Have you been wondering why the Bush Administration is making such a big deal out of nominee Priscilla Owen? The New York Times has the answer: Her entire judicial career has been orchestrated by Karl Rove. At three critical times, he has intervened to push her to the next level.

Rove got her on the Texas Supreme Court.

Justice Owen was, by all accounts, a respected but little-known lawyer in Houston in 1994 when she was first elected to the State Supreme Court with Mr. Rove's support and tutelage. Her experience up to then largely involved obscure legal cases involving pipelines and federal energy regulations.

....Mr. Rove, who had helped select her as the Republican candidate, helped raise more than $926,000 for her campaign, almost half from lawyers and others who had business before the court, according to Texans for Public Justice, a liberal group in Austin that tracks Texas campaign donations. Mr. Rove's firm was paid some $247,000 in fees.

Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul has a post on Priscilla Owen that exposes her better than any organization's ads ever could. Only Jeanne's post is not an ad, but a true story. It's the story of Wille Searcy - go read. You won't want to hear the name Priscilla Owen ever again, unless it's to learn that her nomination for a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has been rejected for good.

The Washington Post reports that President Bush is now jumping into the filibuster fray. He previously promised to stay out of it. We know he was fibbing because shortly after, VP Dick Cheney said he'd exercise his vote as the presiding officer of the Senate in favor of the nuclear option in case of a tie.

Monday's developments, according to the Post:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid extended an "olive branch" of sorts to Republicans by offering to hold a yes or no vote on Thomas Griffith, nominated by Bush for a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Reid said that although Democrats oppose him, they would agree to a vote on him, and he'd in all likelihood be confirmed. It has been widely reported that Griffith practiced law in Utah without a law license.

That wasn't good enough for Bill Frist and the Republicans. They still are insisting on up/down votes for all nominees.

Later on Monday, Bush demanded a vote on two specific judges, Priscilla Owen and Terrance Boyle.

The Washington Post explains why Bush's actions are wrong:

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) jumped ship today in an appearance on This Week, by acknowledging that Republicans prevented 62 Clinton nominees from being voted upon by the Senate.

"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."

During Bush's first term in office, only ten of his nominees were filibustered. As of March, 2005, 204 of his nominees have been confirmed.

Crooks and Liars has a video of the soundbite.

Filibusters are constitutional and a necessary check on the party in power. They have been used by both parties. The radical right fringe in this country should not be allowed to change 200 years of history.

Pat Robertson was on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" yesterday. He said that federal judges are a bigger threat than al Qaeda.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

"I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

On a related note, the News reports that a GOP aide advises that Frist is short the 50 votes he needs for his nuclear option:

Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."

People for American Way has prepared concise statements as to why Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown should not be given lifetime appointments on the federal bench.

• Priscilla Owen: Remaking the Law for the Radical Right

• Janice Rogers Brown: Far out of the Mainstream

More information is here.

When it suited its own purposes, the Family Research Council had no trouble urging use of the filibuster. People for the American Way (PFAW) reports (received by e-mail):

The Family Research Council is demanding that Senate Republicans override Senate rules in order to ban filibusters against judicial nominees – and has made false and inflammatory charges that the filibuster is being used to keep people of faith – and specifically Christians – off the courts. But several years ago, a senior Family Research Council official defended a Senate filibuster against gay ambassadorial nominee James Hormel, who was viciously attacked by radical right groups.

The filibuster battle likely will hit next week over the nominations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. TalkLeft opposes both, and urges Senator Reid and the Democrats to stick to their guns and fight tooth and nail to preserve the independence and integrity of our judiciary.

Both nominees were blocked by filibuster and then renominated by Bush this past February. Reasons to oppose Owen are here. . For Rogers Brown, go here.

The most talked about article of the day is bound to be Jeffrey Rosen's nine page article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, The Unregluated Offensive."

Since I oppose Congress' use of the commerce clause to federalize crimes that should be left to the discretion of the states, I can't endorse everything in this article, even though the article focuses on property and economic issues.

Using the commerce clause to federalize every gun crime; to override state laws legalizing medical marijuana; to make carjacking and gang crimes federal offenses; to create more federal death penalties; to federalize domestic violence crimes; and to create a national Amber Alert bill, Laci's Law and Megan's Law, is wrong.

And day now the Supreme Court will decide Raich v. Ashcroft:

Sen. Bill Frist will be joining forces with evangelists like James Dobson to stage a day-long telecast on April 24 that will portray Democrats as enemies of "people of faith" because they oppose some of Bush's judicial nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

What's behind the push to defeat the filibuster?

.... a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

Republicans fear they may be losing the battle.

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid has pledged to bring Senate business to a standstill if Republicans try to carry out their threat. From his latest statement:

by TChris

Businesses and professionals don't like to be sued when their carelessness leads to injury or death, and so their lobbyists have spread the myth that "tort reform" is needed to save us from frivolous lawsuits. A recent survey reveals that federal judges -- the people who should know best -- disagree with the proposition that frivolous litigation is a serious federal problem.

The survey, conducted by the Federal Judicial Center, was based on the responses of 278 federal district court judges. Seventy percent of the respondents called groundless litigation either a "small problem" or a "very small problem," and 15% said it was no problem at all. Only 1% called it a "very large problem," 2% called it a "large problem" and the rest rated it as a "moderate problem" in their courts.

In what may be a coming trend, two right wing organizations have broken ranks with Republicans and are urging the defeat of the nuclear option and retention of the filibuster. They are the Gun Owners of America and the National Right to Work Committee.

[Note: All sources listed below are available on Lexis.com.]

The Gun Owners of America, which has strong libertarian leanings, has broken ranks before. It opposed the Patriot Act, and in particular, sneak and peek searches. [The National Journal November 3, 2001]. In 1998, it opposed Sen. Jeff Sessions ill-conceived and Dickensian juvenile crime bill, S. 10, that was proposed in response to the Arkansas school shootings that year. [Legal Times, March 30, 1998]

The group was an invaluable ally of defense lawyers when we were fighting for reform of the civil asset forfeiture laws and when we battled Newt Gingrich's Contract on America, specifically, the provision that would have made a good-faith exception for warrantless searches and seizures. It co-signed a letter saying: