Duck And Cover
While we're discussing the nuclear option, here's a useful, concise primer on the subject, and on the odious judicial nominees the administration's ready to use it for.
How would the "nuclear option" eliminate the filibuster?
Legitimately changing the rule that allows a filibuster would require a 2/3 majority vote, and Republican leaders don't have nearly that much support. Instead, the plan calls for Dick Cheney (who, as Vice President, is also technically the `President of the Senate') to simply make a ruling that the filibuster rule no longer applies to judges. If Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support this "reinterpretation," the filibuster will be history.
How would the "nuclear option" eliminate the filibuster?
Legitimately changing the rule that allows a filibuster would require a 2/3 majority vote, and Republican leaders don't have nearly that much support. Instead, the plan calls for Dick Cheney (who, as Vice President, is also technically the `President of the Senate') to simply make a ruling that the filibuster rule no longer applies to judges. If Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support this "reinterpretation," the filibuster will be history.
posted by Management at 4:02 PM
1 Comments:
Primer on the Filibuster and the Nominees
by JLFinch
Mon Mar 28th, 2005 at 01:41:59 PST
Given the political damage the Republicans have suffered this past week in connection with the tragic Schiavo situation, there is no doubt that as soon as they are able they will come out swinging against the liberal-activist-Terri-killling-judges in order recover as much political face as possible. Disgusting.
I found that I did not have all the facts I wanted at my fingertips regarding the threatened "nuclear option", the filibuster and, most importanly, the nominees in question.
I have put together the best information I could today, time permitting, and it is not nearly as polished as I might want it to be. Sorry for the cut and paste at the end, but my paraphrasing simply would not do it justice. I encourage you to follow the links and read all you can about these nominees.
Two things are criticial:
1. Contact the Senators on the fence (listed below) and ecourage them not to go nuclear.
2. Inform the public, via letters to the editor, of exactly how slimy these nominees are (and they are, bar none - see detail way below).
_______
BACKGROUND (from our friends at MoveOn)
What is the "nuclear option"?
It's what the Republicans call a parliamentary trick they are threatening to use to eliminate the right to use a "filibuster" to block judicial nominations.
What is the "filibuster"?
It's a right senators have had since 1806. The rules currently allow a group of at least 41 senators to extend debate and delay very controversial votes indefinitely. It is very rarely used, but it encourages the Senate to rule in a fair, bipartisan matter because neither side can be pushed too far - and it protects the rights of the minority.
How would the "nuclear option" eliminate the filibuster?
Legitimately changing the rule that allows a filibuster would require a 2/3 majority vote, and Republican leaders don't have nearly that much support. Instead, the plan calls for Dick Cheney (who, as Vice President, is also technically the `President of the Senate') to simply make a ruling that the filibuster rule no longer applies to judges. If Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support this "reinterpretation," the filibuster will be history.
Why do Republican leaders want to eliminate the filibuster?
First, it would allow the Republicans to force through the 20 federal judges Democrats rejected last term onto the courts. Seven of these judges were already filibustered once, and the others might be.
But there are also 4 Supreme Court justices over 70, any or all of whom could retire in the next four years. If Republicans abolish the right to filibuster judicial nominees, Bush would be free to stack the Supreme Court with the most right-wing, corporate friendly nominees he can find - and there would be absolutely no incentive for Bush to appoint any justices acceptable to both parties.
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html
STATS
More than 95% of Bush's nominees have already been confirmed
206 Bush nominees confirmed. Only 10 Filibustered. (95.4% Approved), according to People for the American Way.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172
List of pending nominees to the Court of Appeals here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations.htm
By contrast
...while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial nominees, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 Clinton nominees from even receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote on the Senate floor. And while Senate Republicans under Clinton strictly enforced a "blue slip" rule -- which allows one home-state senator to prevent a nomination from moving forward -- they greatly relaxed this rule under Bush to circumvent Democrats' objections to several nominees.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004
...The Christian Science Monitor noted on May 12, 2003, "some 60 Clinton nominees never had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee," which served "as effective a block to confirmation as a filibuster," according to Democrats. Similarly, as The Washington Post reported on September 5, 2003, "Senate Republicans enraged Democrats by bottling up about 60 of President Bill Clinton's nominees."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180004
CONSERVATIVES' ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF THE FILIBUSTER ARE WEAK:
1. Unconstitutional.
Rebuttal: If filibusters are unconstitutional now, they must've always been unconstitutional, yet Republicans used them when they were in the minority in the Senate.
