 |
          
  |
|
|
Former
Attorney General Ed Meese explains.
Excerpt:
Even some who support same-sex marriage
worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining
marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned.
Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its
result.
By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme
Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to
the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the
requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and
capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor
are too extreme to stand.
The
editors at National Review find rare
praise for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for suspending same-sex
marriages in California until the case is settled.
A
Federal Judge in California, after a lengthy show-trial, has ruled that the
Constitution guarantees a right
to same-sex marriage and that the democratically approved California
Marriage Amendment is
unconstitutional. The worldview
expressed by Judge Walker evinces a clear disregard
for the facts.
Liberal
activists are already cheering the decision as step toward nationally
imposed same-sex marriage. They
shouldn’t count their chickens before they are hatched. This ruling will be appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals and could ultimately go to the United States Supreme
Court. Also, liberals should remember
that state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage have ultimately
been passed democratically every time they’ve been on the ballot. Allowing activist judges to do their dirty
work will only illustrate the need for an amendment to the federal constitution
to protect and define the traditional definition or marriage.
LifeNews reports.
Meanwhile,
Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
considers Kagan’s nomination “dangerous.”
Curt
Levey explains how Elena Kagan’s liberal views and record make her
unpopular with the American people.
Yesterday the Senate Judiciary
Committee approved
the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Now the full Senate must approve her
nomination by first voting for cloture (requiring 60 votes) and then on whether
to confirm her nomination (simple majority vote). Sen.
Sessions and Sen.
Coburn have both spoken out against Kagan’s nomination.
Senators
on the Judiciary Committee are raising
concerns that Kagan might have been misleading on her involvement with
partial birth abortion during her time in the Clinton administration. Americans United for Life chronicles this issue thoroughly
while Bill Saunders encourages the American people to “wake up” on the
Kagan nomination.
The
Washington Examiner reports. The
people of the District of Columbia have been repeatedly denied the right to
express their views on the issue of same-sex marriage by unelected judges. Now their only hope is an appeal to the
Supreme Court. Fortunately, groups like
the Alliance Defense Fund are preparing to charge “once more into the breach.”
Gallup
reports that Kagan could be the “first recent nominee to win approval with
less than majority public support.”
Cecilia
Kang reports. Is anyone else
noticing a pattern of unelected judges imposing their moral values (or lack
thereof) and ideological beliefs on the rest of us?
AFP
reports that the Senate Judiciary committee has delayed the vote on Elena
Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court for one week. This comes amid the calls of Senate
Republicans for Kagan to recuse
herself on any case involving the constitutionality of the recently passed
health care bill. Tony
Blankley compares Kagan’s evasiveness on the question of natural rights
described in the Declaration of Independence with Abraham Lincoln’s championing
of the Declaration as sacred scripture to the American Republic. Excerpt:
Abraham Lincoln, address in Independence
Hall, Philadelphia, Feb. 22, 1861: “I have never had a feeling politically that
did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
“That sentiment in the Declaration of
Independence . . . gave liberty . . . to the people of this country. . . . Now,
my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? . . . If this country
cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather
be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.”
Ed
Whelan explains why the federal judge who conducted a recent show trial on
California’s democratically-approved Marriage Protection Amendment was biased
toward same-sex marriage and should have recused himself from even hearing the
case. Instead, the judge held a high
profile trial designed to promote same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
Sen.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) explains why he opposes the confirmation of Elena Kagan
to the Supreme Court. Some of his
reasons are here lack of judicial or legal experience and record of radicalism.
In
an act of judicial activism, a federal judge has struck
down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
This ruling shows why constitutional amendments (at the state and
national level) are necessary to prevent unelected judges from institution
same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, and it demonstrates the dangers of judicial
activism.
Hadley
Arkes comments
at NRO. Excerpt:
Judge Joseph Tauro, in the federal district
court in Boston, took it upon himself to strike down the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). With that stroke he would remove one of the key barriers
standing in the way of imposing same-sex marriage on the nation as a whole. And
it would be done through the power of judges alone, without the need to agitate
the community in any political controversy, and without citizens or legislators
needing to do such unseemly things as voting.
Mario
Diaz comments on Elena Kagan’s denial of the natural rights described in
the Declaration of Independence.
Excerpt:
In my previous article, Top 10 Questions
Kagan Should Be Asked at the Hearings, I proposed that, given Kagan’s past
hostility toward religious groups, she should be asked about her views on the
First Amendment, including the question, “From where — or from Whom — do our
‘inalienable’ rights come?”
But as it turns out, I was giving Miss
Kagan too much credit. She can’t even tell us we have inalienable rights!
Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) questioned
Kagan about this very topic in her hearings last week, and she clearly stated
that she does not “have a view of what our natural rights [are] independent of
the Constitution.”
Gary
Marx comments on Elena Kagan’s inability to say she believes in the natural
rights described in the Declaration of Independence in recent Senate testimony.
The
Washington Post reports. Meanwhile,
ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expresses increased concerns with
Kagan’s nomination. Excerpt:
After wrapping up the third day of Elena
Kagan’s confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking
Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, tells National Review Online that
he has “growing concerns” with President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. “This
nominee needs to address several very serious questions about the accuracy of
her testimony, about whether she lets her personal agendas drive what she
does,” Sessions says.
“She does not have the rigor or clarity of
mind that you look for in a justice on the Supreme Court,” Sessions says. “She
is personable, people-oriented, and conciliatory, yet she lacks a strict, legal
approach. You want a mind on the court. She’s charming, delightful, and
personable, but I don’t see that there.”
The
hearing coverage continues Live
on C-SPAN.
CNN
reports on the recent Supreme Court ruling that trampled on religious
freedom by ruling that the Christian Legal Society may not restrict its officer
positions to professing Christians and may not prohibit of homosexuality (or other
forms of sexual immorality) for its officers.
ACLJ
comments on the case. Excerpt:
In a dissent written by Justice Samuel
Alito, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas,
Justice Alito concluded that the majority decision "is a serious setback
for freedom of expression on this country."
From Justice Alito's dissent: "Our
First Amendment reflects a 'profound national commitment to the principle that
debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.' New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is
the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not
change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s
decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views
objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated - by
Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this
decision will turn out to be an aberration."
In its amicus brief filed at the high
court, the ACLJ contended that religious groups are constitutionally protected
in following their religious beliefs.
Ken
Klukowski explains. Excerpt:
Monday’s Supreme Court case on supporting
terrorism saw retiring Justice Stevens side with the conservatives, while
Justice Sotomayor went the opposite way. This suggests that Elena Kagan could
move the Court to the left on national security.
Last
Wednesday a federal court in California heard closing
arguments in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's recent voter-enacted
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. This is an attempt by radical liberal
activists to subvert the democratic process and force their radical
anti-marriage agenda on the citizens of California.
Maggie
Gallagher comments. Excerpt:
This is the trial that never should have
been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson,
once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading
with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians -- and, by
extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have
exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.
Curt
Levey explains. Excerpt:
Given Kagan’s otherwise thin record, even
she has acknowledged that the 168,000 pages of documents will provide
‘invaluable insight into how she would approach her job as a member of the
Supreme Court’ (Sen.
Cornyn commenting on his meeting with Kagan).
The AP reports
that senators are still waiting for Kagan papers to be released from the
Clinton library.
Rich
Lowry explains why “controversy over military recruiters at Harvard Law was
not the nominee’s finest moment.”
Ed
Whelan responds to Byron York’s article. Ed explains why Republicans should oppose
Kagan’s nomination as a way to raise awareness of the important issue of the
role of judges.
James
Copland urges us to not lose sight of other judicial nominations while we
are focused on Kagan. Excerpt:
Only a tiny fraction of cases decided by
the appellate courts are granted review by the Supreme Court, which means that
those lower appellate benches are usually the courts of last resort in the
federal system. And because so many cases never make it even that far, federal
trial courts wield enormous power, too.
NRO
reports. The Editors at NRO urge
Senate Republicans to thoroughly
question and examine Kagan on her constitutional views and on her views on
the role of judges. Excerpt:
Short of having served as a deaconess to
the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, attorney Elena Kagan could hardly better embody the
values of this president: As a product of both Harvard Law and Goldman Sachs,
she is something of an ideal Supreme Court selection for the Obama
administration, which has reached deep into both organizations to staff
Washington’s power points. Whether Kagan is an ideal selection for the
republic, or even a tolerable one, is a different and more important question
that Republican senators have now to answer.
Star
Parker talks about the difference between liberalism and conservatism and
especially in the important issue of Supreme Court nominations.
The
Editors at National Review discuss the prospect of replacing
Justice Stevens and how conservatives should proceed in the nomination
battle sure to come. LifeNews reports that radical
pro-abortion groups are pushing President Obama to appoint a radical pro-abortion
nominee to the Supreme Court. Ramesh
Ponnuru calls the announcement of Stevens’ retirement a “good
day for conservatism,” while Carrie
Severino and Matthew
J. Franck look at the opportunities and dangers of the nomination process.
Wendy
Long discusses the broader issue of conservatism
and the courts.
ABC
News reports on the president’s likely short list of potential
replacements, including a new possibility.
Daniel Foster summarizes the list and concludes that they span the
spectrum of “left
to lefter.”
Professor
Richard Garnett of Notre Dame Law School weighs in on the Stevens retirement. Excerpt:
…no one who says this nomination doesn’t
really matter, because the president is simply “replacing one liberal with
another,” should be taken seriously. The very smart and experienced journalists
who cover the Court know that Justice Stevens’s retirement gives the president
a huge opportunity, one that will shape the Court’s work and direction for
decades.
David
Stokes previews the soon-expected vacancy on the Supreme Court and explains
what will be at stake. Will President
Obama nominate someone who respects the integrity of the Constitution according
to the original interpretation of our founders, or will he appoint a judicial
activist who believes in a “living constitution” that means whatever a liberal
judge says it means?
Manny Miranda examines
President Obama’s Judicial agenda while ABC
News reports on the likelihood that the President will be faced with the
opportunity to make nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mario
Diaz reflects on the nomination
of Judge Hamilton. Excerpts:
It is amazing to see the media reports on
the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The media apparently is interested in everything related to this nomination
except the judge’s record.
. . .
In 2005, Judge Hamilton ordered the Speaker
of the Indiana House to immediately stop the practice of “sectarian prayers” at
the opening of the legislative session because the prayers were too Christian.
He said that people “should refrain from using Christ’s name or title.”
Curt
Levey reports on the brand of activism of Judge Hamilton, President Obama’s
nominee for the 7th Circuit.
Excerpt:
This week, the Senate votes on President
Obama’s nomination of District Court Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh
Circuit. Because of Hamilton’s fundraising activities for ACORN, his leadership
positions with the Indiana branch of the ACLU, his statements supporting judicial
activism, and most importantly, his rulings putting liberal ideology above the
rule of law, he is the first and only Obama circuit nominee to draw heated
opposition.
There are many examples of Judge Hamilton’s tendency towards liberal judicial
activism (see letter
from Sen. Sessions). However, the most bizarre and controversial instance
is Hamilton’s 2005 ruling prohibiting prayers that mention Jesus Christ in the
Indiana House of Representatives, but allowing prayers that mention Allah.
While troubling in any context, the religious double standard in Hamilton’s
ruling is particularly deserving of close scrutiny in light of Major Nidal
Hasan’s recent shooting rampage at Fort Hood.
Investor’s
Business Daily reports on the nomination of David Hamilton to the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals. LifeNews also reports,
highlighting Hamilton’s pro-abortion stance.
Jack
Park explains Judge Hamilton’s dangerous brand of judicial activism. Excerpt:
In other words, Judge Hamilton thinks that
the decisions of federal district courts amend the Constitution, just as the
amendment process does. This is unacceptable.
Judges act appropriately when they apply
the law, not when they make it. And they certainly shouldn’t be in the business
of trying to amend the Constitution by the whim of their decisions. Any judge
who says that he or she makes law or amends the Constitution has a skewed
vision of what the proper role of a judge is.
Fox
News reports. Excerpt:
Obama chose Hamilton, a U.S. district judge
in Indiana, as his first judicial nomination in March. The White House has
characterized Hamilton as a moderate pick whose judicial record would temper
criticism from conservative and liberal extremists -- bringing an end to the
political confirmation wars that have long accompanied such judicial
nominations.
But Republican opposition to Hamilton's
nomination has emerged over rulings in a host of cases -- from barring
Christian prayer in the Indiana Legislature to blocking enforcement of certain
state abortion statutes.
In a letter penned Nov. 3 to his GOP
colleagues, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama blasted Hamilton for using
his position to "drive a political agenda." Hamilton stated in a 2003
speech that the role of a judge includes "writing footnotes to the
Constitution" and believes "empathy" should influence a judge's
decision making, Sessions wrote.
The
AP also analyzes the significance of the nomination of Judge Hamilton. Excerpt:
Sessions made it clear his party will put
up a fight against confirming either. He cited Hamilton's position in the late
1980s as a vice president for litigation and board member of the Indiana
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Sessions also complained about
Hamilton's judicial rulings.
"Instead of embracing the
constitutional standard of jurisprudence, Judge Hamilton has embraced this
empathy standard, this feeling standard. Whatever that is, it is not law. It is
not a legal standard," Sessions said.
LifeNews reports (scroll down) on
the vast difference between a justice who respects the integrity of the
Constitution and one who does not.
Excerpt:
“The fight is about the Supreme Court
inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed,” Justice Antonin Scalia said
in an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law. “Right to
abortion?” he asked. “Come on. Nobody thought it violated anything in the
Constitution for 200 years. It was criminal.” “They may be bad ideas,” Scalia
said. “But don't tell me it’s unconstitutional.” But Justice Stephen Breyer,
who shared the stage with Scalia, said his colleague was taking an overly
literalistic approach to the 18th century document. He said that the changing
nature of society, by necessity, requires more than looking at what Scalia
called “originalism.” “You don't look to the details,” Breyer said. “You look
to the value.” Scalia specifically warned that those who approach the
Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the
definition of individual liberties. “It goes both ways,” he said. “The only thing
you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people
want it to mean today,” Scalia continued. “And that’s not what a constitution
is for,” he said. “The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the
desires of the current society.”
Curt
Levey explains the liberal’s latest court packing scheme and gives a
preview of potential future battles over Supreme Court nominations.
Sen.
Orin Hatch (R-UT) explained at NRO on September 17, the 222th anniversary
of the approval of the U.S. Constitution by the Constitutional Convention
assembled in Philadelphia.
Curt
Levey explains how the cause of judicial restraint may have been advanced
in the Sotomayor confirmation despite the fact that another activist judge has
reached the Supreme Court.
Mario
Diaz finds similar encouragement in the possibility that the “living
Constitution” fallacy may have taken a beating during the confirmation process.
Marco Rubio
explains why Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court should be
opposed based on her judicial philosophy and demonstrates why opposing
Sotomayor is not anti-Hispanic.
David
McIntosh explains. Excerpt:
As Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation
hearing began last week, many commentators predicted that she would portray
herself as a moderate judge committed to judicial restraint. True to these
expectations, Judge Sotomayor described her judicial philosophy as quite
simple: “fidelity to the law.” Yet the judge’s history on the Second
Circuit—not to mention her earlier speeches—suggest that she believes judges
can go beyond the law to make policy decisions. For this reason, a vote to
confirm Judge Sotomayor is almost certainly a vote in favor of restricting
Second Amendment protections and property rights, upholding racial preferences,
and providing unlimited abortion on demand.
The
Washington Times editorial board explains why the Senate Judiciary
Committee should vote down Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme
Court. Excerpt:
Senators of both parties should be offended
by the evasive and misleading answers Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
provided to written questions senators submitted following her July 13 through
17 public hearings. The Senate should not accept such evasiveness.
Of particular note is Judge Sotomayor's
dodge of a highly important question from Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions, the
ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning her dissenting
opinion that murderers and rapists have a right to vote while still behind
bars. The relevant part of the question read as follows: "Doesn't your
dissent in [the case] ignore the fact that the convict's crimes and not any
state-based racial discrimination made the felons ineligible to vote?"
Read
the full
editorial here.
Jonah
Goldberg examines Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent words alleging that
one of the motivations behind Roe vs. Wade was to keep undesirable populations
from procreating. Her comments are a
disturbing reminder of the racist, eugenicist roots of the pro-abortion modern movement
and they are also a sobering reminder of the importance of Supreme Court
nominations.
If
you have time during the day to watch the important confirmation hearings being
held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do. Nominations to the Supreme Court have drastic
implications for the future of our nation and our freedom. Concerned citizens should be watching their
elected officials carefully and encouraging their fellow citizens to
contemplate the proper role of judges in our constitutional form of government.
You
can watch
the hearings live on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website.
Your
local PBS station will be carrying the
hearings live, and the major cable news networks (C-SPAN, Fox News, and CNN) will likely provide much coverage
of the hearings as well.
Photo source: LA
Times
FRC
has a helpful brochure that explains how judicial activism threatens our
Constitution. Order a copy or download
the brochure here.
Jan
LaRue explains why the Sotomayor nomination needs to be slowed down. Excerpt:
The White House and Senate Democrats want a
vote on Sotomayor's nomination before the August congressional recess. If
Senate Republicans surrender to the Democrats' race pace card, it means a fast,
uninformed vote on a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.
Americans aren't stimulated by uninformed
voting in Congress. Republicans should also know by now that Americans consider
Supreme Court appointments supremely important. It explains why Samuel Alito is
on the Supreme Court and Harriet Miers isn't.
Democrats are hustling the vote because
they don't want to give Americans time to be fully informed about Sotomayor.
What we already know calls for the Senate to proceed with caution, not
full-speed ahead. A Supreme Court nomination shouldn't be a summary,
rubber-stamp decision. Sotomayor's record including 3,600 opinions, hundreds of
speeches and other writings needs serious and thorough review.
Judicial
Watch sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding
their concerns over potential judicial and ethical misconduct by Judge Sonia
Sotomayor. Read
the letter here.
Michael
G. Franc explains at NRO’s Bench Memos blog.
Ed
Whelan explains one particular reason Sonia Sotomayor’s approval ratings
could be dropping. He argues that her
positions in favor of racial preferences and her opposition to the “colorblind
ideal” are vastly out of step with the majority of Americans.
As
Reuters reports, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (President Obama’s nominee for the
Supreme Court) was given the American Bar Association’s highest rating, a
unanimous vote of “well-qualified.”
It
is interesting to note that another Hispanic nominee named Migel Estrada also received
this rating when he was nominated to a high appellate court by George W. Bush,
but his nomination was shamefully stalled by Senate Democrats for political
reasons. Senate Democrats apparently
felt that allowing a conservative Hispanic to sit on a court often known as the
“stepping stool to the Supreme Court” was politically undesirable.
It
would appear that an amazing life story and ethnic minority background are only
positive qualities for liberal activist judges and not for conservatives or
originalist judges.
The
Washington Times explains. Excerpt:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the
"inherent physiological ... difference" line -- expressing a belief
that Judge Sotomayor said she does not "abhor" or
"discount" -- is an assertion one would have expected to hear more
from 1960s race-baiters like George Wallace than from somebody nominated for
the Supreme Court.
Then there's the line about "facts
that I choose to see as a judge." It's a dangerous standard to assert that
a judge is allowed to "choose to see" certain facts and not others.
The
New York Times reports on some crucial information pertaining to Sonia
Sotomayor’s ethical standards that has not been fully disclosed. Excerpt:
The judge’s choice of the name Sotomayor
& Associates is regarded by some legal ethicists as a confusing departure
for someone generally regarded as meticulous about preparation and following
the rules.
Byron
York reports. Excerpt:
A spokesman for Republican Sen. Jeff
Sessions says documents provided by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund show that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor played a
"deeper than previously thought" role in controversial positions
taken by the PRLDEF. And Sessions'
office says the White House and PRLDEF have still not turned over all the
material requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee for Sotomayor's
confirmation hearing. PRLDEF turned over
some material last night -- just two weeks before the scheduled beginning of
the Sotomayor hearing -- and Republicans say there is still more material that
needs to be examined.
The
AP has more on Sotomayor’s ties with this controversial Puerto Rican civil
rights organization.
Besides
the obvious reverse discrimination inherent in the Ricci case, many legal experts (including Supreme Court Justices) are
troubled by the reasoning expressed by Judge Sonya Sotomayor and her fellow
panel judges.
Here
are links and excerpts from several journals and news sources on the subject:
National
Review
The decision is a sharp rebuke for Second
Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Pres. Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice
David Souter when the Supreme Court convenes in October. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by the Court’s three other reliable
liberals (Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer), and thus administration
spinners are already whirring about how the 5-4 majority purportedly shows that
Sotomayor’s handling of the case was in the mainstream. That rhetorical sleight
of hand, however, misstates both the facts and the nature of the complaint
against Sotomayor.
The only consensus the nine justices found
was that the handling of case by Sotomayor’s three-judge appeals-court panel
was shoddy. Even the four dissenting justices agreed that the Second Circuit
applied the wrong legal standard. The majority was less charitable, rehearsing
the machinations by which the lower courts tried to bury the firefighters’
discrimination claims: While conceding evidence of intentional discrimination,
a district judge disposed of the claims in an unpublished order, which
Sotomayor’s panel then rubber-stamped in an unpublished summary order of its
own. That maneuver prompted a withering protest from Second Circuit judge Jose
Cabranes, a highly respected Clinton appointee, who was startled at his court’s
cavalier treatment of such profound legal issues.
Senator
Jeff Sessions explains how the citing of foreign law in American judicial
rulings is a threat to American sovereignty and independence. This will be an important issue to discuss
when Judge Sonia Sotomayor is examined by the Senate Judiciary Committee in
during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Roll
Call reports. Excerpt:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) on Sunday said the Senate needs more time to review the record of
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after new material surfaced from her time
with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
“Just a day or so ago, we discovered that
there are 300 or so boxes of additional material that has just been discovered
from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” McConnell said
in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The committee needs to have access to that
material and time to work through it so we know all the facts before we vote on
a person who is up for a lifetime job,” McConnell said.
Call
both
your senators today and urge them to slow down the important Sotomayor
nomination process so that enough time can be given to fully examining her
record and judicial philosophy. Also
tell your senators that you want them to vote against liberal, activist judges
who legislate from the bench while relying on their personal perspectives or “life
stories” rather than upholding the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
Roger
Clegg explains how Sonia Sotomayor’s reading of the Ricci case indicates her judicial activism. Excerpt:
The classic instance of judicial activism
is making up a constitutional guarantee that is not actually in the
Constitution, and using that to strike down a state law. But judicial activism
can also involve ignoring a guarantee that in the Constitution to uphold a
statute that violates it.
And this gives us reason to suppose that
this distortion of the legal texts involved was driven by Sotomayor’s personal
policy preferences, the definition of judicial activism. Her now
well-publicized extrajudicial pronouncements in these areas suggest that she is
deeply immersed in identity politics. In particular, she has been very
aggressive in her support for affirmative action and other selection policies
to ensure politically correct numbers.
The
Washington Post reports that the Supreme Court today overturned the Ricci decision of the appellate court on
which Sotomayor served. Excerpt:
…the appellate judges [including Sototmayo]
have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with
"indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the
words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
"This perfunctory disposition rests
uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said,
in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.
Charmaine
Yoest explains how Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s position on abortion could be
considered worse than David Souter, whom President Obama has chosen to replace
with Sotomayor.
One
of the founding fathers of modern conservatism, Richard
Viguere, explains. Excerpts:
The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia
Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the
Supreme Court. Even as important as that
is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution
any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its
terms. It is about President Obama's view
of government power versus the view held by most Americans.
…
Those who see this confirmation battle as
about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's
harmful and dangerous view of government power.
President Obama wants to remake and thereby
weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its
structure for political accountability.
He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic
press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too
often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated
powers. He has taken advantage of those
circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was
doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.
We are distracted by Obama's blitz because
we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives
to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address
the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as
popular as liberalism. This confirmation
fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the
Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.
The New York
Times reports. A blog post by Ilya
Somin also looks at this case and what it says about Sotomayor’s views on property
rights.
The
Washington Times editorial board also weighs in on Sotomayor and property
rights. Excerpt:
Judge Sotomayor served as the senior judge
on one 2006 case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, which respected University
of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein described as "about as naked an
abuse of government power as could be imagined." Her judicial panel's
ruling might be the worst violation of property rights ever approved by a
federal appeals court. It is part of a pattern of Judge Sotomayor's
pro-government rulings that run roughshod over the most basic of private
property rights.
Kellyanne
Conway and David McIntosh explain why President Obama and Senate Democrats
keep trying to portray Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an “originalist” and not a
liberal activist, because that’s who Americans want on the bench by an
overwhelming majority. Opponents of
judicial activism should take heart that American public opinion is with them
and that their elected representatives in the Senate should be held accountable
for whether they thoroughly examine Sotomayor and how they vote on her
nomination. Excerpt:
In a national post-election survey of 800
actual voters, the polling company, inc. found that 70% of respondents
preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings.
Only 23% favored judges who would go beyond the law and take their own personal
views and feelings into account.
These poll numbers explain why -- despite
the President's personal popularity and a 60-vote majority in the Senate -- the
White House must address the fact that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of
the President's standard for picking judges, as well as the standard
articulated by Sotomayor throughout her career.
Her previous writings cast doubt on her
willingness to neutrally apply the law. It is also difficult to square
Sotomayor's latest overtures as a defender of restraint with the fact that
President Obama already committed to picking judges with a willingness to tip
the scales of justice in favor of particular parties involved.
Ilya Shapiro offers examples
of five important questions that Sotomayor needs to address. Hopefully, Senators on the Judiciary
Committee are paying attention and plan to take their job seriously.
Here
are the five questions:
- Can the government rewrite
leases, mortgages, and other contracts?
- Can the government regulate
activity that is neither commerce nor crosses state lines?
- Where in the Constitution is
the right to privacy – and other unspecified rights – located?
- What does the nominee think of Kelo v. City of New London?
- Should the Supreme Court refer
to foreign court decisions to help interpret US law and the Constitution?
Read
all the commentary on why these and other questions are so important here.
Byron
York reports. Excerpt:
Senate Republicans involved in the Sonia
Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination say there are significant gaps in the
172-page questionnaire Sotomayor sent recently to the Senate Judiciary
Committee -- omissions the GOP says will require more time to examine than is
possible under the Democrats' hurry-up schedule for Sotomayor's confirmation.
As
Bryon’s Senate source said in exasperation, “We don't know what we don't know….” This is the very reason we need a thorough
and unhurried debate on Sotomayor in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the
full Senate.
Take Action: Call both
your senators today and urge them to promote a thorough debate on
Sotomayor, and tell them that you oppose appointing radical activist judges to
the Supreme Court.
The
AP reports. Many are deriding the
Senate’s haste in holding hearings and are calling for a reasonable amount of
time to consider Sotomayor’s record.
OneNewsNow
reports. Excerpt:
The Alabama senator leading the GOP's
vetting of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said the American tradition of
impartial courts is "under attack" and the pivotal question in her
nomination should be whether she allows personal views to color her decisions
as a judge.
As
the Washington
Post and the Baltimore
Sun report, despite President Obama’s assertions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor
simply “misspoke” when she said a Latina woman would make a better judge than a
white man; such racially charged statements were common for Sotomayor.
The
Heritage Foundation’s Brian
Darling explains Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s weaknesses
on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Excerpt:
Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the
Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this
year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. If
Sotomayor’s view becomes the view of the Supreme Court, your right to own the
weapon of your choice in your home may be taken away.
Mario
Diaz explains. Excerpt:
For the Democratic leadership to feel they
are fulfilling their “advice and consent” duties by having lunch with Judge
Sotomayor and then voting is one thing, but they should at least not stand in
the way of those faithful Senators who have respect for the Constitution and
their constituents and want to take the time to examine legitimate and
well-documented concerns in the nominee’s record.
Kimberley A. Strassel
explains. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama has laid down his
ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The big
question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr.
Obama nor his party have themselves followed.
Matt
Benchener explains. Excerpt:
But President Obama and Judge Sotomayor
share more than inspirational life stories. They share a troubling and
dangerous view of jurisprudence, informed by a liberal ideology that places
emotional activism ahead of rational objectivity.
LifeNews reports. Excerpt:
Gibbs largely ducked questions about
Sotomayor's abortion views or her position on a so-called "right to
privacy" that has been used to validate abortion. He retreated to his
boilerplate language saying that Obama and Sotomayor have essentially the same
outlook on the Constitution.
"He felt comfortable that they shared
a philosophy on that interpretation ... [of] the living document of the
Constitution of the United States of America," he added.
With Obama taking a clear pro-abortion view
that a "right" to abortion is somehow found in the Constitution, that
should send a signal to the pro-life movement that Sotomayor is prepared to
vote to uphold Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Kevin
Williamson takes another look at the Left’s double standard on judges,
illustrating how “compelling personal stories” are only an asset for liberal
judicial nominees, not conservatives.
Stuart
Shephard, Focus on the Family’s resident wit, offers a
humorous illustration about why “impartiality” and not a misguided sense of
“empathy” should be the most important quality in a judge. Today’s episode of “Stoplight” shows why Chief
Justice Roberts’ philosophy of “impartial umpire” is preferable to Judge
Sotomayor’s “policy making appellate judge.”
Linda
Chavez explains what’s at state with the Sotomayor nomination. Excerpt:
Presidential elections have consequences --
and few are more important than the power to shape the federal judiciary. With
the selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter
on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama has begun the process of
altering the federal courts.
Cal
Thomas exposes the Left’s “biography” double standard when it comes to
judicial nominees. Excerpt:
If these humble beginnings mattered, as
they relate to Sotomayor's view of the Constitution, Clarence Thomas should
have sailed through his confirmation hearings instead of being subjected to
"a high-tech lynching," as he famously put it. Clarence Thomas also
came from humble beginnings (as did George W. Bush's Hispanic Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales), but biography matters only if you're a liberal. If you
evolve into a conservative, it is irrelevant, at least to the elites.
Andrew
McCarthy explains what’s
at stake with the Sotomayor nomination.
Will we be a “nation of laws” in which all have a right to “equal
justice under law” or will become a nation where unelected judges dictate
policy regardless of the plain meaning of our Constitution? Excerpt:
Obama and the lawyers in his administration
are fond of invoking the rule of law. Yet that golden standard stands on the
conceit, honored more in the breach than in the observance, that “we are a
nation of laws, not of men.” It holds that there is an objective corpus of law
— of the community’s reasoned consensus, shorn of passion, fear, or favor —
under which we’ve agreed to be governed and to which those chosen to represent
us owe their fidelity. It’s a nice ideal. Increasingly, though, our real
governing standard is the one made infamous by the legendary litigator Roy
Cohn: “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.”
Our ideal of judging was perhaps best
explained by John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings. The judge is
like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t
design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The
judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can
win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local
paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a
rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is
done — not manufactured.
As
The
Hill reports, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has called
for a thorough and deliberate examination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record,
temperament, and judicial philosophy.
This is exactly what is needed.
As
the nation begins to examine President Obama’s first nominee for the Supreme
Court, an examination of his stated criteria in selecting a judge is
important. Obama has stated that an
important concern for him when considering a judicial nominee is that person’s
capacity for “empathy.” There is grave
concern that “empathy” is merely Barack Obama’s code word for liberal
activism. Several conservative commentators
have examined the “empathy” standard and what it means for the Constitution and
our liberty. Here’s a sampling:
Thomas
Sowell, “Sotomayor:
‘Empathy’ in Action”
You might think that this was some kind of
popularity contest, instead of a weighty decision about someone whose impact on
the fundamental law of the nation will extend for decades after Barack Obama
has come and gone.
…
For those who believe in the rule of law,
Barack Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee.
For those who take his words as gospel, even when his own actions are directly
the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous
woman on the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped,
it is important for Senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse
if such nominations sail through the Senate smoothly.
Rich
Lowry, “A
Bad Day for Impartiality: Obama Uses Empathy as a Code Word for Judicial Liberalism”
Impartiality has been supplanted by
empathy. The old-fashioned virtue of objectivity — redolent of dusty law books
and the unromantic task of parsing the law and facts — is giving way to an
inherently politicized notion of judging based on feelings. Lady Justice is to
slip her blindfold and let her decisions be influenced by her life experiences
and personal predilections.
Jonah
Goldberg, “Empathy
vs. Impartiality: When they Conflict, the Supreme Court must Choose the Latter”
But Obama has something specific in mind
when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice’s oath to in effect be
rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be
partial to the poor, and so on.
Curt
Levey at the Committee for Justice answers
some common concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the
Supreme Court. He particularly addresses
concerns over Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment right to bear
arms. Excerpt:
Obama’s choice of one of the few federal
judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this
year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans
have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local
regulation of firearms – that is, unless they happen to live in the District of
Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and
purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be
forced to explain to his constituents why he’s supporting a nominee who thinks
those constituents don’t have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send
red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group
that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if
they’re drawn into the debate. Obama’s selection of Sotomayor makes that
virtually certain.
As
mentioned by Levey, Ken
Blackwell also examines Sotomayor’s record on gun rights. Excerpt:
She [Sotomayor] is one of only three
federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the
Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and
it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of
Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in
your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your
state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the
Constitution.
Stuart
Taylor explains at the National Journal.
Excerpt:
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal
duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the
fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences"
may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a
difference in our judging."
So accustomed have we become to identity
politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court
candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously
suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
George
Will also
examines the identity politics of the Sototmayor nomination.
 This morning President Barack Obama announced
Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on
the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite
Sotomayor’s inspiring life story of overcoming hardship, her record indicates
that she is a radical liberal who seriously misunderstands the proper role of
the judiciary. In a snickering response at a
Duke University forum, she said that “the court of appeals where policy is made”
indicating that she takes for granted that judges (and not the elected
representatives of the people) take an active role in shaping public
policy. She has scorned the idea of judges
remaining impartial in rulings. And
in a controversial case now before the Supreme Court, she upheld
a racially discriminatory policy in Connecticut.
AdvanceUSA
(and many other organizations and concerned citizens) urge the Senate to take
their constitutional responsibility to provide “advice and consent” to the
president on judicial appointments seriously.
They should thoroughly and carefully examine Sotomayor’s record and
judicial philosophy in Judiciary Committee hearings, on and off the Senate
floor, and in the forum of public debate.
Despite
a substantial Senate majority for the President’s party, Sotomayor’s
confirmation is not a certainty. If
enough concerned citizens raise objections to her nomination, Senators could
feel pressure to oppose her nomination.
But
even if Sotomayor is nominated, a robust debate over her qualifications (specifically)
and of the proper role of judges (generally) will be of great benefit for this
nation and for conservatism.
Keep
checking AdvanceUSA Blog for the latest information on Sotomayor’s nomination
and on the proper role of judges in our constitutional representative
democratic republic. You should also
check the Bench Memos blog at
National Review Online for more insightful commentary.
President Obama
announcing his Supreme Court nominee
Ed
Gillespie gives a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight
and urges Senators to take their Constitutional “advise and consent” duties
seriously, even if that means vocal opposition.
Senator
Jeff Sessions (R-AL), now the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
explains in
the Washington Post the kind of Justice President Obama should appoint to
the Supreme Court and warns against nominating a liberal extremist. Excerpt:
If President Obama nominates to the Supreme
Court a highly qualified individual with a distinguished record that
demonstrates judicial restraint, integrity and a commitment to the rule of law,
his nominee will be welcomed in the Senate and by the American people.
But if the president nominates an
individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt
his or her decision making, he will put before the public a central question:
Are we willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary --
anchored in the rule of written law that applies equally to all people -- for a
high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on
their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue?
Earlier
we linked to two of Thomas Sowell’s articles on judicial activism and Barack
Obama’s opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court. Here are links to and excerpts from his next
two articles in the series. In light of
the importance of judicial nominations for the future of the nation, Sowell’s
advice should be heeded.
Empathy
vs. Law Part III. Excerpt:
It is all too easy to say "a president
has a right to appoint the kind of people he wants on the Supreme Court."
He does. But that does not mean that those who don't have the votes to stop
dangerous nominees from being confirmed are obliged to vote for them or to
stand mute.
Since Justice David Souter is likely to be
replaced by another liberal, it is all too easy to say that it is no big deal.
But with all the indications already as to how the Obama administration is
trying to remake America on many fronts, the time to begin alerting the public
to the dangers is now.
Given the age and health of other Supreme
Court justices, more replacements are likely during Obama's time in the White
House. Time is an opportunity to mobilize public opinion and perhaps change the
composition of the Senate that confirms judicial nominees.
But time by itself does nothing. It is what
we do with time that matters.
Empathy
vs. Law Part IV. Excerpt:
While President Barack Obama has, in one
sense, tipped his hand by saying that he wants judges with "empathy"
for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal
-- getting judges who will ratify an ever-expanding scope of the power of the
federal government and an ever-declining restraint by the Constitution of the
United States.
 The brilliant economist and author Thomas Sowell talks about the proper role of judges in light of the impending opening on the US Supreme Court which President Obama will fill in a recent two-part column (read part one and part two here). Sowell warns of the dangers of “activist” judges who ignore the Constitution and make decisions based on personal bias and “empathy,” while promoting impartial judges who will understand their limited role and make decisions based on the law as written and not personal whims. Here are some excerpts:
From part 1:
In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.
…
The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues-- whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law-- what has been called "a government of laws and not of men."
From part II:
"The criterion of constitutionality," he [Oliver Wendell Holmes] said, "is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good." That was for other people to decide. For judges, he said: "When we know what the source of the law has said it shall be, our authority is at an end."
 NPR reports that liberal Supreme Court justice David Souter will soon retire giving President Obama his first opportunity to nominate a judge for the high court (The Atlantic also reports). In recent decades the courts have amassed unprecedented and unconstitutional power and often used that power to radically change American justice and social structure. Who a president appoints to the Supreme Court will affect our nation for years after that president leaves office.
Concerned citizens need to be watchful and be sure to voice their opinions on the proper role of judges (especially to both your senators, who will be tasked with approving or rejecting Obama’s nominations).
Ed Whelan and Wendy Long provide some initial thoughts on what to expect at the Bench Memos blog at National Review Online.
Check out the judicial nominations category for more information on this important issue.
The
New York Times reports. Citing
foreign laws in American constitutional cases is just one outrageous example of
judicial activism.
FoxNews
reports on the growing opposition to Obama’s nominee Dawn Johnson, the
president’s radical pro-abortion nominee for the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Justice Department.
Republican
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee boycotted the confirmation
hearings of Obama’s first judicial nominee for the federal courts, David
Hamilton, because they believe Chairman Leahy is rushing the nomination and not
providing nearly enough time to research Hamilton’s rulings before questioning
him effectively. FRC’s Tony Perkins
describes how the hearings were held in an out of way room in the Capitol
building without adequate space or television recording capability. Leahy’s actions beg the question “what is he
trying to hide?”
Considering
Hamilton’s record of opposing any abortion restrictions and ruling that prayers
in the state legislature made “in Jesus’ name” is unconstitutional, it’s not surprising
supporters of the supposed “moderate” Hamilton might want to shield him from scrutiny.
LifeNews also reports on the
walk-out.
President Barack Obama has made his first nomination to the federal courts. While the New York Time claims David Hamilton is a moderate, but as LifeNews and CNS News explain, his pro-abortion views and judicial record would suggest he is a radical liberal.
Judge Hamilton was responsible for overturning Indiana’s over a hundred-year policy of allowing prayer in to open sessions of the State House and ruling that people giving the invocation could not pray in the name of Jesus.
Brian Sikma, with the Indiana-based organization Reclaim Our Heritage provides more information about the Hamilton nomination. Excerpt:
In nominating Judge David F. Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, President Obama solidified what many had already suspected about his approach to the judiciary. Judge Hamilton has served as the Chief Judge for the Federal District Court of the Southern District of the State of Indiana and in that capacity he has earned a reputation that runs counter to the flowery rhetoric that is now used to describe his temperament and qualifications.
Judge Hamilton drew the ire of many Hoosiers and a sizeable number of Indiana state legislators when he ruled in 2005 that prayers before the Indiana House of Representatives must not contain the words “Jesus Christ” or any other phrase that refers to the Christian faith. In a poorly researched opinion that relied on an amateurish ignorance of controlling precedent, he made it clear that prayer was allowed so long as it was to a vague, God-like figure that was not affiliated with any particular faith. Prayers that were clearly affiliated with non-Christian faiths were allowed to proceed.
Two years before his ruling imposing a gag order on the Indiana House of Representatives’ opening prayers, Hamilton struck down a state law requiring women seeking an abortion to be provided with information 18 hours before the abortion by either the doctor or staff regarding alternatives to abortion. The law did not seek to eliminate abortion, it only sought to make sure that women preparing to undergo a very serious medical procedure with important psychological consequences were aware of the fact that they do not have to kill their unborn child to deal with the situation.
Tellingly, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-the very court Hamilton has been nominated to serve on-has found occasion to do damage control and reign in his aggressive rewriting of the Constitution and legal precedent. Now that he will be sitting on the court that has often overturned his judicial misbehavior, he is in a position to support activist judges like himself who are working hard at the federal district court level in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
 The ability to make nominations to the Supreme Court and other federal benches is probably the most important responsibility a president possesses. There is mounting concern over the kinds of judges Obama will appoint, as the New York Times reports.
Curt Levy with the Committee for Justice considers Obama’s vaunted political pragmatism and contrasts that with the radical agenda he’s been pursuing to date and the radical appointments he’s been making to the Department of Justice asking the crucial question “which Obama will pick judges?”
Curt
Levy explains what we can learn about judicial activism and the need for a
constitutionalist interpretation of the Constitution at the Committee for
Justice’s blog.
The
Justice Department has enormous power over how or whether true justice is
pursued in our nation. Several of
President Obama’s nominees raise grave concerns because of their support for
radical liberal causes and their lack of loyalty to the plain meaning of the US
Constitution. The Alliance Defense Fund
has more
information here. According to ADF
the nominees…
“…each subscribe to a results-oriented
school of jurisprudence unmoored from a proper understanding of the
constitution. Their legal philosophies depart
from mainstream views, their professional careers reflect a far-left ideology, and
their involvement in the DOJ will jeopardize the proper enforcement of federal
law and development of constitutional doctrines.”
 It has recently come to light that President Obama’s pick for Deputy Attorney General is radically pro-pornography and holds to a loose, activist interpretation of the Constitution. In this post at the Justice Department, David Ogden would be required to enforce obscenity laws (including laws protecting children from the exploitation of child pornography). Having someone in this position who has actively supported pornographer’s (PDF document) supposed “free speech rights” and has opposed common-sense restrictions on obscenity, would be a slap in the face to all citizens with moral decency and would put innocent children at grave risk of exploitation and abuse.
The pornography business is extremely excited about Ogden’s nomination which should make every citizen opposed to obscenity wary. Click here to read a press release from an adult media news service applauding the Ogden nomination (Warning: while there is no pornography at this last link, readers should be warned that it is a pro-pornography news service and other news stories may link to highly offensive and objectionable content).
As if his promotion of pornography wasn’t bad enough, the Heritage Foundation has raised grave concerns over Ogden’s infidelity to the U.S. Constitution.
Also, FRC’s Change Watch website has thorough background information on David Ogden and other Obama nominees.
Alan
Sears of Exodus International explains.
Excerpt:
No sooner had he finished speaking of his
fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope
over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff
posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those
who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in
homosexual behavior.
The Committee
for Justice (among others) is urging president-elect Barack Obama to
appoint some of George W. Bush’s most unfairly treated judicial nominees who
have yet to have Senate confirmation votes.
When George W. Bush first took office he re-nominated a number of
Clinton nominees as a sign of good will and fair play, and some are urging
Obama to follow the precedent. Excerpt
from Committee for Justice:
Assuming Obama wants to match his
predecessor’s numbers, he’ll need to chose a second Bush nominee – in addition
to Keisler – for the circuit courts. Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney in Maryland
and a Bush nominee for the vacancy-plagued Fourth Circuit, would be the perfect
pick. The Washington Post supports his nomination and Senate Democrats and
their allies haven’t found a bad thing to say about him. Maryland’s Democratic
senators blocked his consideration by the Judiciary Committee, but the best
they could come up with, to quote the Post, is the argument that “Mr.
Rosenstein is doing such a good job as U.S. attorney that he should be kept in
that post rather than moved to the court.”
FrontPageMag.com
reports. Don’t expect Justice
Department appointees or federal judicial nominees who support defending a
straight-forward interpretation of the Constitution from the Obama
administration.
Breitbart
reports. Excerpt:
California's highest court agreed Wednesday
to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage
but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
Radical
“gay rights” activists will stop at nothing to impose “gay marriage” on the
public, even if that means overturning democracy when it doesn’t suit their
purposes. Three lawsuits have been filed
to overturn Prop. 8 (which amends the state constitution to preserve the traditional
definition of marriage) recently approved by California voters. The same Supreme Court which instituted same-sex
marriage earlier this year will now determine the constitutionality of the
voter approved marriage protection amendment.
If the court were to overturn a lawfully approved ballot initiative, it
would be an unprecedented display of raw judicial activism and tyranny.
The
Committee for Justice gives us a heads-up on the kinds
of Supreme Court nominees we are likely to see from an Obama administration
and what some Republican senators think about it.
Wendy
Long explains. Excerpt:
The sleeper issue of this presidential
campaign is what the new president will do about the liberal, activist Supreme
Court that recently convened its 2008-09 term.
Far from being in what Hillary Clinton
calls a "right-wing headlock," the current Supreme Court — despite
very modest moves in the direction of judicial restraint — is significantly to
the left of the American public and persistently fails to uphold the Constitution
in two ways.
Click
here to read more.
A recent disastrous
ruling by a federal judge illustrates the danger that comes from
an out-of-control judiciary. Hopefully,
this stark reminder of how the makeup of federal courts can have drastic (and
dangerous) effects on the lives and safety of average Americans, will cause
people to consider what kind of judicial appointments each presidential
candidate is likely to make before submitting their ballot on November 4.
Michael Doyle provides a crucial
reminder of the importance of considering the kinds of
Supreme Court and lesser court appointments a presidential candidate is likely
to make. Today the court system
exerts an enormous amount of power, and the need to appoint well-qualified,
constitutionalist judges to the federal bench is more important than ever. Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain have
drastically different visions for the future of the court, and we as citizens
should consider them carefully before we step up to the ballot box. Here is an excerpt from Michael’s piece:
The next president will tip the courts, one
way or another.
Supreme Court openings are all but
guaranteed, and that's just the start: 44 trial and appellate federal judicial
vacancies already await filling. There will be more.
Curt
Levy discusses the kinds of Supreme Court nominees we are likely to see
from an Obama administration here.
 As the nation nears the crucial
November 4 elections, a reminder of the importance of judicial nominations is
particularly apt. Whoever wins the
presidential race will likely have two to three vacancies to fill on the
Supreme Court. Furthermore, the U.S. Senate
still has several highly qualified appellate court nominees waiting for the courtesy
of an up-or-down vote.
As
MSNBC and The
Hill report, some delegates at the recent GOP convention attempted to keep
the judges issue on the forefront of people’s minds.
Our
friend Curt Levey from the Committee for Justice explains a strategy
for getting the remaining appellate court nominees approved by a stubborn
and partisan Senate.
A
New York court has conspired with the governor of New York in bypassing the
legislative branch by declaring
that “gay” marriages must be recognized despite the fact that the elected representatives
on New Yorkers have declared that marriage is only a union of one man and one
woman.
Saturday
night’s presidential forum at Rick Warren’s church provided a clear distinction
between the major candidates on various issues, especially on social
conservative issues such as abortion, judges, and the rights of faith-based
organizations. To read a transcript of
the event click here. To view the entire broadcast via online video
click
here.
Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-PA) has an important
op-ed in The Washington Times calling for the Senate to do its job and
provide advice and consent on the president’s judicial nominations as the
Constitution proscribes. The obstruction
of the president’s Appellate Court nominees needs to stop now.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee took a courageous stand by refusing to attend committee meeting on Thursday to protest the Committee’s lack of fairness in dealing with the president’s judicial nominees. No circuit court judges were on the agenda. Also, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the “two hour rule” for various committees shutting down the Senate for a time. Judicial confirmations are an important issue so AdvanceUSA applauds the leadership of the Senators who protested the Senate’s obstruction.
The Committee for Justice reports on the situation here.
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Probably the greatest long-term issue facing our nation is the nomination and confirmation of well-qualified, originalist judges and justices to federal benches. One organization seeking to ensure that happens is the Judicial Confirmation Network. It is my privilege to interview my friend and colleague Gary Marx who is the Executive Director of JCN.
DH: Gary, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. Let’s start with a general question. Why is the issue of judges so important?
GM: I think that judicial selection is still the most powerful all encompassing issue for conservatives. There will be times where an issue like immigration will become red-hot but a judge can come along and single handedly ignore the constitution and the law at will and impose their own view of immigration laws upon a state or the nation. Conservatives now understand that no matter whether you are a social, economic, or national security conservative we all unite around the need to have judges who will be faithful to the text of the constitution. Conservatives understand just how the Supreme Court and constitutionalist judges impact our children and grand children. Supreme Court nominations are perhaps the longest lasting legacy of every U.S. president.
DH: How is the Judicial Confirmation Network involved in this issue?
GM: During the Roberts and Alito confirmation battles, the Judicial Confirmation Network built a network or grassroots leaders in key states to pressure Senators to support a fair up-or-down vote and confirm these constitutionalist judicial nominees.
DH: How would you describe a good justice or judge? What kinds of characteristics or qualities define a solid judicial nominee?
Yesterday a number of Senators held hearings to discuss the slow pace of judicial nominations and of the dangerous vacancies on federal appellate courts. Laura Donovan reports at Townhall.
Also, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement about the hearings which you can read in full here.
Considering the amount of power federal courts have obtained for themselves, appointing and confirming well-qualified, constitutionalist judges to federal benches should be a top priority.
The
brilliant economist Thomas Sowell provides a crucial reminder of the
importance of considering Supreme Court nominees when contemplating a presidential
election. Excerpt:
Recent landmark court decisions are
reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a
few years.
The judges that elected officials put on
the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies
and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them
have served their terms and passed from the scene.
Our
friends at the Committee for Justice keep
the judges issue on the forefront of our minds. Excerpt:
Has Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy no
shame when it comes to judicial nominees? We’ll find out in the coming months
by watching whether he continues to deny a committee vote to D.C. Circuit
nominee Peter Keisler, a former Assistant Attorney General at the Justice
Department. Never mind that Keisler was nominated to the D.C. Circuit two years
ago and testified to rave reviews at his Judiciary Committee hearing in August
2006. Sadly, we’ve become all too accustomed to such outrageous delays since
Senate Democrats announced plans to block judicial nominees for purely
ideological reasons back in 2001.
Read
the full
article here.
On
Tuesday, June 24 the Senate confirmed two of President Bush’s nominees to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While
this is a step in the right direction, the Senate still has much work to do in
order to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent for the
president’s judicial nominees. The
following is a statement from the White House:
Yesterday [June 24], the Senate confirmed
Raymond Kethledge and Helene White to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit and Stephen Murphy to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. I appreciate the Senate's work on filling these important seats,
which had been declared judicial emergencies.
For the first time in my Administration,
the Sixth Circuit will now have a full court to address important issues facing
the residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Unfortunately, too
many other Federal judgeships across America remain vacant. This is
unacceptable and inexcusable. Since the beginning of the 110th Congress, the
Senate has confirmed only 10 circuit court nominees. In the last two years of
the past three Administrations, the Senate has confirmed an average of 17
circuit court judges. I strongly urge the Senate to hold hearings and votes on
the 28 pending circuit and district court nominations to ensure that our Nation
has a fully functioning judicial system.
Also,
AdvanceUSA has updated its judges graph to reflect this new information. As can be seen from this graph, the Senate
still has a ways to go in order to give proper treatment to the president’s
nominees (especially the highly qualified nominees who have been waiting the
longest).
Click here to view a
larger version.
Judge
Conrad has been waiting 338 days for his Congressional hearings since President
Bush first nominated him for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Several senators and organizations rallied in
support of Judge Conrad. The Gannett
News Service and Media
General report.
The Republican Leader of the Senate is continuing delaying tactics on the Senate floor in order to force the majority leadership to fulfill their commitments on judicial nominees. Who sits on our federal benches is an issue which will impact our nation for decades. It is important that the president’s well-qualified judicial nominees receive fair hearings and fair up-or-down votes. Call both your senators today and urge them to put pressure on Senators Reid (D-NV) and Leahy (D-VT) to fulfill their commitments and follow their constitutional duty by treating President Bush’s judicial nominees fairly.
Here is Sen. McConnell in his own words:
…But comity also requires the Majority to treat the Minority fairly, which means, at a minimum, that the Majority needs to keep its commitments to the Minority.
If commitments in this Body are not kept, then comity breaks down, and if that occurs, the Minority will not routinely grant consent to those matters that it typically does. In this case, we have unfulfilled commitments with respect to treating circuit court nominees fairly.
It is the middle of June, and the Senate has only confirmed eight circuit court nominees. This is less than half the number that the Majority Leader and I agreed to. And it is barely half the number of circuit court nominees that a Republican Senate confirmed in President Clinton’s final Congress.
More troubling, the Chairman has threatened to soon stop confirming circuit court nominees altogether.
The Republican Conference does not consider this lack of progress and thinly-veiled threat to be in good faith. Not surprisingly, it is therefore not inclined to continue to freely give its consent to matters that are of importance to the Majority.
That’s the way things work around here. As I’ve said before, the Senate works best when there is a spirit of cooperation. Absent that spirit, the Minority will be compelled to protect its rights using all the protections that are afforded it in the Senate Rules.
There is any easy solution to this problem: the Majority needs to start confirming circuit court nominees, at least those who meet the Chairman’s own criteria. And it seems to me that before the Committee spends its time creating new vacancies, it needs to work on filling the vacancies that exist. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee is moving at a glacial pace to do so.
It has only held two circuit court hearings this year, and before that, it hadn’t held a single one since last September. And we have no indication that it’s going to pick up the pace. There are several outstanding nominees who have been sitting in the Committee who meet the Chairman’s criteria, and until they are treated fairly, the Majority will find our cooperation increasingly hard to come by.
AdvanceUSA applauds the courage and leadership displayed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others in holding Senate leadership accountable for their broken promises and lack of progress in giving the president’s judicial nominations hearings or fair up-or-down votes. Appointing judges to the bench who understand the limits of their authority and who will respect and uphold the Constitution is one of the most crucial issues facing our nation and we cannot allow partisan politics to distort the judicial nomination process. The Committee for Justice reports.
Sandy Froman also comments on the situation at Townhall.com and provides some helpful historical and constitutional perspective. Excerpt:
The Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate judges, and the Senate the power to confirm them. The Founding Fathers made it clear that the president’s appointment power was broad and the Senate’s role was limited. The Senate was only to ensure that the president’s nominee was a person of fit character. As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 76, the Senate should rarely withhold approval and only when there are extreme reasons, such as the nomination of an unqualified friend or family member.
For 200 years that was usually the way it worked. The Senate only denied confirmation if there were problems with a nominee’s education, experience, or integrity. Otherwise nominees were confirmed regardless of their political beliefs. That’s why conservative Antonin Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court 98-0, and liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. They were top graduates from top law schools, with stellar careers as federal appellate judges and good character.
But things have gone badly astray...
AdvanceUSA certainly hopes so. It appears Senate Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) is fed up with broken promises by Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV). In remarks on the Senate floor today
McConnell promised that Senate “Democrats
will not be allowed to shirk their commitments on judicial nominations.” Sen. McConnell demonstrated his seriousness
by objecting to a common Senate parliamentary procedure which allows senators
to propose amendments without having the entire text read on the floor. McConnell’s move forced the Senate clerk to
read the entire 491 page document and hopefully was just a foretaste of measure
which will be taken to force action on judges.
We
encourage Sen. McConnell to take whatever legitimate means are necessary to
force the U.S. Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and
consent to the president on crucial judicial nominations.
For
more information on judicial nominations click
here.
Fred
Thompson talks
about the recent ruling in California.
Excerpt:
So, more power to the people of California
in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the
real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is
ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role
in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the
politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.
We
would also point out that the CA ruling illustrates the need for a Federal Marriage Protection
Amendment to permanently protect the traditional definition of marriage
from activist judges who would love to spread same-sex marriage from states
like California and Massachusetts to the rest of the country.
Yesterday, Steven Agee
was appointed to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
President Bush issued a statement expressing his gratefulness for Agee’s
confirmation, but also firmly rebuking the Senate for its unprecedented
judicial obstruction. Here is an excerpt
from a White House press release:
Unfortunately, many of my other judicial
nominees have not received a timely confirmation process and their nominations
have been pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee for significantly
longer.
Since the beginning of the 110th Congress,
the Senate has only confirmed eight Circuit Court nominees. In the last two years of the past three
Administrations, the Senate has confirmed an average of 17 Circuit Court
judges. I encourage the Senate to
provide all judicial nominees with a swift and fair confirmation process.
The
confirmation of Steven Agee brings the total number of Circuit Court judges
appointed in the last two years of President Bush’s term to 8 which, as our appellate court judges
chart demonstrates (below), is far below the 15 President Clinton had
confirmed by a Senate controlled by an opposing party.
Click here to see a
larger image.
In
her piece at Townhall.com Sandy Froman reminds us of the important
of Supreme Court nominees in the upcoming presidential election. This is something we can’t be reminded of
enough. Excerpt:
The political “hot button” issues of guns
and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both
issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because
over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and
possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this
year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next
Supreme Court.
As of yesterday, Judge Robert J. Conrad has waited 300 days to be confirmed by the Senate to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Conrad has the support of both North Carolina senators and has been unanimously rated “well qualified” by the American Bar Association (that organization’s highest rating). Despite his stated desire to respect the wishes of home-state senators and despite the dangerous judicial emergency on the fourth circuit due to judicial vacancies, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appears unwilling to give Judge Conrad a swift hearing.
Tony
Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, speaks out the important
issue of judicial nominations, asking the crucial question:
Will social policy in the USA continue to
be made by panels of unelected judges with lifetime tenure, or will we have a
judiciary governed by self-restraint and fidelity to the rule of law?
He
goes on to quote Alexander Hamilton, one of our greatest but most
underappreciated founding fathers, in the Federalist Papers where he explains
the proper role of the federal judiciary when he says it has “neither force nor
will, but merely judgment.”
We
thank Mr. Perkins for his helpful piece and hope it motivates the Senate to act
on President Bush’s waiting judicial nominees.
The New York Times reports that a deal could be in the works between the White House and Senate Democrats on the stalemate over appellate judges. It is unclear whether this deal would be beneficial over all. AdvanceUSA will be watching this important issue closely.
Peter Keisler, Steve Matthews, and Robert Conrad are excellent nominees who have been waiting far too long for up-or-down votes in the U.S. Senate. The Senate needs to do its constitutional duty and consider these nominees before the Memorial Day recess.
Our friends at the Committee for Justice have important information about the recent Senate agreement on judicial nominations. There is a strong danger that the good faith agreement recently struck will not be honored. If Chairman Leahy (D-VT), Majority Leader Reid (D-NV), the members of the Judiciary Committee, and both your senators don’t hear from you about this issue, we may not see three more crucial circuit court judges appointed by the Memorial Day recess.
CitizenLink also reports. Excerpt:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have sent a second letter to Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urging him to confirm three Circuit Court nominations before the Memorial Day recess.
Peter Keisler has been waiting 660 days for a committee vote. Steve Matthews and Robert Conrad, nominees for the 4th Circuit, have been waiting months for their hearings.
“All three of these nominees deserve prompt consideration by the Committee and up-or-down votes by the full Senate,” McConnell and Specter wrote in the letter.
Leahy said two weeks ago he would “do everything possible” to confirm the nominees by Memorial Day, but no action has been taken. Specter said hearings for Matthews and Conrad must be held by May 6 if they are to be confirmed before the recess.
For an illustration of the lack of progress on judges check AdvanceUSA’s circuit court comparison chart.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today explaining the significance of which three judges the Senate decides to confirm before Memorial Day as part of Sen. Harry Reid’s good faith commitment to that effect. It is important that every effort be made to confirm three of President Bush’s strongest and longest delayed nominees in the time before Memorial Day, especially since these nominees would fill important and critically short-handed posts. Excerpts (emphasis ours):
Republican Arlen Specter has the right idea in requesting a discharge petition to confirm Peter Keisler on the D.C. Circuit, plus Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Keisler, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, is one of the most qualified nominees to the bench. He's done stints as acting Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's Civil Division. Messrs. Matthews and Conrad are both well qualified and would be assets on the Fourth Circuit, which hears many of the country's most important terrorism cases.
The problem is that Democrats would rather fill pending vacancies with candidates who are either their patronage choices or pass muster with liberal interest groups.
…
Democrats are already far behind the historical pace for judicial confirmations in the last two years of a President's term, even in years with an opposition Senate. A GOP Senate confirmed 15 appeals-court nominees in Bill Clinton's last Congress, and Democrats confirmed 17 in Ronald Reagan's last two years. The Harry Reid Democrats have confirmed only seven.
All of this deserves more political elevation this year, not least because it will affect the next President.
…
GOP Senators need to use their minority rights now to insist that Democrats honor their pledge by confirming three bona fide Bush nominees. Democrats are hoping to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency, and the GOP should use the leverage it has while Mr. Reid still wants to get things done. Republicans need to make judges an issue so voters understand that the stakes on the federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, couldn't be higher in 2008.
The blog ConfirmThem.com also weighs in.
Author
and National Review editor at large Jonah Goldberg uses the recent Supreme
Court opinion regarding the death penalty to highlight the brazenness
and danger of activist judges who totally disregard the plain meaning of
the Constitution and ignore the intent of its framers. Excerpt:
What is staggering, or at least should be,
is that Stevens freely admits that he no longer considers "objective
evidence" or even the plain text of the Constitution determinative of what
is or isn't constitutional: "I have relied on my own experience in
reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is
unconstitutional.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in a blistering
response, justifiably exclaimed that, "Purer expression cannot be found of
the principle of rule by judicial fiat."
Mr.
Goldberg continues by drawing our attention to the statements and promises the
major presidential candidates regarding the kind of judges they will appoint to
federal courts. He convincingly makes
the case that, when considering the future of the Supreme Court, “this is one
of the most important elections in a very long time.”
AdvanceUSA is encouraged to learn that a good faith deal has been struck in the Senate which would result in three more of the president’s circuit court nominees being confirmed before the Memorial Day recess. This appears to be an important step toward progress on the crucial issue of judicial appointments, and we hope this will result in the Senate achieving the historical precedent of 15-17 circuit court judges being confirmed in a president’s last two years in office.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) statement:
I was encouraged by the Majority Leader’s commitment to confirming three more circuit court nominees by Memorial Day. That will bring the total for the 110th Congress to 10, and it is a good step toward reaching the goal that we outlined at the beginning of this Congress of reaching the historical average.
Because of the Majority Leader’s good faith commitment, I’m confident that we’ll have these three additional nominees confirmed by Memorial Day.
Excerpt from Roll Call article (subscription):
Dangling the popular highway funding bill as his hostage, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) struck a deal Tuesday night with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to dislodge a handful of President Bush’s stalled appellate court nominees.
Here
are some helpful resources on the recent Senate dust-up over judges.
Thanks
to the leadership and courage of many senators one more appellate court nominee
has been approved (Catharina Haynes, 5th Circuit). The Senate still has a long, long way to go
to do justice to President Bush’s nominees so we encourage senators to keep up
the pressure on judges.
As
our newly updated
graphic shows, the Senate has been acting at a “snail’s pace” on judges and
needs to step it up.
Senate
Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spoke out
on the slow pace of judges this morning in the Senate. Excerpt:
It’s been 108 days since this Senate
confirmed a federal judge of any kind. It last did so the week before
Christmas, on December 18, 2007.
Since then, the Senate has made precious
little progress on judicial nominations.
It has not confirmed any federal judicial
nominees this year, and the Judiciary Committee has held only one hearing on
one circuit court nominee since last September.
Today we will finally be able to confirm
some judicial nominees. That is obviously good news. But after we confirm the
judicial nominees on the calendar that may be it for a while, due to the
glacial pace at which the Judiciary Committee is proceeding.
We
have been informed that the Senate will today consider the following judicial
nominees.
Brian
Miller (Arkansas)
James
Randal Hall (GA)
John
Mendez (CA)
Stanley
Anderson (TN)
Catharina
Haynes (Fifth Circuit)
We
are glad to see Catharina Haynes on this list and look forward to adding
another number to our circuit
court chart comparison, bringing the number of Bush appellate court nominees
confirmed in his last two years to a whopping 7 (compared to 15 in Clinton’s
last two years).
Former Judiciary Chairman Sen. Orin Hatch
(R-UT) also
spoke out on judges. Here is an
excerpt from his speech:
…one of my colleagues was recently quoted
as saying that facts are stubborn things.
The facts are that the majority has
virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process.
Our friends at the Committee for Justice provide an interesting and exciting account of the recent showdown in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the sorry lack of progress on giving hearings or fair up-or-down votes to President Bush’s judicial nominees.
We applaud the committee members who spoke up on the issue and encourage them to keep up the pressure until all of the President’s pending appellate court nominations have had hearings and floor votes. Appointing well-qualified, originalist judges to the federal bench (especially when many courts are experiencing vacancy crises) is too important an issue to do anything less.
Please call Chairman Leahy and both your state’s senators and urge them to do their constitutional duty and hold hearing for and vote on the Presidents judicial nominees.
On
April 1 Senator Specter addressed the need to make progress on President Bush’s
judicial nominations. We applaud Sen.
Specter for his speech, and urge the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty
to provide “advice and consent” to the President on the important matter of
judicial nominations. Excerpt of Sen.
Specter’s speech:
We have a situation where there has not
been one confirmation of a Federal judge this year. Since September 25th of
last year, there has only been one hearing for a circuit judge, and that was on
February 21, in the midst of a recess. There have only been two hearings that
included district court judges, the one on February 12 and one other. Six
nominees have been heard; four are on the agenda for this week's executive
business meeting.
The comparison between what has happened
with President Bush and President Clinton shows a decisive imbalance which
requires prompt action by the Senate on the confirmation of President Bush's
judges.
To
see a graphic illustrating the historical imbalance Sen. Specter referred to click here.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is planning to lead a strategy to shut down the Senate unless President Bush’s many appellate court nominations are given hearings and fair up-or-down votes (which is the Senate’s constitutional duty). In light of the extreme importance of appointing well-qualified, originalist judges to the federal bench, we applaud his leadership in forcing the Senate to do its job when it comes to judges. Excerpt from WSJ article:
The Democratic Senate has confirmed a mere six nominees with no plans in sight to move the remaining 11 forward. Judicial nominees rarely are confirmed in the final months of a President's second term, so the clock is running out. Democrats figure they'll retake the White House in November, and they don't mind leaving the courts short-handed for another year or two as they stall for liberal nominees.
Mr. Specter says he has recommended that Republicans "go full steam ahead" until Democrats agree to hold confirmation votes.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) recently gave a speech in the Senate on the importance of making progress on judges. He also published an opinion piece in the National Review on the same topic. Excerpt:
The Constitution gives to the president authority to nominate and appoint federal judges. The Senate provides advice about whether the president should appoint his judicial nominees by giving or withholding consent through up or down votes. That is what the Constitution assigns us to do. That is what Americans expect the Senate to do. That is what the Senate is failing to do.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has also urged action on judges.
It’s time our friends on the other side stop blaming others for their own failures to act on judicial nominations. If they don’t, Republicans will be forced to consider other options.
Improving the makeup of the federal bench and making sure there are enough judges to promote justice in America is one of the most important issues in our country. We applaud the efforts by Senators McConnell, Specter, and Hatch to make progress on this front.
Contact Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and urge him to get to work on judicial nominations. Also, contact both your senators and urge them to push for progress on judicial nominations.
Politico reports. If a Senate “staredown” makes judicial
nominations an important issue in 2008, we say “bring it on.”
AdvanceUSA is proud of the courageous leadership shown by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) yesterday on the crucial issue of judicial confirmations. As frequently reported by AdvanceUSA, the Senate has shamefully fallen behind on its duty to consider and vote on the Presidents nominations to critical federal court positions. The obstruction is particularly dangerous when considering Circuit Court vacancies. Our friends at the Committee for Justice helpfully report on the leadership meetings that took place yesterday, as well as commenting on the excellent floor statements made by several Senators.
Excerpts:
Monday’s meeting appeared to mark a turning point in what the letter calls the Senate’s “most bitter” controversy. A fight over judges has been brewing for weeks now, as GOP senators have become increasingly frustrated with Leahy’s obstruction of nominees. Sen. Specter had urged his colleagues to postpone any hardball tactics while he tried again to work things out with Leahy. But yesterday, “Specter indicated to the conservative leaders that he too had run out of patience and was ready to lead his colleagues into battle,” said Committee for Justice executive director Curt Levey, one of the participants in the meeting.
…
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor after Specter to urge that his “Democratic colleagues resist the desire by some to drag us back into judicial confirmation brinksmanship.” McConnell noted that “many of these [judicial] nominees satisfy most or all of [Leahy’s] specific criteria for prompt consideration: they have strong-home state support, they fill judicial emergencies, and they have good or outstanding ABA ratings.” Nonetheless, McConnell said, “there have been no judicial confirmations so far this year, and there has been only one hearing on a circuit court nominee since September of last year.” In last year’s most contentious fight over a judicial nominee, both McConnell and Specter were instrumental in the successful confirmation of Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick.
Full story here.
To read the entire floor statements of Senators McConnell and Specter see below:
McConnell: End Brinksmanship on Judicial Nominees
Senator Arlen Specter Speaks on the Senate Floor Regarding Judicial Nominations
AdvanceUSA is encouraged that judicial confirmations might become a major issue in the 2008 election because the best strategy for getting well-qualified, originalist judges on federal benches is to rally voters to hold their elected officials accountable for who they nominate and how they vote (or don’t vote) on nominations.
To see how the major presidential candidates stand on judicial nominations and other issues, check out AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidates Comparisons.
The
Committee for Justice explains. Here
is a particularly helpful excerpt relating to the role and importance of
judges:
Nonetheless, if you are not a judicial
conservative, you may be asking what’s wrong with judges protecting the weak
from the strong? Well, for one thing, identification of “the weak” is very much
in the eye of the beholder. We’re guessing that Barack Obama does not want
judges to favor gun owners, unborn babies, white men challenging employers’
racial preferences, or property owners threatened by environmental regulations,
no matter how much power they’re up against.
Moreover, the Constitution and the laws
enacted by our elected representatives already contain many protections for
criminal defendants, employees, minorities, women, and the like. The job of a
judge is to dispassionately apply these constitutional and statutory
protections, not to second guess their authors. That’s not to say that a good
judge succeeds at being completely dispassionate in every case. But it is only
the Left that wants to enshrine “what is in the judge's heart” as a “critical
ingredient” in the law, to quote Barack Obama.
Sen. Barack Obama
(D-IL)
Democrat candidate
for president
 Catharina Haynes was nominated by President Bush on July 17, 2007 to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Besides the grave importance of appointing well-qualified originalist judges to federal benches, there is a particular sense of urgency in Haynes’ case because the Fifth Circuit is shorthanded and in desperate need for another judge. Yesterday Haynes was finally questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Bush has called for a swift up-or-down vote on her nomination and AdvanceUSA heartily agrees. To read a fact sheet on Catharina Haynes prepared by the White House click here.
AdvanceUSA calls on the Senate Judiciary Committee to swiftly vote Haynes out of committee, and calls on the Senate to give her a fair up-or-down vote as the Constitution requires.
For more information on judicial nomination click here or visit the pro-justice page.
Our friend Curt Levey at the Committee for Justice compares the recent refusal of the House Democrat leadership to allow a vote on the Protect America Act to the obstruction of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Excerpt:
…our view on passage of the Protect America Act is the same as our philosophy on the confirmation of judicial nominees. If senators and House members are sincere in their belief that the PAA is a threat to civil liberties or that the President’s judicial nominees threaten civil rights – they can and should vote against passage or confirmation on the floor. What they should not do is thwart the will of the majority by preventing a fair up-or-down vote.
The Protect America Act and FISA are not major issues for AdvanceUSA, but we certainly share the frustration over the Senate’s intolerably slow pace of confirming judicial nominations and urge a fair up-or-down vote for all the president's nominees.
To see a graphic representation of the slow pace of judicial confirmations click here. For more information on judicial nomination check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page.
 Yesterday, at the White House, President Bush “called out” the Senate for its lack of action on important judicial nominations. Appointing qualified, originalist judges to the federal bench is of the utmost importance, but over 180 nominees are currently in judicial limbo. Call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today (his DC number is 202-224-3542) and politely ask him to end the obstruction of the President’s judicial nominees and grant them hearings and a fair up-or-down vote, as is the Senate’s constitutional duty. Excerpt of the President’s remarks:
As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate qualified men and women for public office. That's my responsibility, I take it very seriously. I have nominated skilled and faithful public servants to lead federal agencies and sit on the federal bench. The Constitution also gives senators an important responsibility. They must provide advice and consent by voting up or down on these nominees. Unfortunately, the Senate is not fulfilling its duty.
The confirmation process has turned into a never ending political game, where everyone loses. With more than a 180 of my nominees waiting for the confirmation process in the Senate, it is clear that the process is not working. About half these nominees have been waiting for more than a hundred days. More than 30 have been waiting a year or more. And nine have been waiting for more than two years.
That's no way to treat men and women who have stepped forward to serve our country, and it's got to stop. It's in our nation's interest that this process change. It's not right to treat these good folks this way. These nominees deserve an up or down vote. Many of them have had their careers on hold. They've got spouses whose lives are stuck in limbo. They have children waiting to find out where they're going to go to school.
To read the full speech click here.
For a helpful White House fact sheet on judicial nominees click here.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) also spoke out on this crucial issue and his remarks can be read here.
For more information on judicial issues and to view a chart illustrating the Senate’s lack of progress on judges check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page.
Sen.
Arlen Specter spoke out today in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal
about the deportable
lack of progress in the Senate on approving federal judges. In
particular, he cited the cases of Peter Keisler and Robert Conrad, both highly
qualified nominees who have been nominated to important Circuit Courts, who are
still awaiting approval or committee hearings. Here are some excerpts of the
piece:
In President Clinton's
final two years in office, the Senate confirmed 15 circuit court nominees;
thus, much work remains to be done. There are currently 14 circuit court
vacancies, with a nominee pending for nearly all of the seats. The Senate must
confirm nine more circuit court nominees this year to keep pace with President
Clinton's confirmations during his final two years in office.
It would be a shame if the
preliminary steps the Senate Judiciary Committee took in 2007 were lost in
2008. To date, it has been four months since the committee held a hearing on a
circuit court nomination. Several highly qualified candidates have been
awaiting hearings for many months, and it is my hope that Chairman Patrick
Leahy and I will be able to schedule prompt hearings for all of these fine men
and women. At a bare minimum, nominees received from the president in 2007
deserve a committee hearing and a vote before the end of 2008.
…
In 2008 we will set
important precedents for how the next president's nominees, whether Republican
or Democrat, are treated in the Senate. Americans of both parties are demanding
change; we should not wait until November to give it to them.
Last
year AdvanceUSA prepared a graphic which visually illustrates the statistics
cited in Senator Specter’s piece. The statistics don’t lie. See for
yourself.
You
can view this graphic by clicking
here or by checking the home page
or pro-justice page. Or
see the smaller version below.
To
see a larger version click here.
Senate
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spoke on the Senate floor on Tuesday
(January 22) about the dangerous obstruction of federal circuit court nominees.
“[W]e can’t confirm judges if they don’t get hearings. And since last summer, Democrats have allowed
only one hearing on a circuit court nominee.
Compare that with Senate Republicans in 1999, who held more hearings on
President Clinton’s nominees in the fall of that year alone than Democrats
allowed this president all last year.
This pattern is neither fair nor acceptable.”
…
“[W]e’re not on pace to keep up with historical
precedent. The historical average for circuit
court confirmations in the last Congress of a divided government is 17. President Clinton — who had the second most
judicial confirmations in history, despite having to deal with a Republican
Senate almost his entire time in office — had 15 circuit court confirmations in
his last Congress.”
To read
Sen. McConnell’s full statement click here. To see a helpful graphic/chart AdvanceUSA has
produced to illustrate the outrageous judicial obstruction click here or visit
the pro-justice page.
HT: The
Committee for Justice
The Hill
reports on this sad
result of partisan judicial obstruction.
This is a
grim reminder of the importance of appointing qualified originalist judges to
federal benches and of supporting presidential candidates who will nominate
only those who understand the proper role of the judiciary and will not
“legislate from the bench.”
To see
how the current presidential candidates stand on important issues check out
AdvanceUSA’s 2008 Candidate
Comparisons.
Our friends at the Committee for Justice sent around an email updating people on a particular case of judicial obstruction that relates to Michigan. AdvanceUSA shares the Committee for Justice’s hopes that judicial nominees will become an important issue in next Tuesday’s GOP Michigan primary. If you have friends and family in Michigan, please remind them of the importance of appointing qualified originalist judges to the federal courts rather than liberal activists who legislate from the bench. Send them a link to our 2008 Candidate Comparisons while you’re at it.
Below is an excerpt from the Committee for Justice:
With New Hampshire behind us, the next stop for the GOP presidential contenders is Michigan, home of four Great Lakes and the worst obstruction of judicial nominees in anyone’s memory. It’s been more than six years since Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow started blocking Michigan nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Despite a nearly 50% vacancy rate on the court at one point, they have persisted in their campaign of obstruction to this day. As a result, two exceptionally qualified Michigan nominees, Raymond Kethledge and Stephen Murphy, have gone more than a year and a half without so much as a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The seats to which they were nominated have long been declared judiciary emergencies.
…the essential point is that the confluence of the Michigan primary and the outrageous obstruction of the state’s nominees provides a great opportunity for journalists to ask the presidential contenders about the proper role of senators in the judicial confirmation process. After all, one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of a president is the appointment of federal judges….
At best, Sens. Levin and Stabenow are being petty. They have tried to justify their campaign of obstruction as payback for the failure of two second-term Clinton appointees to the Sixth Circuit – one of whom is married to Levin's cousin – to get hearings. At worst, Michigan’s senators are willing to subject the residents of the Sixth Circuit – spanning Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan – to eight years of unnecessary delays in the justice system, in the hope that Levin and Stabenow cronies can be put on the court under a Democrat president.
Many suspect the latter motivation, given that Levin and Stabenow have been offered “generous” compromises that would put the two Clinton nominees on the federal bench, but the senators “can't take yes for an answer,” to quote a Detroit News editorial. No wonder the News said that the “intransigence by the Michigan senators goes beyond rough politics and verges on political malpractice.”
HT: Committee for Justice
Senate
Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor recently
and mentioned judges (among other things). Excerpt from his statements:
“The Judiciary Committee needs to do a much better job
processing circuit court nominations. Christmas will be here before we know it,
and we’ve only had one hearing on one circuit court nomination since the summer
recess, and we’ve had only five hearings for five circuit court nominees all
year.
“During a comparable period in President Clinton’s last
Congress, the Republican-controlled Senate held hearings on 10 of President
Clinton’s circuit court nominees, including five after the August recess.
“We’ve had qualified circuit court nominees up here for
months who satisfy the supposed criteria of the Democratic Majority. There is
no good reason for the Judiciary Committee to bring progress on circuit court
nominations to a standstill.”
HT:
Committee for Justice
As John
Fund explains in the Wall Street Journal, it appears Senator Barbara Boxer
(D-CA) is holding up the nomination of Judge Jim Rogan to the U.S. District
Court because, as a former Congressman, he was one of the House managers who
led the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. It would be a shame if this
kind of petty partisanship derails the confirmation of a qualified judge.
At yesterday evening’s Federalist Society meeting President Bush spoke on constitutional interpretation, the proper role of judges, and the over-politicization of confirmation hearings. Excerpt:
“Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a ‘living constitution.’ In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean. They forget that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words.”
Here, here, Mr. President! To read a transcript of the entire speech click here.
After the successful confirmation of Judge Leslie
Southwick yesterday
(which took almost 17 months) the number of circuit court judges confirmed by
the Senate in the last two years of Bush’s second term has climbed to a grand
total of five. Obviously, the Senate has its work cut out for it if it is
going to keep pace with the rate of Bill Clinton’s nominees (as the stats reveal).
It is important to note that since the presidential election “season” is
growing so long, there are probably only about 6-8 months left for the senate
to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominations.
To view a larger version click here.
Today the U.S. Senate finally did its job and voted on the confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Southwick was confirmed by a vote of 59 - 38. His confirmation is a victory for defenders of the Constitution and a defeat for liberal extremists who support activist judges. Before Southwick could receive his confirmation vote three-fifths of the Senate had to vote to "invoke cloture" which ended debate, prevented a partisan filibuster, and allowed a fair up-or-down vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick. Cloture was invoked by a vote of 62 - 35. Check the AdvanceUSA Vote Watch page to see how your senators voted on this important judicial confirmation.
For more information on this crucial nomination click here or check the Southwick category here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
Vote to End Debate on Leslie Southwick’s Nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 24, 2007
Full Results | News Story
|
|
|
Yeas |
|
Nays |
|
PRES |
|
NV |
|
Republican |
|
49 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Democratic |
|
13 |
|
34 |
|
— |
|
3 |
|
Independent |
|
— |
|
1 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
TOTALS |
|
62 |
|
35 |
|
— |
|
3 |
Vote to Confirm Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 24, 2007
Full Results | News Story
|
|
|
Yeas |
|
Nays |
|
PRES |
|
NV |
|
Republican |
|
49 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Democratic |
|
10 |
|
37 |
|
— |
|
3 |
|
Independent |
|
— |
|
1 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
TOTALS |
|
59 |
|
38 |
|
— |
|
3 |
As
reported at NRO’s Bench Memos blog Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has
indicated that Judge
Southwick might finally receive a fair up-or-down vote in the Senate this week. Southwick is a highly-qualified, strong
originalist nominated by President Bush to sit on the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals but his nomination has been stalled due to liberal slandering
of his character and distortion of his record.
VOTE TODAY: Last night our contacts on the
Hill informed us of the following:
This evening Majority Leader Reid
announced a time agreement regarding the votes on Judge Leslie Southwick’s
nomination.
Under the agreement the Members
have agreed to move to the cloture vote tomorrow morning at 11:00am. Should
cloture be invoked (meaning more than 60 Senators vote in the affirmative), we
would move immediately to the vote on final confirmation. If it is not invoked,
we will return to legislative session.
Southwick would be an upstanding circuit judge who would uphold
the Constitution. Pray that the Senate
treats him justly and votes to confirm his nomination.
Ever
wonder when judicial confirmations became so politicized or what an originalist
judicial philosophy looks like? This Wall Street Journal article answers
those questions while “commemorating”
the twentieth anniversary of the Senate vote to reject the nomination of Judge
Robert Bork who was Ronald Reagan’s pick for the Supreme Court.
Citizens concerned about judicial tyranny would do themselves a service to read
how Judge Bork, who Warren Burger described as “simply the best qualified
nominee [of his] professional lifetime,” was so shamefully treated.
As LifeNews
reports Justice Antonin Scalia recently gave a great lesson in originalist
jurisprudence firmly declaring that there is no “right to an abortion”
contained in the U.S. Constitution. While abortion should not be the
only litmus test for appointing judges, any true “strict originalist” would be
able to support Scalia’s common sense pronouncement.
Should U.S. judges consult foreign laws
and precedent when making their rulings or determining constitutionality?
It seems like a pretty obvious answer to most of us,
but to liberal, activist judges using foreign law sounds convenient and
fashionably multicultural.
The
Alliance Defense Fund has released a new video that warns of the dangerous
trend among activist judges
who use foreign law to
advance their liberal agenda through the courts.
Excerpt
from CitizenLink article:
Bill Saunders, senior fellow and director of the Family
Research Council’s Center for Human Life and Bioethics, explained that it's
part of a strategy to achieve what can't be gained through the legislative
branch.
“The social Left, the cultural Left, has known for a long
time that the only way they’re going to achieve their agenda is through the
courts," he said. "So they have looked to international institutions
to try to build up arguments that the ‘international community’ supports
certain things like abortion or gay marriage and that, therefore — according to
them — we in America should pay some attention to that.”
This is
another example of why appointing qualified originalist judges is so crucial to
our nation. Check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page for more
information.
Excerpts from The
Hill online magazine:
With just 16
months left until President Bush leaves the Oval Office, there are 48 vacancies
on the federal district and appellate courts, and Bush has yet to nominate
judges for 24 of those seats.
…
Republicans
say if Democrats continue to block Southwick and other qualified nominees, they
will spotlight the “obstruction” in the run-up to the election, an issue that
plays well with and energizes the conservative base. And some blame sprawling
Democratic investigations into the Justice Department and other aspects of the
administration for slowing down the White House’s process in finding suitable
nominees.
UPDATE: To view an updated version (5 Bush confirmations
now that Southwick has been confirmed) click here or check this
blog post from 10/25/2007.
While
some may contend that the United States Senate is doing a respectable job in
confirming judicial nominees, the stats don’t lie.
The U.S.
Senate needs to take its constitutional responsibility to provide “advice and
consent” on President Bush’s judicial nominations seriously, especially in
light of glaring vacancies in the federal courts.
If one
compared the number of circuit court judges confirmed in the last two years of
an eight-year presidential term in which the President and Senate belong to
opposing parties, Bill Clinton would be the “hare” while George W. Bush would not
even merit “tortoise” status. AdvanceUSA has prepared this graph which
compares the circuit court confirmation statistics of Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush who find themselves in nearly identical political situations. Click here for a
larger version of this graph.
Roll Call (full article available by subscription) reports on the efforts to scrounge up enough votes in the Senate to ensure that Judge Leslie Southwick receives fair treatment. Southwick is President Bush’s nominee for a vacancy on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, is an Iraq War veteran, and was unanimously deemed “well-qualified” by the American Bar Association.
Excerpt:
[Sen.] Cochran [(R-MS)] said Monday that the hurdles to confirming Southwick remain great, but he continues to work with other GOP Senate supporters to try to convince enough Democrats to come on board. He added that he believes if Democratic Senators approach the Southwick nomination with an open mind, then he may eke through.
“The party with the most votes wins,” Cochran said. “And if it’s on a partisan basis, he won’t be confirmed and it would be a tragedy because he is a man of outstanding character who would be an outstanding addition to the court.”
For more information on Southwick’s beleaguered nomination click here or check the related blog posts in the “Southwick” category.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is not one to hog the lime light. He rarely gives public interviews, but now that his new memoir “My Grandfather’s Son” is coming out Thomas has broken the silence to talk about his life and his beliefs. As his book and numerous interviews reveal he is not only a man of character but also a shining example of what a Supreme Court Justice should be. His jurisprudence should be a model for future judicial nominees, and presidential candidates should be judged by how likely they would be to appoint judges in the mold of this great American. Americans need to get to know Justice Thomas in order to be inspired by his story and instructed by his judicial wisdom.
Below are numerous resources relating to Clarence Thomas:
YouTube video of Thomas’ “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday night:
Interviews:
Interview with a Grandson: Clarence Thomas on his Memoir
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
National Review
Rush Interviews Justice Clarence Thomas
Rush Limbaugh
In an
in-depth interview for “60 Minutes” Clarence Thomas recounts that the reason
his nomination received such vitriolic opposition was his strong pro-life stance on
abortion. The interview will air this Sunday night on CBS at 7:00pm
Eastern. Justice Thomas is also promoting his new autobiographical book
entitled “My Grandfather’s Son.”
AdvanceUSA
has learned that Jennifer W. Elrod, one of President Bush’s nominees for the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals, has been recommended by the Senate Judiciary
Committee on a voice vote. Now two 5th Circuit Nominees
(Leslie Southwick and Jennifer Elrod) await confirmation by the Senate and
given the Senate’s dismal record on confirming judges (only 3 Circuit Court
nominees this year) immediate action should be taken.
The
following is an excerpt from Roll Call (subscription):
“Republicans are salivating over a fight with Democrats on
judicial nominations, which they view as an ideal vehicle to charge the
majority party with ‘obstructionism’ and rally their conservative base heading
into the 2008 election year.”
AdvanceUSA
attended a press conference yesterday on Capitol Hill to show support for the
embattled nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick for the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Orin Hatch (R-UT) led
the event which was well attended by conservative activists, concerned
citizens, and members of the media.
UPDATE: Click here to view a video clip of the press conference. Sen.
Specter kicks off the press conference advocating the speedy approval of Judge
Southwick with many concerned citizen-activists gathered in support.
Over at Bench
Memos, NRO’s blog on judicial matters, Ed Whelan addresses several of the
unjust allegations and distortions leveled at Judge Leslie Southwick (President
Bush’s well-qualified, originalist nominee for the 5th Circuit
Court).
Excerpt
from an INVESTOR'S
BUSINESS DAILY article on the nomination of Judge Southwick:
Perhaps concerned with claims he's "not black
enough," Barack Obama plays the race card in the judicial nomination of
Leslie Southwick. That may score points with liberal activists, but it
shouldn't with fair-minded voters.
Click
here to read the full article.
AP report excerpt:
Ralph Neas is stepping down as president of People for the American Way, a liberal organization that has fought President Bush's conservative judicial nominations.
"I just feel this is the time to make a move," Neas, 61, said Friday.
As this Washington Post article mentions, Ralph Neas and People for the American [Liberal] Way led the obstruction efforts and eventual defeat of Judge Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, and continue to obstruct important judicial nominees to this day.
Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, photo source
For more information on the critically important issue of judicial nominations check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page or click here.
Judge
Leslie Southwick was nominated by the President to sit on the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals, but liberal groups have tried to slander his character by blatantly
distorting two past judicial decisions which he joined, out of the thousands he
has participated in. The Washington Post’s
recent editorial counters
the baseless liberal accusations and highlights his sterling qualifications.
An older Wall
Street Journal article and this
National Review article also refute the slanderous accusations against
Judge Southwick.
Southwick was recently voted out of committee, but the liberal attack email
below should provide evidence enough that radical organizations will continue
to seek to obstruct Judge Southwick’s nomination and likely the confirmations
of further judicial nominees. Your
senators need to hear the truth about Judge Southwick and of the need to
appoint more qualified, originalist judges to the federal bench.
Below is
the text from an email that AdvanceUSA has obtained which was sent by the Human
Rights Campaign (HRC), a radically liberal “gay rights” organization.
Today the
Senate Judiciary Committee voted Judge Leslie Southwick’s nomination to the 5th
Circuit out of committee 10-9. Now the full Senate must decide whether
or not to confirm his nomination. Thusly, the McConnell
amendment is now unnecessary as Southwick will finally get his fair
up-or-down vote in the full Senate (assuming there is no judicial filibuster).
For more
information on Judge Southwick’s nomination check the AdvanceUSA home page
or pro-justice page.
Republican
Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell made the following statements after Judge Southwick
was approved by the Judiciary Committee:
UPDATE: Call
both
your senators today and urge them
to vote “yes” on Sen. McConnell’s amendment to express the sense of the Senate
that Judge Southwick should receive a fair up or down
vote!
“It Is The Sense Of The Senate That The Nomination Of
Judge Leslie Southwick To The United
States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth
Circuit Should Receive A Vote By The Full Senate.”
So reads
the amendment
proposed today by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. It is
very important that Judge Leslie Southwick receive a fair up-or-down vote by
the full Senate on his nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals, and this amendment is a strategic tool in the process. Since
liberal interest groups have fought a simple confirmation vote using a variety
of smear tactics and political bullying, this unusual measure will be a telling
indicator.
Senator
McConnell’s staff has highlighted some important quotes regarding Judge
Southwick which are reproduced below.
Despite
the long-standing practice of giving deference to home-state many senators are
refusing to give Judge Leslie Southwick a fair up-or-down vote in the full
Senate even though both senators from Mississippi
(Trent Lott and Thad Cochran) strongly support his nomination. The Senate
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke out against the apparent “double
standard” in video posted below.
Below are
some relevant quotes helpfully provided by Senator McConnell’s staff:
On Monday
Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) took to the Senate floor to defend the nomination of
Judge Leslie Southwick for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (full
transcript in Congressional Record) which is currently stalled in the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Southwick had been the victim of outrageous
liberal attack but he is a sterling nominee for the federal bench and deserves
a fair up-or-down vote in the full Senate.
Below are excerpts of Sen. Hatch’s remarks.
Stuart Taylor Jr., at the National Journal provides great background on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick and explains how liberals are opposing his nomination because he is conservative. Below are some excerpts.
“A Mississippi judge is the latest victim of a judicial confirmation process that has steadily become more degraded by partisan warfare.”
“Of course, liberal groups and Senate Democrats don't admit to opposing Southwick simply for being conservative. But their detailed complaints boil down to just that, as do scurrilous insinuations that Southwick is a bigot -- insinuations denounced by, among others, his former law clerk La'Verne Edney, an African-American. ‘It is unfortunate,’ she has written, that ‘there are some that have made him the chosen sacrifice to promote their agenda.’”
This WSJ article discusses the recent absurd statements by certain senators seeking greater “control” over judicial nominees and exposes the faultiness of their logic. The role of the Senate under the Constitution is to give “advise and consent” to the President regarding judicial nominees, not to “interrogate and control” them. This article shatters the recent myth that all legal precedents must be upheld all the time. If this were the case, such cases as Dread Scott (“the black man has no rights…”) and Plessy v. Ferguson (“separate but equal”) would still be enforced. The role of a judge is to uphold the Constitution and not to slavishly follow wrongly-decided precedent.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) made an astonishing comment on Friday saying that the Senate should not confirm another Bush nominee for the Supreme Court “except in extraordinary circumstances.” This is a stunning admission of liberal obstruction of judicial nominees by a powerful member of the Senate Democrat leadership. The words of White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, quoted in The Politico, show conservative frustration with the statement:
"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully.”
Appointing qualified, originalist judges to the bench should be a top priority, and this blatant obstructionism should be a wake-up call to conservatives. For more information on judicial confirmations check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
UPDATE: Information from C-SPAN linked by Instapundit examines the historical precedent for making recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
 AdvanceUSA and a number of conservative groups held a press conference yesterday led by Sen. Specter (R-PA) to correct the record about the sterling record and qualifications of Judge Leslie Southwick and to demand he receive a fair up-or-down vote in the full Senate. Judge Southwick was nominated by President Bush to sit on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, was unanimously rated "well qualified" by the ABA, and volunteered for active duty in Iraq. However, liberal interest groups, determined to prohibit qualified, originalist judges from reaching the federal bench, have sought to derail his nomination through character assassination and blatantly misleading allegations.
Appointing qualified, originalist judges to the federal bench is one of the most important issues facing our nation and should be a high priority for conservatives in Congress and conservative citizens contemplating presidential candidates.
AdvanceUSA has more information on Judge Southwick on its home page and pro-justice page. Also, there are a number of past blog posts about Southwick's nomination, the support for Southwick from Sen. McConnell and from Sen. Specter (transcript here), the broken promises by some senators, and the shameless attempts by some liberals to use Southwick's race against him.
UPDATE: This article from Investors Business Daily adds more helpful perspective on why liberals oppose Judge Southwick so strenuously.
UPDATE: CWA has provided video clips of the press conference in support of Judge Southwick.
At a
press conference on July 20 Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) lauded Judge Leslie
Southwick and called the attempts to stall and defeat his nomination to the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals a "manufactured" controversy. Below is a video of Sen. McConnell's
statements followed by an excerpt from the transcript of his remarks.
“I know it won't surprise any of
you to know that we think that whatever controversy
there is about Judge Southwick is manufactured. I mean, it
doesn't exist. An extraordinarily accomplished individual with a
unanimous well-qualified from the American Bar Association. The
Democratic leadership of the Judiciary Committee has said that's the gold
standard.”
“…Southwick should move
forward. I haven't given up hope that he may. And he's
important.”
-Sen. Mitch McConnell, Press
Conference, July 20, 2007 (emphasis
ours)
The WSJ
yesterday reported on the dire vacancy crisis on the federal bench and explained
how Senate
Democrats seem to be stalling all the nominees (NOTE: subscription required),
holding out for a Democrat president. Particularly disgraceful is that
the liberal strategy for stalling Judge Leslie Southwick’s nomination for the 5th
Circuit Court claims he is a racist and that Bush should have nominated an
African-American for the seat. One of Southwick’s former clerks (a black
woman) has spoken in support of Southwick seeking to dispel the fabricated myth
of his supposed bigotry. Fortunately Senators like Arlen Specter appear
willing to do battle over this important issue.
Yesterday Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took to the Senate floor to defend
the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to be an appellate judge on the 5th
Circuit Court. Southwick is an excellent
choice whom radical liberal groups have been seeking to vilify without
cause. In this age of judicial activism
it is crucial that qualified, originalist nominees like Southwick make it to
the federal bench. Below is an excerpt
of Senator Specter’s statements in defense of Southwick, followed by his full
statement.
“This man has an impeccable
record, an outstanding record, with 985 authored opinions. The two
opinions that have been called into question are opinions which he didn't
write, but merely joined, on matters which -- while they might have been
articulated differently, might have been more sensitive -- certainly are not
disqualifiers. This man ought to be confirmed.”
Below is a copy of Senator Specter’s floor
statement:
Mr. President, as stated a moment ago, I have sought
recognition to speak about the nomination of a Mississippi appellate court
judge, Leslie H. Southwick, to be Federal Court for the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. I have asked for this time because Judge Southwick has been
before the Judiciary Committee on several occasions and, because there is not
much known about his record, there have been certain objections raised.
As I have talked to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when they hear
about his record, they are surprised that he is not moving through
expeditiously. I thought it would be important to take a few moments to
acquaint Senators with his record and, beyond that, to acquaint the public with
the pending nomination.
In this
piece Jonathan Adler examines our current Supreme Court and asks the question,
“How
conservative is this Court?” Adler notes the “minimalist”
conservative approach by the new justices but counters the argument that there
is conservative legal revolution since Justice Kennedy effectively holds sway
as the swing vote in contentious cases.
“The
Court, no less than the Presidency, will be on the ballot next November, and a
wise electorate will vote accordingly.” So writes Jeffrey Toobin in the
New Yorker, and we could not agree with him more. Although Mr. Toobin
looks at the steady conservative shift on the Supreme Court with dismay, his main
point about the importance of the judges and justices presidents
appoint is correct.
This presidential prerogative should be one of the most important factors as
concerned citizens decide for whom to vote in the upcoming presidential
primaries and general election in 2008.
For more
information on the importance of federal courts check the AdvanceUSA pro-justice page.
HT: Mike
Here is more
information on the Judge Leslie Southwick saga from Robert Bluey on
TownHall. The left continues to oppose and Senate liberals continue to obstruct
solid judicial nominees to prevent qualified, originalist judges from reaching
the federal bench. America’s
judicial system deserves better.
Many conservatives are growing concerned with the large number of vacancies on the federal bench and the apparent slowness of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to consider judicial nominations in a timely manner.
There is encouraging news that conservative members of the Senate are willing to take a courageous stand to ensure that President Bush’s judicial nominees get a fair hearing. Let’s hope they get a fair up-or-down vote as well. With the courts as powerful as they are today, the importance of nominating and confirming qualified, originalist judges can hardly be overstated.
More evidence today that
radical liberal groups will stop at nothing to prevent decent judges from
reaching the federal bench. When President Bush nominated Judge Leslie
Southwick most observers thought there would be little controversy. But
radical liberal groups have found some supposed violations of political
correctness in his past and are determined to torpedo the nomination. The
Wall Street Journal accurately puts
the issue in perspective while the New York Times predictably
regurgitates left-wing talking points.
According to this exclusive ABC news report, it appears President Bush would pick a strong “judicial conservative” if a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court this summer. This is great news since, with the increased influence of the Courts and the length of judicial terms (for life), Supreme Court appointments are some of the most important decisions U.S. presidents make.
Great article on the importance of appointing federal judges who will uphold the constitution and not legislate from the bench. She gives Bush high marks so far and offers hope for the future.
|
|
|
| |