THE SEBSIBLE SOUTHPAW: Democrats right to block nominees

As things stand now, the Republicans are poised to destroy more than 200 years of tradition by trying to change the Senate rules in order to eliminate the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees. That's right, the "world's most deliberative assembly" might get a little bit less deliberative if the "nuclear option" is successful.

Conservative pundits have wailed for months over the fact that 10 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees have been blocked in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist cries that all nominees deserve an up or down vote and even, in an attempt to pander to the religious-right, declared the filibusters an assault on "people of faith" (never mind his attempt to filibuster two of Clinton's judicial appointments in 2000).

Before we start taking this rhetoric too seriously, perhaps we should hear from the other side of this standoff. Ask any Democrat and they'll probably tell you that the previous Senate confirmed more judges in one year than any other Senate since 1994, when they approved 72 of the President's nominations in 2002. That same Democrat might even mention the fact that the Senate confirmed over 200 of the president's judicial nominees and that the level of judicial vacancies is at a 16-year low.

It is obvious that the charges of obstructionism are unfounded as the Democrats in the Senate only blocked 10 of the most conservative, out-of-the-mainstream appointments. The way I see it, confirming all but 10 of 200-plus nominations is still a pretty good track record. Compared to the Republican Senates, which blocked over 60 of Clinton's nominees, their record seems exemplary, but apparently it is not good enough for Frist.

Federal judges are appointed for life terms and are subject to little oversight, so it makes sense to ensure that only the most qualified and impartial judges are selected for these prominent positions.

Let's examine the credentials of some of the blocked judges, shall we?

First up: Judge Priscilla Owen. She once accepted an $8,600 campaign contribution from Enron and then refused to recuse herself from a case regarding the company. Her decision in that case? She reversed a lower court's ruling and saved the company's executives $225,000 in taxes. If she's confirmed, at least I'll know her price tag in case I ever come before her in court.

In case you still have any doubts about Judge Owen, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez once said her view of the Texas abortion laws were so narrow that it amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Remember, that's not coming from the ACLU or a women's rights group but from the Bush-appointed Attorney General.

Another one of the blocked judges is William Myers III. The main beef the Democrats have with Myers becoming a federal judge is that he has never been a judge in his life. Not only has he never been a judge, he has never participated in a jury trial either! Instead of working with the courts, Myers is a former mining industry lobbyist who believes the Clean Water Act to be unconstitutional. Talk about good credentials.

Saving the best for last, my favorite of the blocked judges is Judge Charles Pickering. His file shows he once worked to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. He also once referred to the "one person, one vote" rule as "obtrusive" and was quoted as saying he had no opinion about whether interracial marriage should be illegal. Yes sir, he is definitely a beacon of civil rights and equality.

Personally, I don't think I want anyone appointed to the federal bench for life if he or she cannot earn the respect of 60 percent of the U.S. Senate, and that's the way the rules should stay.

Write to Steve at

NawaraInTheDN@hotmail.com


More from The Daily






Loading Recent Classifieds...