2. Use of filibuster is unprecedented to block nominees.
Rebuttal: Bill Frist attempted to use filibuster to block Clinton nominee (then lied about it)
"Documents obtained by American Progress show Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist participated in an effort to block one of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees via filibuster, then lied about it.
In recent weeks, Frist has been relentlessly preaching about the evils of judicial filibusters. Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 12, Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome." [1] Frist called judicial filibusters "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." When Bill Clinton was President, however, Frist engaged in the same behavior he is now condemning.
In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez. [2]
Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: 'Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'" [3] Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."
But American Progress has obtained a document that proves Frist was not, as he suggested, voting to filibuster Paez for scheduling purposes or to get more information. He voted to filibuster Paez for the very reason he said was illegitimate - to block Paez's nomination indefinitely.
On March 9, 2000, Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) issued a press release describing the intent of the Paez filibuster vote the day before. The release says Senator Smith "built a coalition of several moderate and conservative Senators in an effort to block" Paez's nomination. [4] Frist was a part of that coalition. Smith did not organize the filibuster to get more information on Paez (after all his nomination had been pending for four years). He organized the filibuster because he had already decided Paez was "out of the mainstream of political though and...should [not] be on the court".
[1] Frist Addresses Federalist Society 2004 National Convention, 11/12/04
[2] Cloture Motion RE: Nom. of Richard Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge, 3/8/00
[3] Face the Nation, 11/14/04
[4] Smith Leaders Effort to Block Activists Judges, 3/9/00"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089
WHY PROTECT THE FILIBUSTER? WHAT IS AT STAKE?
Conservatives could stack the Supreme Court AT WILL with extremist judges who threaten civil rights, privacy and the environment
Though the nuclear option was ostensibly designed to overcome Democratic filibusters of George W. Bush's appellate-court nominees--twelve of whom he recently, defiantly renominated--it would apply to Supreme Court appointments, too. With Rehnquist on his way out and more justices soon to follow, Republicans, with nothing more than a bare 51-vote majority (as opposed to the 60 needed to halt a filibuster), could confirm anyone they pleased. "I keep saying to people, `I know you care about the Supreme Court,' " says People for the American Way president Ralph Neas. "But in the next four to eight weeks, there could be a vote that would render moot all the future votes on Supreme Court nominees. The right knows this is its 45-month window to shape the Court for the next 30 to 40 years. If Republicans win on the nuclear option, they could get John Ashcroft confirmed as chief justice, or Pat Robertson."
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/nationalinterest/11263/
WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE "NUCLEAR OPTION"?
Frist needs 50 votes in favor of Cheney's new interpretation (with the tie-breaking vote to be provided by Cheney!). Currently he has 49. Of the 55 Senate Republicans, 6 have either stated flatly that they will not support the "nuclear option" or are still undecided.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050323-121608-8533r.htm
When contacting a Senator, I think it would be very effective to make a specific reference to something egregious by one of the nominees (from the info below) and ask the Senator if he or she supports this? Wow, look at this blatant racism, or this payola - do you support this? Give as much detail as you can.
Here's the list of the 6, and their contact information:
Undecided
Senator Susan Collins (R- ME)
202-224-2523
202-224-2693
http://collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm
Senator John W. Warner (R- VA)
202-224-2023
202-224-6295
http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.htm
Senator John McCain (R- AZ)
202-224-2235
202-228-2862
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home
Senator Chuck Hagel (R- NE)
202-224-4224
202-224-5213
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact
Opposed to the "Nuclear Option"
Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI)
202-224-2921
202-228-2853
http://chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm
Senator Olympia Snowe (R- ME)
202-224-5344
202-224-1946
Olympia@snowe.senate.gov
No comment thus far
Senator Thad Cochran (R- MS)
202-224-5054
202-224-9450
http://cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm
Senator John Sununu (R- NH)
202-224-2841
202-228-4131
mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
George V. Voinovich of Ohio
Senator George Voinovich (R- OH)
202-224-3353
202-228-1382
http://voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htm
________________
This is how I would set up a letter to the editor:
About the judges:
1. Senate Republicans threatening to change the Senate rules to eliminate the use of the filibuster when debating judicial nominees, permitting them to ram extremist nominees through Congress based on a simple majority vote.
2. About 95% of Bush's judicial nominees already approved. Those that remain, however, are being opposed not because they are conservative, but because they represent the fringe of the extreme radical right and are out-of-step with mainstream America, threatening civil rights, the environment and the very integrity of the judicial system itself.
3. For example [choose one or two and explain in 2-3 short sentences].
4. These nominees, as well as the others resubmitted by Bush, are poor candidates on their own merits, regardless of partisan politics, and do not deserve to be approved by the Senate.
About the filibuster:
1. If it is unconstitutional or unprecedented to filibuster judicial nominees, as some on the right have claimed, then why has the right used that very tactic in the past? Even the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist....[discuss his attempted use of filibuster described above].
2. Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate (great info here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/14/124043/336). It is therefore incorrect to call their views the minority view.
MORE ABOUT THE NOMINEES THEMSELVES
________________
Opposed because they are on the radical edge, not because they are conservative
"It isn't that they are conservatives; it's that their records indicate a willingness to bypass the law to achieve an ideologically driven result."
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=11082
"...have spent their careers on the radical edge of the right wing"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=11082
_________________
Two sites that have detailed information on the nominees:
Progress for America:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14172
Alliance for Justice:
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/
===============
HIGHLIGHTING THE RECORDS OF SOME OF THESE NOMINEES:
================
Judge Terrence William Boyle
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
"...a right-wing judicial activist who has sought to roll back well-settled precedents and override the express will of Congress. His activism has produced many opinions that are, often in the name of "states' rights," hostile to civil rights claims brought by African Americans and people with disabilities, among others. Even the conservative Fourth Circuit has chided Judge Boyle for going too far, repeatedly reversing or criticizing him for subverting basic procedural rules and misconstruing clear legal principles."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11
"Judge Boyle has been reversed over 150 times by the Fourth Circuit - twice the rate of the average judge. ...The Fourth Circuit has routinely criticized Judge Boyle for throwing out cases without giving individuals - especially civil rights plaintiffs - a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court has reversed him, for instance, for ignoring his statutorily-mandated duty to review the decisions of magistrate judges, violating procedural rules requiring him to give plaintiffs a chance to present evidence before dismissing their cases, and flouting other clear-cut standards prohibiting him from dismissing cases when there are contested factual issues.1"
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11
"Judge Boyle twice decided that a North Carolina Congressional district drawn to have a population that was about 50% African-American violated the Constitution.2 The Supreme Court reversed both decisions. In the first reversal, Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous court, found that Judge Boyle had prematurely decided in favor of the white plaintiffs before trial, despite the continued existence of factual disputes. In the second reversal, the Court found that, at the trial it had ordered, Judge Boyle committed "clear error" by attributing the state's district-drawing to predominantly racial, rather than political, considerations."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11
"Judge Boyle has ignored binding precedent to dismiss civil rights claims brought by African Americans. In Ellis v. North Carolina, he threw out an employment discrimination case, saying that state employers were immune from suit. Because the Supreme Court had come to the opposite conclusion long before, the Fourth Circuit summarily reversed the decision in a three-paragraph, unpublished opinion.6"
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11
