home

Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judicial Picks

I leave the computer for 12 hours and what happens, Bush re-nominates 12 ultra-conservative judges. Who are they and how bad? Here's the offical White House list. It includes:

  • Janice Rogers Brown, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit,
  • Priscilla Richman Owen, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
  • William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit
  • William J. Haynes, II for the 4th Circuit

Here are all the 12 who previously failed to be confirmed:

_4th Circuit: Terrence W. Boyle and William James Haynes II.

_5th Circuit: Priscilla Richman Owen.

_6th Circuit: David W. McKeague, Susan Bieke Neilson, Henry W. Saad, and Richard A. Griffin;

_9th Circuit: William Gerry Myers III.

_11th Circuit: William H. Pryor, who received a recess appointment from Bush after Democrats blocked his nomination. That appointment expires at the end of this year.

_District of Columbia Circuit: Janice Rogers Brown, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Thomas B. Griffith.

Reaction:

  • Sen. minority leader Harry Reid: (via email): “The President is at it again with the extremist judges. "
  • Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass:

"The president looks like he is still more interested in picking fights than picking judges," Kennedy said. "The last thing the federal courts need is reactionary judges bent on rolling back basic constitutional rights."

“Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush’s nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a state law license for the past four years, according to Utah state officials.” - Washington Post, 6/21/04

This slate of nominees demonstrates that the President and his team want to pack the federal courts with right-wing ideologues. In fact, the republican leadership may use one of these nominations to trigger the ‘nuclear option,’ and eliminate the last check and balance in the Senate for opposing ultra-conservative nominees who are out of step with mainstream Americans on both sides of the political aisle. And if the nuclear option succeeds now over a lower court nominee, when few Americans are paying attention, it will be too late to do anything about it when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs.

PFAW has a detailed analysis of the records of the most troubling nominees.

Now comes the battle over the "nuclear option" where the Repbulicans try to end the Democrat's filibuster power. They don't want to acknowledge that the role of the Senate in "advise and consent" doesn't mean roll over like a dog or lay still like a doormat and take it.

More later.

< Happy Valentine's Day | Bush Pushes for Patriot Act Renewal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#1)
    by brian on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    “Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush’s nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a state law license for the past four years, according to Utah state officials.” - Washington Post, 6/21/04 In BushWorld, "judicial nominee" apparently means, "adhering to law optional".

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#2)
    by DonS on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 06:04:08 PM EST
    "common sense moderate" . . . George Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

    Okay folks, let us have some debating then a vote. You advise and consent, or not. But no fillibusters. I mean since none of these people nominated are the least bit qualified, it should be easy to send them home.

    I mean since none of these people nominated are the least bit qualified, it should be easy to send them home. *guffaw* You underestimate our Republican friends. Appointing judges has become just another skirmish in the never-ending political war.

    Skaje - Uh, that was sarcasm..at least by me.

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#7)
    by DonS on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    Sorry, my attempt at html didn't work. My reference is to "The Art of Stealth" in the recent "London Review of Books", which is easily googled.

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#6)
    by DonS on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    This article, which many of you might have seen referenced before, lays out the case very nicely, particularly the difference between a conservative judicial appointment and a neo-con appointment. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n04/acke01_.html<">link

    Posted by: PPJ (aka Jim) on February 14, 2005 07:53 PM Okay folks, let us have some debating then a vote. You advise and consent, or not. But no fillibusters. I mean since none of these people nominated are the least bit qualified, it should be easy to send them home. Why can't they just be blue-slipped, like so many of Clinton's nominees were? Why can't we just bury them in committee, like the Republics did during the Clinton years, so they never get the chance to be debated about on the Senate floor, and never get the chance to be voted on in the Senate? Do as we say, not as we do - the methodology of the Republic Party gets easier for the sheeple to see every day. Welcome to the one-party state.

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#9)
    by wishful on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:44:39 AM EST
    What a spoiled rotten brat. Bush should try to find his dignity and let go of these few, rare instances of not getting his way.

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#10)
    by DonS on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 06:02:07 AM EST
    "Bush should try to find his dignity and let go of these few, rare instances of not getting his way." You forget, this is the way of the Bubble Boy and Kommander Karl.

    (:Tom:) - Because blue slipping was, and is, wrong. And it was been used by both sides. The constitution says advise and consent. Confirm or not. Let's have hearings and let the Senate do its job.

    Don S., the meaning of your Orwell post has changed now that TL has purged my post.

    In an age when the left considers anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy "Ultraconservative" and the right considers anyone to the left of Tom Delay "Ultraliberal", the prefix "ultra" loses all meaning. If these nominees are as bad as they are said to be, if their beliefs are so abhorrent that no one should want them in a position of authority, then simply vote against them and be done with it. But the fact is, a large percentage of the population does not see these people as such, and Senators who vote against them put their own standing at risk; what we then end up with is an attempt to thwart democracy and the clear language of the Constitution to avoid fulfilling their Senatorial responsibility. Regardless of your personal preferences or feelings about these specific nominees, we should all understand that this is not a good thing for the country.

    Not a good thing for the country, like lying the nation into an illegal war to find WMD that weren't there, eh? Not a good thing for the country like stealing elections, like spreading money in big sachels around to Bush-backers with no-bid contracts, like practicing nepotism at every opportunity? These clowns have already had their day in the Senate, and they were shot down, while a whole bunch of bad candidates went forward on the political grease bubbling out of the fake ranch in Waco. But that's not good enough for Bush, now that the Senate has been packed by YET ANOTHER stolen election. Packing the court with ideologues is Job #1 for damaging the Republic for decades to come. "Not a good thing for the country." Gee, had a look at the economy lately? And the crocodiles WEEP for the hard work of closing their jaws.

    But the fact is, a large percentage of the population does not see these people as such, and Senators who vote against them put their own standing at risk
    what a crock, and the other large percentage of the population that sees these men as dangerous to liberties and freedom. politics is what it is, if blue-slipping is the precedent for not even considering a nominee, then there blue-slipped. bring some acceptable candidates to the table. btw; democratic senators should be concerned about their standing in the democratic party.

    bring some acceptable candidates to the table Acceptable to who? Pat Leahy or Middle America? btw; democratic senators should be concerned about their standing in the democratic party. Why, is the tent getting even smaller? Will Howard Dean be excommunicating those Democrats who he feels are not sufficiently liberal/progressive? It's the voters who decide who represents them, not the party, and if the party takes an ever harder line it will just push more people out. This is not the way to win back control of Congress.

    How about some candidates who are acceptable to both Pat Leahy and Middle America? It's the vote counters who decided who would represent us last time. You know, the ones who promised Putsch their state's electoral votes. The ones who made sure there were too many voting machines in rich Republic precincts, and too few in heavily Democratic ones. The ones who refused to let the election audit go forward until after those electoral votes were delivered as promised. I'm sure it would be in the best interest of the Democratic party to listen to the advice of Republics on how to build their support with the people.

    That is an UTTER lie, jp, and if you don't know it, you must REALLY be ignorant. There has never before been a situation in the history of the country where 28 states have NO PAPER TRAIL for their voting. Our right to recount was intentionally and aggressively blocked in Ohio, and we caught the main Bush-backer electronic voting company committing felonies to prevent a legal recount. Felonies which Bush's AG and FBI REFUSE to investigate. Just like they refused to investigate the 2000 vote fraud, in violation of the law. But that's not the whole story, since Bush is SO hated, that $Rs like you had to pull out all the stops in the largest example of voter suppression efforts in documented history. This is nothing but $R Distraction Method #2: "Both sides do it." If the Dems do it, how come the OBVIOUSLY-PARTISAN FBI doesn't investigate them and throw them in jail? More to the point, since we have PROOF of felonies committed in Ohio and elsewhere, how come the FBI can't be bothered? $50 million thrown down the john investigating Bill Clinton. Spend $.50 and buy any newspaper, and you'll find PLENTY to indict GWB on. But the Justice Dept. is run on a partisan basis only. Democracy need not apply.

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    justpaul, of course, in washington it was liberals who stole the close election; but in florida, where a president's BROTHER runs the state, oh no, nothing fishy there; or where election equipment manufacturers are publicly quoted as saying they'll do everything in their power to deliver their state to bush, that's not something we need to worry about. please. today, in 2005 there is no uniform, trustworthy standard for holding a verifiable election of any size in this country. the game has been exposed as a fraud. too error-prone to be trusted. for liberals AND conservatives. it is a disgrace and utterly unacceptable. as for bush's judicial nominees, they can all disappear into committee black holes, for all i care. ppj is so concerned with the letter of the law on this issue; but somehow the exact lettering of, say, the second amendment, and interpreting it in its original context, would send him scrambling for every sort of rationalization as to why a well-regulated militia really means any nutjob who wants a firearm. hmmm. we're all f*ing nutjobs, people. the difference is some of us accept and deal with it, and try to become better; while others, like bush and his crop of horsesh*t nominees, live in denial and recycle the same failed act over and over and believe confirmation to be their birthright. the most divided federal election in the nation's history DOES NOT translate into any kind of mandate for the appointment of neo-con lackeys and yes-men to the federal bench. sorry. these folks are simply not of the caliber demanded of national judiciary of the freest people on earth. they are partisan hacks. so clearly it's blinding. don't let the door smack your ass on the way out of the committee room.

    dadler at February 15, 2005 02:24 PM
    i'm somewhat of a good a$$ chewer myself, but occasionally i like to hear an expert, please continue.

    Dadler, You'll get no argument from me on election problems in general, but I don't recall arguing that everything was kosher in Florida in 2000. There were definite problems there, but they occured on both sides of the aisle, and of the counting tables. We need to clean up our act, and in a big way. We need a uniform standard for voting registrations, voting machines, and how votes are counted (and what counts as a vote). Unfortunately, those in power don't want a clean system because they will then lose the ability to manipulate the votes to their advantage. As for PPJ and his views on the second amendment, you'll have to argue that with him. I think the second amendment is pretty clear in its language. The right to keep and bear arms precedes the amendment itself, and the militia clause does not change that. Sadly that right has been infringed by those who argue that only those in a militia have the right to bear arms, but that's the state of our society today: even clear language can be perverted by the "living document" crowd. As for Bush, his nominees, and whether we are all nutjobs: That's your take on things. 58 million+ people chose to re-elect Bush. I'm not thrilled with this outcome, but there it is and there's not much I can do about it. He has the authority to nominate judges, and your disagreement with him on what constitutes proper qualification for those positions is just that, a disagreement of opinion. If you want to name judicial nominees, run for the office. If you think Pat Leahy, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Howard Dean would make better choices, ask them to run. As it is, Bush is the President and we have to live with that. And if these nominees are as bad as you seem to think, there should be no trouble voting them down. But as you know, every one of these nominees is expected to win, with Democratic support, if they make it to the floor, which is why the hardcore left wants to stop these people in committee. But that door swings both ways, and because of the last four years and what is most likely to come, Hillary is going to have a very hard time of it come 2009. It may well be 2012 before she gets a single nominee through, and you'll have Chuck Schumer and Co. to thank for that.

    Re: Bush Resubmits List of Ultra-Conservative Judi (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    justpaul, there's this thing called passionate dissent. i'd like to hear some. the kind of thing that let's you know a country is truly free. of course they'll probably be confirmed. but that doesn't mean you don't make as much trouble as you can. it's called hardball poltics. what, you don't think that's what the repubs play? i wouldn't trust or support a bush judicial nominee as far as i could throw them. sorry, in this capacity, bush and i are on different planets. me earth, him neoconia. he wants to drink some no-alcohol beer and talk baseball with me, we're all good. politics, all bad.

    Dadler, Sounds like you and Bush would have a lot to talk about with regard to politics, assuming the two of you would open your minds to each other. And yes, the Republicans played hardball with Clinton's nominees as well, but that doesn't make it right. They were wrong too. I'm not a Republican, nor am I carrying any torches for them. I'd just like to see Congress do its job more often and spend less time mucking things up. Tom, As noted above, and I'm sorry to break the news to you, but I'm not a Republican. The fact that I don't buy into your version of reality doesn't mean I buy into theirs. And your version of the facts on both elections is somewhat skewed to say the least.

    Everyone's version of the facts is somewhat skewed, jp. Some of us are willing to concede that, and some of us aren't. That fact that I don't buy into your version of reality is okay with you, too - right? And the fact that you seem to be overwhelmingly supportive of the conservative point of view in your comments on this site tends to make me have some serious doubts about the honesty of your statement that you are not a Republic. Do you support Democratic positions as consistently as you do Republic ones? One side of the debate (as far as I have been able to tell) has consistently admitted that there are problems on both sides of the aisle. One side considers bipartisanship to be akin to violence towards someone you are dating. Which of those viewpoints are skewed to the greater degree?

    Interesting article talks more about Bush's Judicial appointments [link mangled, feel free to repost correctly.]