home

Just Say No to the President's Judicial Nominees

By TChris, Section Judiciary
Posted on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:52:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

TalkLeft predicted here that the president's poor choices to fill judicial vacancies would not be confirmed during the current lame duck Senate session. This editorial reminds us why the nominees don't deserve confirmation:

The four most controversial nominees that President Bush resubmitted are ideological in the extreme. William Myers III, a longtime lobbyist for mining and timber interests, would no doubt use his position on the San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to gut environmental laws. William Haynes II, who helped develop the administration’s torture and “enemy combatant” policies as the top lawyer for the Pentagon, could be counted on to undermine both civil liberties and reasonable limits on executive power.

Terrence Boyle, a district court judge in North Carolina and a former aide to Senator Jesse Helms, has a long record of insensitivity to victims of race and disability discrimination. He would be able to pull the law in the wrong direction in these areas if he became an appeals court judge. Michael Wallace, a former lawyer for Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, has a bad civil rights record, including arguing in favor of letting Bob Jones University, which discriminated on the basis of race, keep its tax-exempt status.

A fifth nominee is slated to fill a vacancy in the D.C. Circuit. Oddly, the Senate saw no reason to fill that vacancy during the Clinton administration, supposedly because the Circuit didn't need its full complement of judges. The Circuit's workload has actually decreased since then, but so long as a Republican president is in office, Republican senators now think the position should be filled. Maybe they're right, but there's obviously no urgency. A couple of years from now might be a good time to think about confirming a new judge for that Circuit.

< Ignatius Is Right About One Thing | Staying the Course >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Just Say No to the President's Judicial Nominees | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The most dangerous is the one everyone overlooks (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    I can't believe how many times I've commented on this, and yet it seems no one - no f'g one - has managed to pick up on this.

    The most dangerous nominee in this bunch is not Haynes or Boyle or Wallace or Myers.  They have extensive public records which will prevent them from ever going any higher.

    The most dangerous nominee in this bunch is Keisler.

    I explained why here, and here, and probably elsewhere, too.  IF I've commented on this once, I've commented on it twenty times.

    Peter Keisler has been at the heart of the Admin's torture policy, warrantless wiretapping, and who knows what else.

    He argued Hamdan last year, lost, and got nominated to the D.C. Circuit two weeks later (it's unlikely coincidental that was about the same time as Lt.Cdr. Swift, his adversary, was passed over).

    After that, the Admin got Specter to fast-track the nomination, so much so that there were committee hearings on him before Labor Day (i.e., less than six weeks).

    After that, he played a part in drafting and ramming through the Torture Act.  Remember, as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he'd have a part in reviewing decisions involving just that Act.

    The other day, he signed the brief for the government, in which he argued that "Detainees have no rights, so dismiss these cases". I linked that in the first of my linked comments, above.  That brief was filed in the D.C. Circuit, too.

    He's 40-something and made a pile of money epresenting telecoms (and others), so he won't have to leave the bench to pay his kids college(like Luttig did).

    This is the next Alito.  OK?

    Get a clue.

    Of this bunch, he's the most dangerous to your rights.  He needs to be rejected.

    more on keisler (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    More background on Keisler from the National Employment Lawyers Association here (.pdf):
    After reviewing Mr. Keisler's background and legal experience, we believe he is not qualified to be appointed to the federal bench.
    ...
    ...the strongest indicator of his judicial philosophy is his long association, involvement and leadership in the conservative legal movement.
    ...
    In November 2003, as an Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Keisler told a Senate committee that more rights for whistleblowers could jeopardize national security. Among other things, he said that whistleblowers should check with higher-ups before giving freewheeling testimony to Congress. According to Mr. Keisler, "The prudent thing would be for them to go back and find out whether that's appropriate." His argument directly contradi