Which Circuit Judges to Vote For?

Here are the recommendations from the Citizens for Better Judges. They have a very methodical (nonpartisan) process for vetting these candidates, including interviews from lawyers from a variety of litigation practice areas as well as lay citizens to monitor the integrity of the process.

• Circuit Judge, Div. 6: Hon. Olu Stevens
• Circuit Judge, Div. 11: Hon. Brian Edwards
• Circuit Judge, Div. 3: Hon. Claude Prather
• Circuit Judge, Div. 7: Hon. Jennifer Wilcox
• Circuit Judge, Div. 10: Hon. Sheila Collins
• Circuit Judge, Div. 11: Hon. Sadiq Reynolds
• Circuit Judge, Div. 13: Deana McDonald
• Circuit Judge, Div. 14: Stephanie P. Burke

GOP Response: Sesssions on Sotomayor

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) gave the Republican address this morning, and crystallized the danger of nominating judges based on empathy (or their status as a "wise Latina woman," like Judge Sonia Sotomayor):

“If a judge is allowed to let his or her feelings for one party in the case sway his decision, hasn’t that judge then demonstrated a bias against the other party?

“And, if a judge is allowed to inject his personal views into the interpretation of the law, does he not then have a license to rewrite the laws to fit his own preferences?

“I fear that this ‘empathy standard’ is another step down the path to a cynical, relativistic, results-oriented world:

-- Where words and laws have no fixed meaning;
-- Where unelected judges set policy;
-- And where Constitutional limits on government power are ignored when they are inconvenient to the powerful.

“This standard is deeply troubling because it is so contradictory to our country’s long heritage of a faithful and impartial adherence to the rule of law.

Well said, Sen. Sessions.

On Judges, Hypocrites and Limp Wrists

We heard lots of righteous indignation last year when Sen. David Williams described now Leut. Gov. Dan Mongiardo as "limp-wristed." That's a code that's no longer a code.

Williams's remark crossed the line from disagreement about political philosophy and public policy -- entirely appropriate for debate -- to casting aspersions based on personal attributes and vague hints of a sexual nature -- not appropriate against anyone.

Yet the Lexington Herald-Leader reprinted a similar allegation that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is "limp-wristed" in his opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In the past, the Herald-Leader correctly denounced the "limp-wristed" label as applied to Mongiardo, but not as to McConnell. (Indeed, the H-L magnified the aspersion by reprinting it.)

On the merits, it is laughable to assert that McConnell's advocacy against judicial activism has been "limp-wristed" as regards Sotomayor or any other nominee. McConnell has stood for judicial restraint and the rule of law more than any other member of the Senate. When other Republicans were preoccupied with running for President, McConnell was a constant presence at Federalist Society meetings (both local and national) where he demanded an up or down vote for all nominees, whether or not they get confirmed in the end. McConnell has been criticized for his relentless focus on the need for judicial restraint and the proper role of unelected Federal judges, an issue that he addressed recently at the University of Louisville's law school graduation.

McConnell will ensure that Sotomayor's record is given the same scrutiny that then Senator Barack Obama demanded for the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. As a former district court and now appellate judge with a propensity for inflammatory speeches, Sotomayor's record provides much to scrutinize -- including more than 3,000 judicial opinions.

A filibuster would be necessary and appropriate only if Republicans were denied the opportunity to explore the Judge's vast record. Absent a move to railroad her confirmation, however, no filibuster is necessary.

Once the nominee's opinions have been reviewed and the committee testimony taken, McConnell knows that all nominees deserve and up or down vote, including Judge Sotomayor. Perhaps McConnell will vote "nay," as he did when Sotomayor was elevated to the Second Circuit. Or perhaps not: Sotomayor would replace Justice David Souter, simply swapping one liberal with another liberal.

The problem is not that McConnell is not conservative enough, not aggressive enough on activist judges (or anything else for that matter). The problem is that he doesn't have enough troops in the Senate. That's one more reminder for Kentuckians: we cannot afford to let Sen. Jim Bunnings persist in his losing campaign.

McConnell Writes in NYT on Judges

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell exposes hypocrisy on the part of the New York Times when it comes to judicial confirmations.

No surprise there. Still, it has to be said, and McConnell has done more to uphold the rule of law than anyone by insisting that judicial nominees receive an up or down vote.

Here's McConnell's letter.

Steve Calabresi on Judges, Obama-style

Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresis hits hard on an issue that Sen. John McCain has dropped: the sort of judges that Sen. Barack Obama will nominate if he is elected.

Obama does not think that a judge is a neutral umpire who enforces the rules of the contract, statute or constitution at issue. To the contrary, Obama wants judges who can empathise, but only with the plaintiff:

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

He thinks that the Warren Court did not go far enough because it failed to create a positive right to "economic justice," that is, a constitutional right to the redistribution of wealth.

Here's the upshot of what we can expect from Obama judges:

a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

If he is elected, Barry can serve for eight years, max. Judges, on the other hand, have life tenure. That's what's at stake next Tuesday.

McCain and Palin Cause "Terror Of The Heart" In Trial Lawyer

We knew that trial lawyers, unlike plumbers, just love Obama, but one member of the bar has literally tried to make a federal case of her passion. A blog of the Kansas City Star reports:

A Kansas City lawyer and supporter of Barack Obama for president has filed suit in federal court, alleging that the Republican ticket has incited violence against the Democratic nominee.
In her suit against Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and campaign manager Rick Davis, Mary Kay Green said she has been injured by their campaign tactics and suffers “terror of the heart, anxiety and grave fear” for Obama’s life.

Green, an occasional contributor of letters to the editor for The Kansas City Star on legal and political issues, said the GOP campaign has used false hate speech to work their supporters into a frenzy, leading to death threats against Obama.
In an interview, Green said she worked as a young woman in the presidential campaigns of both John and Robert Kennedy in Nebraska. Though she has asked for $6 million in damages, Green said the money is not important. The suit is a moral plea to the Republicans to temper their language, she said.
“I will not tolerate another assassination,” Green said. “I have an obligation as an attorney to speak out and use my voice to say to John McCain and Sarah Palin that you must stop this behavior. You are participating in these death threats and have lost all protection from the First Amendment.”

I wonder if this Kansas City lawyer is the type of judicial nominee Obama envisions he wants to appoint to the bench? Perhaps this plaintiff is the kind of woman "being treated unfairly" that Obama had in mind at the debate last night:

"I think that it’s important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want."

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.

McConnell Wields Justice for Judicial Nominees

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is not tolerating the Democrats' refusal to confirm judicial nominees who have been waiting for months -- or years.

McConnell used his mastery of Senate procedural rules to catch the Democrats' attention regarding the judicial nominees in limbo. Rather than consenting to routine Senate business -- for which unanimous consent was required -- McConnell forced the Clerk of the Senate read every word of a 491 page global warming bill. This was retribution for Senate Democrat Harry Reid breaking his pledge to confirm three judicial nominees by Memorial Day, as well as the slow pace of confirmation throughout this session.

The Washington Times quotes McConnell:

It is important that judicial emergencies are filled with qualified judges, and we will use the various tools at our disposal to ensure that those nominees and the Republican Conference are treated fairly, and that the Majority takes its commitments seriously.

McConnell is right about "judicial emergencies." The failure to fill vacancies has created backlogs of cases for which justice delayed may well be justice denied.

Litigants are not the only people hurt by the Democrats' failure to confirm nominees for courts with vacancies. Reid has forced the judicial nominees to put their lives on hold while he takes his sweet time determining when -- or whether -- they will ever get an up or down vote on the merits of their confirmation.

In light of the lives that Reid has disrupted, listening to a few hours of global warming legislation is a small but nonetheless just retribution. Indeed, McConnell was merciful in letting the Democrats immerse themselves on one of their favorite topics.

NRO Praises McConnell on Judges

It's understandable that the Democrats would want to run down the clock on confirming judges in the last months of the Bush administration. But for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to make and then break a promise to confirm three judges before Memorial Day is just dishonorable.

National Review Online praises Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for holding Reid accountable, quoting McConnell's blunt criticism:

At the beginning of this Congress, the Majority said it would meet or exceed the average of 17 circuit court nominees that have been confirmed in prior Congresses; yet it has only confirmed eight circuit court judges thus far. More disturbing, the Chairman of the Committee recently threatened to shut down the confirmation process completely, an action that would break yet another historical precedent.

The Majority said it would treat Republican senate delegations fairly; yet for months, the Democratic Majority has only worked on circuit court nominees from states with a Democratic senator.

The Majority said it would do its ‘utmost,’ said it would do ‘everything’ possible, said it would do ‘everything within its power’ to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day recess; yet it only confirmed one nominee. Moreover, it appears the Majority did not seriously attempt to honor its commitment. Indeed, since that deadline passed almost two weeks ago, the Democratic Majority has still failed to confirm more circuit court nominees.

The Democratic Majority has refused to honor its commitments. It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences.

McConnell is absolutely right; these nominees deserve an up or down vote. If the Democrats want to vote against confirming them, then at least have the courage and the decency to let their names come to the floor for a vote. These nominees are not legal abstractions. They're people who have put their professional lives on hold and subjected themselves to all sorts of investigations and vetting -- all because they believe in the rule of law and calling of public service.

Reid and his cohorts can vote down every single Bush judicial nominee, if they like. But they won't -- they'll just let these nominees languish in committee, because they lack the guts to actually vote on the record. What a bunch of sissies.

Senate Conservatives Score -- Twice

Thanks to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, it was a great morning for conservatives on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

First, McConnell delivered 62 votes to end debate on the confirmation of Judge Leslie Southwick, and then 59 votes in favor of confirmation. Judge Southwick will sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

It shouldn't be that big a deal to confirm the president's judicial nominees -- or at least give them an up or down vote -- but we have seen the Democrats stonewall nomination after nomination.

Second, Republican leadership dashed Senator Dick Durbin's DREAM Act, a curiously-named bill to give amnesty to illegal aliens. The Shamnesty proponents will be back, no doubt, but this stops them for now.

The two issues may appear unrelated, but they are not: conservatives stand for the rule of law.