THE FILIBUSTERED TEN

By now the statistic that the Senate has confirmed over 200 of the judicial appointees Bush has nominated, and that 10 of those have been disputed (less than 5%) is everywhere. What are less bandied-about are the reasons the disputed nominees have been opposed.

Let's review their individual records shall we (thanks to People for the American Way) :


Terrence Boyle

• Worst reversal record of all district court judges nominated by Bush (and some of the reversals were for errors that were already appealed reversed and sent back to him where he ruled the same way AGAIN)
• Tried to exempt state agencies from federal anti-discrimination laws.
• Said that state discrimination is explained by its "culture".

Janice Rogers Brown:

• Disregarded precedent -especially in regard to civil and constitutional rights.
• Favors property rights over constitutional liberties provided in the Bill of Rights.
• opined that govt employees could wave their constitutional rights by virtue of their employment.
• opposed by the ABA.
• Compared Social Security and Medicare to "being on the government dole"

Richard Griffin:

• Ruled that prisoners are exempt from federal and state disability laws.
• Was reversed by the state Supreme Court for ruling that striking workers who were replaced by permanent replacements were not entitled to unemployment benefits, which contradicted his state's law.

Thomas Griffith:

• Opposes Title IX, and has ruled in contradiction of it. (who is "legislating from the bench" then? )
• Practiced law in Utah w/o a state license as required by that state.

William Haynes:

• Played a central role in formulating policies that led to abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and elsewhere.
• Policies he created were opposed by military defense attorneys, the ABA, the committee for Human Rights, and even two of Bush's appellate appointees in the 2nd circuit.
  Brett M. Kavanaugh
• Has the second least amount of experience for his nominated position -2nd only to Ken Starr his mentor.
• As part of Starr's team worked tirelessly to destroy executive privilege -yet has worked as tirelessly to protect it for Bush.
• As associate counsel to the president under Alberto Gonzalez coordinated the administration's nominations of the most controversial and divisive judges.
  

David McKeague:

• Ruled against environmental polices required by statute. (reversed)
• Ruled that a hospital could fire an HIV positive employee rather than accommodate his condition as required by the ADA. (reversed)
• Ruled that a police department could monitor messages sent to an officer's private pager -contradicting federal law. (reversed)

William G. Myers III:

• Filed an amicus brief stating that the property rights of cattle ranchers are as fundamental as Bill Of Rights rights, and that therefore the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional. He was reversed by the SCOTUS and not one justice -not even Rehnquist or Scalia- bought his constitutional argument.
• Tried to twist a land management statute to prohibit an Native American tribe's ability to practice their religion.

Priscilla Owen:

• Rulings opposed even by AG Gonzalez
• Repeatedly ignores statute in favor of a conservative agenda, and this has been a complaint of conservatives as well as progressives.

William Pryor:

• Supporters have labeled his penning of majority opinions re civil rights "defending liberties" when they were all cases where the law provided no "wiggle-room" and the court could rule no other way. (at least he follows the law -unlike the others)
• Claims he wants to "end the politicization of the legal system" yet somehow always seems to rule on the predictable conservative side of the issues w/r in the majority, minority, or plurality.

Henry Saad:

• Reversed by his state's supreme court for overturning a jury verdict and requiring a new trial when the verdict and award could have been "harmonized".
• Reversed a trial court's decision that an insurance company was liable to a plaintiff because the insurance company's claim that the defendant hadn't notified them of the suit barred liability was contrary to state law. Was in turn reversed unanimously by the state Supreme Court.

So what's the throughline in all of these nominees, other than that they're all neocon lap-dogs? That they all (Pryor perhaps being the lone exception) show a propensity to rule in contradiction of state and federal law and settled judicial precedent. And what is the Bush administration's response to their being filibustered down -even though over 95% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed? TO RE-NOMINATE THEM!!! That says more about the Bush administration's view of our country's laws than any opposing view could ever manage to do.

Moreover it proves that any Bush supporter who decries "legislation from the bench" or "judicial activism" is a raving partisan hypocrite. But then, after four+ years of them what do you expect?