Right-Wing Supreme Court Judges Join GOP War on Women

alito roberts scalia

Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito

In my latest column, Supreme Court on Trial, I initiated a new discussion about how five conservative men on the Supreme Court have joined partisan Republicans in the war against laws and programs that serve women.

In June, we will remember the anniversary of the infamous 5-4 Supreme Court decision discrimination defeating women opposing against Wal-Mart, when the five men joined fellow Republicans against efforts to win pay equity for women and end discrimination against women.

It will not help Republicans to put South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is highly unpopular at home, on the presidential ticket with “war against women” politicians such as Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Ron Paul.

Actions have consequences. Policies have impact. Court rulings have results. The Supreme Court conservatives have joined and at times led the war against women on a range of issues, especially in decisions that hurt women and support those who discriminate against women in hiring, promotion and pay.
The Wal-Mart decision was a disgrace. Republican opposition to equal pay for women is a disgrace. The vulture capitalism of Mitt Romney is a disgrace. The Ayn Rand-like reactionary budgeting of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (R) is a dagger in the hearts of programs that serve women. The Austrian economics of Ron Paul is from the wrong century and the wrong continent, and profoundly hurts women.

If the Supreme Court throws out the healthcare law as unconstitutional it will foment a powerful political backlash and escalate the judicial front in the war against women.

Brent BudowskyThe Supreme Court is indeed on trial with the American people and the high court of history.

The five men on the Supreme Court who promote these wars against women decisions and join with war against women Republicans should step back, uphold the law and begin acting with judicial impartiality.

They should stop acting like partisan Republicans and extreme ideologues with an agenda that dishonors the law, and does grave damage and injustice to the women of America.

Brent Budowsky
The Hill 


  1. go99ers says

    I agree with the author of this very good article on a number of issues. The Fab Five are indeed on trial before the American people, for legislating from the bench and usurping powers for themselves.

    They have participated in decisions that hurt women and support those who discriminate against women in hiring, promotion and pay.

    The following are not only a disgrace, they are an outrage:

    The Wal-Mart decision – a disgrace.

    Republican opposition to equal pay for women – a disgrace

    The vulture capitalism of Mitt Romney – a disgrace.

    The “Ayn Rand-like reactionary budgeting of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (R)…, a dagger in the hearts of programs that serve women” – an outrage and a disgrace.

    These judges and those that write their scripts want to take us back to feudal times. Actually, due to the Ayn Rand illusionaries, we are almost there. Money can buy us those good old days again.

    I also agree with Mr. Budowsky that partisan Repuglicans and extreme ideologues with agendas that dishonor the law, and gravely damage and dishonor women should stop doing this.

    This is my opinion, and admittedly, I am biased. There is solid evidence that women have been dishonored by these reprobates. But I can be biased. I have read a great deal, I can think critically, I am educated, I happen to be a woman, and I am not on the Supreme Court. I can be biased.

  2. Jay Levenberg, Esq. says

    Sometimes I don’t believe my eyes when I read columns like this. What I do believe is Mr. Budowsky is a shill for the Obama Campaign Committee. There is one issue of moment before the Supreme Court related to the Healthcare bill. It is simply the question of the extent and reach of the Commerce Clause with regard to mandatory purchase of a private product. It has nothing whatever to do with women’s rights and to say otherwise is irrational (to be kind). There has never been a case quite like this one before the court. I have read the lower court opinions and they all make sense, meaning to me that there are good arguments on both sides regarding the constitionality of the mandatory aspects of the bill. I can see the Supreme Court going either way based on prior legal principles. No matter which side wins this case, it should be based on a thoughtful analysis of the commerce clause not the  political hype that has surrounded the issue and made worse by columns like the one above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *