Dec 28 2004
Reaching Across the Aisle?
What happened to GWB’s promise of reuniting the country by reaching across the aisle?
Refusing to take no for an answer on 20 of his judicial choices, President Bush indicated Thursday that he intends to re-nominate them when the new Congress convenes - CBS news
I guess I’m wondering why Pres. Bush is trying to change the landscape of American law by appointing activist judges to the bench?
Dan, you act as if you’re shocked by this STARTLING piece of information. Who, in their wildest dreams, would have ever thought that President Jesu…er, I mean Bush, would have shown any trace of stubbornness, considering how willing he’s been to listen to our side’s concerns for four years now?
It’s like telling a kid no.
“Mom, can I go smoke with my friends?”
“No!”
“Ok, thanks. Got a light?”
Kinda makes you read Isaiah 11:6 in a whole new light:
“…and a little child shall lead them.”
FWIW - Bush is only re-nominating 12 of the 20 judges originally declined a seat.
Instead of calling the prez a child, can anybody site reasons why these judges nominations were not approved? Most of these judges are reputable and seem to have proper credentials.
Anybody?
One example is DoD counsel Haynes, who (as general counsel) OK’d the torture/abuse going on at Gitmo. During his first confirmation hearing, he refused the Judiciary committee’s requests for his role in the matter.
The Wall Street Journal got ahold of his legal opinion on torture last year. He wrote:
Key words there: “Despite domestic and international law”. Legally advising a client (the DoD, Pentagon, White House) that it’s OK to break the law is hardly a quality we should be looking for in a Federal judge.
Another is Texas Supreme Court judge Priscilla Owen who during her first confirmation, listed eight of her ten most significant cases on the committee questionaire as ones where she represented oil and gas companies. The Alliance for Justice (which i’ll admit isn’t totally non-partisan, but they’re not exactly a party shill either) said about her, “Owen’s sixteen-year career in private practice was devoted almost entirely to the representation of oil and gas companies”.
Even soon to be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales accused her of “unconscionable judicial activism” relating to abortion cases. Like I said in the post, ‘activist judges’.. ;)
William Pryor actually is on the federal bench right now because Bush sidestepped the confirmation process last year and appointed him while congress was out of session. He’a another ultra-conservative avctivist, who recently ruled that states should be immune from lawsuits for damages brought by state employees for violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
Pryor has also said he doesn’t believe the Constitution applies to ‘moral’ issues like abortion, gay rights, and prayer in schools.
He also has said he believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.
Again, a federal judge has no place dictating what parts of the Constitution should be applied to law based on his narrow view of what’s ‘moral’ and what isn’t.
So those are three of the bunch… With almost all of them, there’s a good reason they didn’t get appointed to the federal bench. They’re seriously just too conservative. The GOP would do the same if a bunch of ultra-liberal candidates were nominated to the federal bench by a Democratic president.
Not that I’m knocking that, I think the judiciary is the one place that should be balanced, not filled with extremists from either site of the political spectrum.
I haven’t done any research on this, so I appreciate the info.
I think the judiciary is the one place that should be balanced, not filled with extremists from either site of the political spectrum.
I couldn’t agree more.
I think I finally agree with you on a “political” post! :D We’ll see, though, I have more research to do. ;) j/k
Let’s see…
Janice Rogers Brown
–One word, One number: Proposition 209
William Gerry Myers III
–Not a friend of Native Americans or the environment. Besides, he has no substantial courtroom experience. Might need that.
Terrence W. Boyle
–Booth vs. Otherman. Boyle took the stance that North Carolina officials are not liable for violating the Due Process clause of the Constitution, citing a casual interpretation of the 11th ammendment.
–Refused to accept a settlement issued by the US Department of Justice, which stated that the North Carolina Department of Corrections discriminated against women in their hiring practices. Boys’ club!
Brett Kavanaugh
–Went after Clinton for hiding behind executive privilege during the ridiculous Monica Lewinsky scandal, then did an about face and became a champion of executive privilege during Bush’s tenure. Hmmm…partisan much?
William James Haynes II
–While I agree that there should be a little, and I mean LITTLE, wiggle room when dealing with terror suspects, Haynes has made it clear he has absolutely no intention of taking the Geneva Convention into consideration in this matter. The rules of conventional warfare may be nearing obsolescence, but these are, after all, still only suspects. We should be careful how we behave while spreading the virtues of freedom and democracy around the world. Slippery slope?
Thomas B. Griffith
–I believe ANY nominee has to be properly qualified, regardless of which party they owe their allegiance to. Griffith has received the lowest possible passing grade for a judicial nominee, after controversy surrounding his career at Utah. Griffith failed to obtain and maintain a law license during parts of the past six years. Red flag!
Susan Bieke Neilson
–Has a tendency to protect shady employers from potential whistle blowers. See Austin vs. Wayne State University. Enron, anyone?
Priscilla Richman Owen
–While I have no problem with marriage, Owen has made it clear what her definition of a family is. Sorry, gay folks. She’s never been a big fan of the environment, either.
David W. McKeague
–Supports the infusion of religion into public institutions, most notably schools. While I come from religious stock myself, I am a HUGE opponent of forcing my, or anyone’s, beliefs into a secular arena. Give Caesar what’s Caesar’s, and give God what’s God’s.
Richard A. Griffin
–Not a big fan of workers’ rights or injured plaintiffs. Bush’s insistence on reforming “frivolous” lawsuits (his words) makes this one a little scary.
Henry W. Saad
–See Richard A. Griffin
William H. Pryor
–Wants to ease restrictions on regulations designed to protect citizens from discrimination based on gender, race, disabilities, and age. Also not too concerned with protecting the environment.
I realize these might not be issues that resonate with you, Yeah Boy, but let’s not forget there’s another half of the country out there. Many people in this half have spent their lives fighting for the very principles that these nominees may threaten.
I, of course, meant “ease regulations”, not “ease restrictions on regulations” in the William Pryor section of my last post. Sorry about that.
I’m such an idiot.