"Judge Boyle was an aide to Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina and, at Senator Helms' request, was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President George H.W. Bush."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11
______
Richard Allen Griffin
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
"Richard Griffin has shown a willingness to interject his own conservative ideology into opinions. This strongly suggests that he will do the same if confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Sixth Circuit. Particularly troubling was Griffin's request for Congressional invalidation of a unanimous Supreme Court decision holding that the ADA applies to state prisoners and prisons."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=83
"In Cunningham v. Dearborn Board of Education2, Griffin dismissed the sex discrimination claim of a pregnant custodian who was suspended after her employer decided she was ineligible for its "favored work" program. The program would have allowed her to work within the parameters of medical restrictions placed upon her. In deciding cases under the analogous federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Michigan federal courts had held that employers may not make a distinction between work-related disabilities and non-work related disabilities. But Griffin dismissed these arguments, pointing out that the court was not compelled to follow federal law, and deciding that Michigan law was much narrower than its federal counterpart."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=83
___________
Thomas B. Griffith
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
"Thomas B. Griffith, who failed to obtain a law license in Utah or keep a current license in the District during parts of the past six years, received a slight majority from his peers [in the American Bar Association] after an unusually long, three-month investigation. Under the ABA's system, that means at least eight of the 15 members on the review panel rated him "qualified" for a seat on the court, and at least six rated him "not qualified." The Washington Post Sep 30, 2004
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=314
FOUGHT FOR RADICAL PROPOSAL TO REVERSE TITLE IX RULES
"Mr. Griffith sought to eliminate the well-established rule allowing schools to demonstrate compliance with Title IX by offering athletic opportunities to men and women in substantial proportion to each gender's representation in the student body. Mr. Griffith himself described his proposal as "radical." The Commission - which, with Mr. Griffith's vote, supported other law-weakening proposals ultimately rejected by Secretary Paige - voted down the proposal 11-4. [Commission Hearing, 1/30/03; Remarks at National Association of College and University Attorneys Conference, 6/22/03] Mr. Griffith characterized the rule he sought to eliminate as "illegal, unfair and wrong." Every appeals court that has examined the rule disagrees. Mr. Griffith says that he "[doesn't] believe in the infallibility of the judiciary" and that the courts "got it wrong." [Commission Hearing, 1/30/03] Mr. Griffith continues to argue that "the Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX goes beyond the authority it has been delegated by Congress." [Utah Bar Journal, 10/03]"
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=84
___________
William Haynes
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
"William Haynes III served as the chief legal counsel for the Defense Department, where he championed the legal doctrine that led to the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. He advised the White House that in a time of war the President should be considered exempt from all international and domestic laws barring torture. Haynes also developed the "enemy combatant" doctrine that allows for United States citizens to be detained without trial, official charges or access to a lawyer -- forever -- at the sole discretion of the President.8"
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html
"Mr. Haynes has spent the bulk of his legal career as a lawyer in the Department of Defense and, most recently, as the department's principle author and defender of the administration's plan for military tribunals, its denial of Geneva Convention protections to persons captured on the battlefield, and its indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to counsel or the ability to challenge their detention."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/news/release.cfm?ReleaseID=136
"Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes is a career military lawyer who has almost no courtroom experience to qualify him for a lifetime seat on the Fourth Circuit. Haynes has been nominated to a Virginia seat on the court, despite having no connection to that state that he would represent as a judge on that court, and few or no ties to the other states in the Fourth Circuit. Furthermore, Haynes's close ties the Bush Administration and his active participation in the administration's efforts to restrict legal rights for both citizen and non-citizen "enemy combatants" suggests that his nomination is a reward more for loyalty and political compatibility than for professional distinction."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=73
____________
Brett Kavanaugh
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
"Brett Kavanaugh appears to have been chosen for a seat on the D.C. Circuit only because of his involvement in some of the most ideologically charged political issues of his time. Kavanaugh has been a lawyer for a little over 13 years. He has never been a judge, or a law professor. He has litigated cases for about eight years but has never been involved in a trial. As Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's associate counsel, he pursued the unfounded allegation that Vince Foster was murdered rather than committing suicide, worked on the Monica Lewinski investigation and drafted the grounds for impeachment section of the Starr report to Congress. In addition, Kavanaugh was responsible for attacking the Clinton Administration's claims of privilege, testing the boundaries of executive and other privileges in order to gain more information for the Starr investigation...Since joining the Bush administration, however, Kavanaugh has become a zealous defender of executive privilege working to shield the White House from inquiries from the public, Congress and even historians wanting to see the papers of past presidents. He has also been one of the White House's point people in the president's campaign to pack the courts with right-wing extremists."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=82
___________
David W. McKeague
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
"Michigan District Court Judge David McKeague is a staunch conservative with a record suggesting a bias against some plaintiffs, a predisposition to grant summary judgment to civil defendants, and poor temperament. McKeague also has strong ties to the Republican Party and to the country's right wing establishment; he has long been a major player in Republican Party politics. In 1984, McKeague chaired the Ingham County Michigan Reagan-Bush campaign, helping Reagan win a landslide victory. In 1986, he was on the Western District of Michigan's judicial selection committee. And in 1988, as George H.W. Bush's lawyer for the Michigan primary, McKeague successfully defended Bush against challenges brought by supporters of Pat Robertson and Jack Kemp. McKeague is a member of the Federalist Society....McKeague is only the second nominee ever to be granted a hearing over the objections of both home-state senators (Senators Levin and Stabenow)."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=71
"In this case, McKeague granted summary judgment to defendant school on claims brought by parents of several children enrolled at the Vanguard Charter School Academy, which is run by the for-profit National Heritage Academies corporation, but receives public funding. The parents had sued the school, alleging illegal establishment of religion and indoctrination of their children. They cited a room used during school hours for a "Mom's Prayer Group," from which students could hear prayers and Bible discussions; denial of similar access to an agnostic group; the prayer group's sponsorship of faculty luncheons and other events, and a group of teachers that convened students around the school flagpole before classes for a prayer meeting, as well as religious materials being distributed in the school during school hours and mandatory teacher trainings permeated with references to the Bible. McKeague held that, because the parents could not show that extra tax dollars were spent to fulfill the school's religious intentions, they had no standing to sue as taxpayers. And he dismissed the claim regarding the prayer group around the flagpole, stating that, because the student had not attended, she could not provide detailed information. As for the claim that science teachers had endorsed creationism and cited "God" when unable to answer a question, he dismissed those claims as well. McKeague listed this case in his Judiciary Committee Questionnaire as among his ten most important. Lawyers on the case alleged that McKeague belittled plaintiff's attorney and ridiculed their arguments."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=71
_____________
William G. Myers III
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"As a lobbyist and lawyer for grazing and mining interests, and later as a top official at the Interior Department, William Myers has demonstrated contempt for environmental protections and the rights of Native Americans."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=76
"He has never been a judge; he has never participated in a jury trial;"
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=76
"...the American Bar Association gave Myers its lowest passing rating of Q/NQ--a bare majority of eight or nine of the fifteen members on the ABA committee rated him qualified, a substantial minority found him not qualified and no committee member found him well qualified."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=76
"In private practice, Myers was primarily a lobbyist and activist on behalf of the grazing and mining industries...Myers wrote that federal land regulations were similar to King George's "tyrannical" rule over the colonies and could lead to a "modern-day revolution" in Western states. He called the California Desert Protection Act "an example of legislative hubris." In Congressional testimony, he compared the federal government's reintroduction of Yellowstone wolves to England's requirements that American colonists shelter British troops. ...Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, as having been motivated by the "personal moral values of the justices . . .," yet went on to praise the infamous Bowers v. Hardwick decision, which upheld the enforcement of criminal anti-sodomy laws against gays and lesbians, as relying on a "neutral reading of the Constitution. In a Supreme Court brief, Myers made far-reaching arguments in support of the claim that Congress did not have the power to regulate wetlands through the Clean Water Act."
"In a different case, Myers advanced another argument used by conservative activists to strike at critical protections, writing that "the Constitutional right of a rancher to put his property to beneficial use is as fundamental as his right to freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure." Since almost all government regulation arguably burdens property rights, such a theory, if given effect, could lead courts to the near-wholesale dismantling of our government's regulatory structure.
"In 2001, President Bush appointed Myers to be the Interior Department Solicitor, the chief lawyer for the department. Although as a high-ranking Interior Department official he was sworn to defend the public interest by enforcing federal land regulations, Myers used his position to weaken such regulations in favor of his former mining and grazing industry clients
"In the only two opinions he issued as Solicitor, Myers overturned environment-friendly Clinton Administration policies to benefit mining and grazing interests. In one of the opinions, Myers turned the plain language of a mining law on its head. His opinion led the Interior Department to reverse a decision by former Interior Secretary Babbitt and permit the Glamis Company to operate a mine on land sacred to the Quechan Tribe. A federal court reviewing the decision found that Myers "misconstrued the clear mandate" of the law. Perhaps even more troubling, Myers and others at the Interior Department met on several occasions with the Glamis mine's operators while considering the issue, but did not follow the executive branch policy calling for government-to-government consultation with the Quechan Tribe, despite the Tribe's request for a meeting.
"The Los Angeles Times reported on a deal where Myers, without consulting the government's local land managers, supported a "private relief bill" in Congress that would have transferred federal land worth $1 million to a mining company Examining readily-available documents would have shown that the company had no right to the land, as the government's land managers claimed. When the Los Angeles Times made inquiries, the department abruptly announced that it "was withdrawing its support for the bill."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=76
______________
Justice Priscilla Owen
Nominated to: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
" Anchoring the far-right end of a very conservative [Texas Supreme] court, Priscilla Owen consistently supports big business and special interests against the claims of ordinary Americans...she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21
"...in Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School Dist., Owen authored the opinion for a unanimous court that held constitutional a Texas tax law that allowed companies to choose between two dates to evaluate their inventory for tax purposes.6 Owen's opinion saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district, which had challenged the law that allowed companies to select the date on which their inventory would be valued, which minimized the company's tax burden. As reported in many papers, Owen had received $8,600 in campaign contributions from Enron prior to writing the opinion.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21
"In FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, Justice Owen strongly dissented from the court's decision to strike down a state law that had been tailored to allow a particular developer to bypass the city of Austin's municipal water-quality laws.9 The majority pointed out that the law illegally delegated a basic right - the right to pollute - to a private property owner. Owen's dissent was dismissed by the majority as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric" thus merit[ing] no response.10 Parties affiliated with the developer contributed more than $47,000 to Owen's campaign. ...[This case rasies] serious concerns about the priority she places on the government's responsibility to protect the environment and the health and safety of its citizens.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=21
Although they served together for a relatively short time in 1999-2000 on the Texas Supreme Court, (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales wrote or joined more than a dozen opinions sharply criticizing opinions written or joined by Owen on the court. In most of these cases, Gonzales, a strong conservative on the court, was part of the majority that rejected ultra-conservative Owen dissents as ignoring the plain meaning of the law or otherwise engaging in improper judicial activism to try to reach a particular result. Gonzales repeatedly wrote or joined criticism of Owen's aggressive right-wing judicial activism. Time and again, Justice Owen attempted to remake the law when it clashed with her ideology.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1726
A recent Texas law requires minors who seek an abortion to notify their parents unless a court grants a "judicial bypass" based on its finding that: the applicant is "mature and sufficiently well informed" to make the decision herself; notification would not be in the applicant's "best interest;" or "notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse" of the applicant. In this particular case, the court ruled 6-3 that the minor had "conclusively established the statutory requirements to obtain a judicial bypass." Id. at 361. Owen dissented vigorously, accusing the majority, including Gonzales, of acting "irresponsibly." She interpreted the statute as requiring a finding that the abortion itself was in the best interest of the minor, going well beyond the "notification in best interest" criteria required by the statute. Id. at 383. In that case, Gonzales specifically wrote that adopting the dissenters' narrow view "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Id. at 366 (emphasis added).
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1726
__________
William H. Pryor, Jr.
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit (2004 - present - temporary recess appointee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit)
William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.6 He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.7
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html
"Pryor helped found and lead the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which raises campaign donations from corporations that its members, as attorneys general, may have a duty to investigate, prosecute or sue. Documents disclosed after Pryor's Senate confirmation hearing show that Pryor may not have been candid with the Judiciary Committee about his knowledge of and personal participation in RAGA fundraising from Alabama companies, companies doing business in Alabama, and tobacco companies. He testified, for example, that he was unaware whether RAGA solicited tobacco companies. But the disclosed documents reportedly show that Pryor himself was assigned to solicit two large tobacco companies that ultimately donated $25,000 apiece.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=87
* "Co-chair of the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign in Alabama, Pryor was the only attorney general to file an amicus brief in support of President Bush's position in Bush v. Gore, a case involving Florida - not Alabama - election law.
* A long-time proponent of gun rights and 2001 recipient of the National Rifle Association's Legislative Achievement Award, Pryor filed an amicus brief challenging a unique Texas statute prohibiting possession of firearms by individuals subject to temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases. Alabama had no similar statute.
* An ally of big tobacco and a fierce critic of what he calls "leftist bounty hunters (also known as trial lawyers)," Pryor vigorously opposed the lawsuit that other states brought against the tobacco industry to recover the Medicaid costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. Pryor's staunch opposition to the suit, which he ultimately joined at the eleventh hour, cost Alabamians billions of dollars in relief.
* Condemning any constitutional right protecting "the choice of one's partner" as "logically extend[ing] to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia," Pryor submitted a virulently anti-gay amicus brief supporting Texas' one-of-a-kind law banning same-sex sodomy. In the brief, Pryor went on to suggest that states have a prerogative to recognize that "homosexual activity" is harmful and "expose[s] both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."
* Opposed federal court remedial action in the face of what he admitted to be Alabama's non-compliance with a settlement involving its foster care system, declaring: "My job is to make sure the state of Alabama isn't run by a federal court. My job isn't to come here and help children."
* Pryor called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history."
* Pryor says he agrees with Justice Scalia that "the Constitution says nothing about a right to abortion."
* Pryor said: "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children."
* Pryor publicly declared that "the challenge of the next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective.
* In 1997, Pryor, along with the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed, attended a "Save the Commandments" rally in Montgomery, Alabama, where he stated: "God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians ... to save our country and save our courts.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=87
___________
Janice Rogers Brown
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
"During her time on the bench, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has taken positions hostile to reproductive rights, affirmative action, claims of discrimination based on race, age, gender, and disability, and worker and consumer protections.
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50
"Justice Brown was twice rated not qualified by the California Judicial Nominations Evaluation (JNE) Commission. The "not qualified" rating was based primarily on Brown's judicial inexperience, and her tendency to interject into legal opinions her political and philosophical views. 1Specifically, the Commission's report indicated that "nothing in [Brown's] legal experience [distinguished] her from other average practitioners," and some of Brown's opinions contained "gratuitous" personal opinions." 2 The Commission received specific complaints that Brown was careless of established legal precedent, had difficulty grasping complex litigation, lacked compassion and intolerance for opposing views, misunderstood legal standards, and was slow to produce opinions.3
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50
"In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose, 13 Justice Brown's majority opinion held that a "set-aside" program for minority and women-owned contractors violated Article I, Section 31 of the California Constitution (popularly known as Proposition 209, the section that banned state affirmative action programs on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin). All seven justices invalidated the program, but, as discussed above, Chief Justice George and others wrote concurrences criticizing the breadth of Brown's majority holding. Chief Justice George, who concurred in the judgment but did not join the majority, wrote that Brown's opinion implies that U.S Supreme Court decisions upholding affirmative action programs were "wrongly decided" and that her analysis "represents a serious distortion of history."
http://www.independentjudiciary.org/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=50
"My grandparents' generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family's honor. Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much "free" stuff as the political system will permit them to extract...Big government is...[t]he drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms, for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 2,3]
- Janice Rogers Brown"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14177#2
"The United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment...The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy...The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it's probably not incorporated."
- Janice Rogers Brown, Speech to Pepperdine Bible Lectureship entitled "Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square," in 1999
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14177#2
Post a Comment
<< Home