Sen. Russ Feingold just gave this speech on the Senate Floor on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. The first half discusses the use of the filibuster, and the second is his detailed reasons for opposing Owen. From the first half:

The idea that the filibuster has been used over the past several years as a tool to block all the nominees that the minority oppose is ludicrous. There were, and there continue to be, very good reasons to block a certain small number of nominees. Nothing that occurred last night changes that one iota. I will continue to vote against cloture only in extraordinary circumstances. I did that when we voted on cloture on the Owen nomination in 2003, and each subsequent time. And I have done it again today. For the majority to have created this constitutional crisis over what came down to five nominees was wrong. It was an abuse of power. The American people did not support it and they will not support it in the future.

William Myers and Henry Saad are the "fall guys" in the New Senate compromise. Unlike Owen, Rogers Brown and Pryor, they may or may not receive up or down votes. The Denver Post describes William Myers today as:

Myers has no judicial experience, nor has he ever tried a case before a jury. In a two-year stint as Interior's solicitor, Myers wrote just two formal opinions and - though cleared of legal wrongdoing - was the subject of three ethics investigations by the department. The American Bar Association gave the Boise, Idaho, resident its lowest passing rating as a nominee.

Some of Myers' actions as Interior solicitor indicate that he may have found it difficult to divorce himself from his years as an advocate of industry.

He is opposed most by environmentalists.

The Wall St. Journal has an article (online for free) on an overlooked issue in the judicial nominations fight: Bush's picks could tip the balance in many circuits. To me, this is an additional reason the compromise being proposed by moderate Senators should fail. The Journal reports:

Janice Rogers Brown, for instance, has made scathing assessments about the reach of the federal government -- and she is nominated to the appellate court that handles the majority of appeals of government-agency rulings.

William Myers, who has advocated against environmental groups, is in line to join the appellate court that sorts through land-use battles.

William Pryor, who called a section of the Voting Rights Act "an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness" -- may be headed for an appellate court with jurisdiction over parts of the old Confederacy.

The compromise under consideration would result in an up or down vote on these three nominees - and possibly all 7 of the contested nominees - in order to preserve the right to filibuster "in extreme circumstances" through 2006. Since Republicans have a majority in the Senate, this means certain confirmation for these nominees.

Members of the Houston Bar Association who have practiced before Priscilla Owen have rated her the worst justice of the six justices rated. Here are the rankings:

Judge (Respondents) Outstanding Acceptable Poor

Scott A. Brister (422) 36.9 20.7 42.4
Nathan L. Hecht (327) 40.3 17.4 42.3
Wallace B. Jefferson (270) 53.4 29.7 16.9
Harriet O'Neill (334) 55 30.5 14.5
Priscilla R. Owen (350) 39.5 15.2 45.3
Dale Wainwright (316) 48.7 25.7 25.7

Using "Outstanding" percentage minus "Poor" percentage, Owen is at minus 5.8%, i.e. 5.8% more rated her performance "Poor" than rated her "Outstanding." Owen's rating is a hair worse than Brister (-.5%); a little worse than Hecht (-2%); and much worse than O'Neill (+40.5%), Jefferson (+36.5%), and Wainwright (+23%).

Oh, the hypocisy of Republicans. Now they want an up-or-down vote on all nominees. That wasn't the case in the 90's when Clinton did the nominating. In fact, it's never been the case. Tremendous deference always has gone to the Senators from the nominee's home state.

• Denver lawyer Jim Lyons was nominated for the 10th Circuit in 1999. Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard blocked a vote on his nomination. The reason: Allard thought he was too partisan, because he had represented the Clintons and wrote a report on Whitewater. Lyons, a well-respected lawyer, had the support of Colorado's other republican Senator, Ben Nighthorse-Campbell, as well as that of Republican senators from other states. But Allard refused a vote and Lyons eventually withdrew his nomination.

A new Associated Press poll shows that 78% of Americans believe judicial nominees should be scrutinized by Congress and do not think Presidents should be given the benefit of the doubt.

More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just approve them because they are the president's choices.

