the first time the Senate has gone on record calling for mandatory limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to climate change. It says:

1. greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts;
2. there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere;
3. mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate that:

1. will not significantly harm the United States economy; and
2. will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.

The Senate also affirmed an amendment by Sen. Hagel (R-NE), which provides incentives for national and international technology development, but it is purely a voluntary measure. An amendment by Senator Bingaman (D-NM) to include a renewable portfolio standard - which would require utilities to produce 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 - passed by a vote of 52-48.

Senate amendments that were defeated include:

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (Sens. McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (D-CT). Defeated, 38-60. It would have set hard caps on emissions and allowed polluters who could not meet requirements to buy credits. A new provision was added, creating incentives for the development of energy alternatives, including nuclear energy.

Vehicle emission standards. Sen. Durbin (D-IL) offered an amendment to require an almost 50 percent increase in automobile fuel economy - to a fleet average of 40 mpg over 10 years. It failed 67-28.

When House and Senate conferees meet to come to a compromise, they will be faced with two very different bills. The Senate bill does not address oil drilling in ANWR, nor the MTBE liability provision - while House legislation does. In addition to the differences in the two bills related to climate change and the use of renewable energy sources, a major difference between the bills is cost: the Senate version includes about $16 billion in tax incentives over 10 years - approximately 40 percent of which, according to The New York Times, are for renewable energy sources. The House version includes about $8 billion worth of incentives - and the President had proposed $6.7 billion.

Iraq: Set a Time Frame for Withdrawal?

by Catherine Gordon

In July 2004 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly passed a resolution stating that "from the beginning, it has been the judgment of many church leaders, both in the United States and elsewhere, that an invasion of Iraq has been unwise, immoral, and illegal. The 216th General Assembly concurs with this judgment." The General Assembly urged "the United States Government to move speedily to restore sovereignty [freedom from external control] to Iraq, to internationalize the reconstruction efforts . . . and to recognize the U.N. as the body most suitable to facilitate the transition to peace, freedom, and participatory governance."

Unfortunately, with 1,760 U.S. soldiers killed and $190 billion spent, the lack of improvements in humanitarian conditions and security has continued to undermine stability in Iraq. A new report (by the U.N. Development Program and the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation) showed that Iraqi people are "suffering widespread death and war-related injury, high rates of infant and child mortality, chronic malnutrition and illness among children, low rates of life expectancy and significant setbacks for women."

The Iraqi people were already suffering under serious hardships before the war because of Saddam Hussein's policies and more than a decade of U.N. sanctions. Because of those policies the infrastructure needed to support a population was already weak; there has been a steady decline in living conditions since the invasion.

Women, children, and the elderly are the ones suffering the most. While the global trend of a steadily declining infant and child mortality rate is evidenced in Iraq's neighbors, Iraq has experienced a rise in infant and child mortality rate over the last 15 years. In addition, the victims of this war are more likely to be women, children, and the elderly. More Iraqi children have been injured since the U.S. invasion than have Iraqi military-aged men.

According to the International Crisis Group (ICG),the initial objective for Iraq was to help construct a country with a democratic, secular and free-market oriented government, sympathetic to U.S. interests, not openly hostile to Israel, and possibly home to long-term military bases. However, increasing hostility and mistrust of the intentions of the U.S. within the wider Iraqi population have become so great that this may be out of reach.

Rapid withdrawal, however, is not the answer. It would cause instability in the region as well as undermine the security interests of the U.S. But without an articulation of clear goals for the U.S. occupation, the Iraqis and non-Iraqis have projected their worst fears.

The United States must articulate clear goals. The ICG recommends that the U.S. develop an integrated strategy focused on gaining the population's support rather than eliminating insurgents, one that subordinates military operations to political and economic initiatives.

The perception that the U.S. intends to permanently occupy Iraq helps insurgent groups (in recruiting supporters) and fuels violent activity. A clear statement of intent to eventually fully withdraw U.S. troops and bases would send a strong signal to the people of Iraq and the international community that the United States does not have imperial ambitions in Iraq, and affirms that the Iraqi people will regain (through their elected representatives) the full exercise of national sovereignty, including control over security and public safety.

The first bipartisan resolution calling on the president to begin planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was introduced on June 16. This legislation, sponsored by Republican Reps. Walter Jones (NC) and Ron Paul (TX), with Democrats Dennis Kucinich (OH), Martin Meehan (MA), and Lynn Woolsey (CA), calls on the president to announce before the end of this year a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

This initiative underlines the point that the U.S. cannot abandon Iraq, but must clearly state our intentions and move speedily to restore sovereignty. Members of Congress from both political parties are increasingly frustrated by the rising death toll in Iraq and the mounting evidence that U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for many years to come. There is also concern among some in Congress at reports that the U.S. might be considering a permanent military presence in Iraq.

In the Senate, Russ Feingold (D-WI) in June introduced a resolution that recognized that stability and democracy in Iraq are in the U.S. national interest. It expresses the sense of the Senate that:

1. the United States should remain committed to providing long-term diplomatic and political support to Iraq;
2. the United States should continue to pursue a robust and multi-faceted campaign against international terrorist networks in Iraq and around the world; and
3. not later than 30 days after the Senate agrees to this resolution, the President should report to Congress describing the Armed Forces' remaining mission in Iraq, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Because we support the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, the people of Iraq, and the leaders of Iraq's government, and because we support the Iraqi people's desire to rebuild Iraq as a fully sovereign, stable, and peaceful democratic country - it must be the stated policy of the United States to eventually withdraw all U.S. military troops and bases from Iraq.