That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday....The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt. There were majorities among each political affiliation - Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Over at the Huffington Post, Court TV anchor and former Texas Judge Catherine Crier has an excellent blog post on the Nuclear Option . Pat Buchanan was on her show last night. She recounts their discussion, and Buchannan's frank admission about what this fight is all about - putting radical right evangelicals - not Republicans - in control of the Supreme Court. Crier concludes with this:

There is no question that President Bush will have the opportunity to appoint several justices to [the Supreme] Court during his second term. He has made his ideological preferences clear. Conservative justices aren’t enough. He wants jurists of a particular persuasion. They must satisfy the requirements of fundamentalist Christians, with a willingness to roll back the clock to a time where children prayed to Jesus in public school, gays were back in the closet and women were forced into back alleys.

by TChris

The right wing's misguided war against judges is disturbing to those who believe that an independent judiciary is necessary to protect the public from abuses of power in the other branches of government. The war against judges, fueled by the hate-mongering rhetoric of the right, is also disturbing to judges. One who has good reason to be disturbed: Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother were killed by a disgruntled litigant "whose decade-long legal crusade against doctors, lawyers and the government was dismissed by the judge last year."

Judge Lefkow knows too well that those who demonize judges are creating a climate that will lead to more tragedy.

The judge ... said recent attacks on the judiciary by the televangelist Pat Robertson and by some members of Congress fostered disrespect for judges that "can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them."

Criticism of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown is not new, at least not on TalkLeft. From our archives, and worth re-reading:

• 9/4/02...Priscilla Owen: The Wrong Judge
• 6/14/03...Janice Rogers Brown for Supreme Court?
• 8/28/03...Report on Janice Rogers Brown
• 10/14/03: Next Judicial Battle: Janice Rogers Brown

Externally, these are good picks:

• 10/22/03...Sen. Patrick Leahy's Statment on Janice Rogers Brown
• 10/21/03...Alliance for Justice Opposes Janice Rogers Brown.
• 4/21/05...PFAW: Priscilla Owen: Remaking the Law for the Radical Right(pdf)
• 5/12/05...Salon...Priscilla Owen and Willie Searcy

These judges are appointed for life. The D.C. Circuit, for which Janice Rogers Brown is a nominee, is considered a direct line for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. If you care about preserving the integrity and independence of the judiciary during your children's lifetimes, get on the phone now and let your Senators know you oppose any compromise on these nominations. You can reach them all at 202-224-3121. Direct line numbers are here.

Who's working behind the scenes for a compromise?

Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado had attended at least 13 private meetings over the previous 24 hours with senators trying to craft a deal, a spokesman said.

Graham and Salazar, along with Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., John McCain, R-Ariz., Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and others, were working to try and find six Republicans and six Democrats to block Frist from banning judicial filibusters and block Reid from filibustering all of Bush's controversial judicial nominees.

I don't want to see this happen. My source tells me they are talking about agreeing to allow up or down votes on all but two of the nominees and that Janice Rogers Brown would no longer be blocked. I am calling Sen. Salazar's office right to protest this compromise.

Frist does not have 51 votes, even with Cheney. The Dems should hang on and fight.

Update: I just got through and left a voicemail at Senator Salzar's office. If you are from Colorado, the number is (202) 224-5852. It was easy. Call your Senator, you can find your Senator's number here.

The nuclear option begins this morning. Bill Frist has announced he will seek a vote on Priscilla Owne - an extremist whom Texans say wants to rewrite law from the bench. The Washington Post has this script for how it will play out.

At 9:30 a.m. today, the Senate will begin debating Bush's nomination of Priscilla R. Owen, an abortion opponent on the Texas Supreme Court who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans.

On Thursday or Friday, Frist and other Republican senators are likely to file a motion seeking cloture, or an end to debate. One session day must pass before a vote to end debate, so a vote would be held and Republicans would expect to get fewer than 60 votes to confirm Owen.

by TChris

The same Senate Republicans who decry "judicial activism" want to end the ability to filibuster judicial nominations. Writing in Mother Jones, Bradford Plumer makes the interesting point that the filibuster saves courts from judicial activists.

The strongest argument for the judicial filibuster is that it forces presidents to pick moderate judges. Recall that Bill Clinton, faced with a hostile Republican Congress that had already scuttled many of his judicial picks, decided to play it safe with his Supreme Court picks and went with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. ... According to a study by former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, if one defines "judicial activism" as a willingness to strike down state and federal laws, then Ginsburg and Breyer are in fact the two most restrained justices on the court. If you don't like activist judges, the case for the judicial filibuster seems strong.

In fact, Republicans favor judicial activism. They want judges who will actively disregard the Bill of Rights and civil rights laws in favor of the religious right's agenda. Indeed, one of the judicial nominees whose consideration may trigger the nuclear option is an unabashed judicial activist.