Posted on 08/01/2002 7:09:49 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards." "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!" (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland).
By scheduling a committee vote on Justice Priscilla Owen's judicial nomination for yesterday morning, Senate Democrats made it clear that they couldn't care less whether it even looks like they're treating her fairly. And the truth of the matter is, they're not.
The Texas Supreme Court Justice was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 9, 2001. Last week -- four hundred forty days later -- she finally received a hearing, or what passes for one these days.
In the days leading up to that hearing, the usual left-wing groups put out reams of paper purporting to show that confirming Justice Owen was the worst thing that could happen to the Fifth Circuit.
They faulted her for running for office in full compliance with Texas laws and ethical rules. They criticized her for not ruling for plaintiffs often enough, regardless of the merits of each individual case. And they condemned her for following the law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent when interpreting the Texas parental notification statute.
This wasn't surprising; these groups exist to bork Republican nominees. Nor was it surprising that most Democrats on the committee parroted those special interest groups when questioning Justice Owen.
John Edwards misrepresented her concurrence in an employment discrimination case in just the same way the leftist Alliance for Justice did. Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy let People for the American Way do their homework for them on a state constitutional case and her business related cases. Maria Cantwell spun Owen's opinions in the parental notification cases like she was reading from a set of National Abortion Federation talking points. Dick Durbin repeated Texans for Public Justice's deceptive spin on her majority opinion in a scope of insurance coverage case. And so on.
No matter how often Justice Owen tried to set the record straight, no matter how many times she tried to get a word in edgewise, it didn't make a difference -- and it probably wouldn't have even if those Senators had been listening. Instead, they were grandstanding; showing off for the cameras and the left-wing groups that gave them their marching orders.
Not that it stopped these Senators from tender expressions of courtesy when it became obvious that she wasn't being given a chance to defend herself. Leahy, who kept cutting her off, told her that nobody wanted to cut her off and that she would have a chance to expand her answers in writing.
Durbin, who kept interrupting her with outrageous accusations, interrupted her response to one with a statement that his time was short and that if she wanted to submit something in writing, he'd be "happy to consider it."
Others demanded that she name certain types of cases from the nearly 900 that had come before her, but graciously allowed her the opportunity to send them in writing later.
Then there were the promised additional written questions. Charles Schumer wanted to press on with his ideological litmus test and sent 11 questions last Thursday. Leahy sent 21 the same day. Russell Feingold sent 23 on Monday. Kennedy sent 20 on Tuesday.
Seventy-five questions, perfectly legitimate for the committee to submit -- that is, if they were at all concerned with her answers.
Tuesday evening -- the same day Kennedy sent over his 20 questions - the Democrats scheduled a snap committee vote on Priscilla Owen for Wednesday morning. It came as a surprise to Republican committee members, some of whom didn't find out until their staff saw the notice on the committee website.
And it surely came as a surprise to Justice Owen, who probably thought these U.S. Senators would want to at least let her answer their questions before bringing her nomination to a vote.
It's difficult to think of a more insulting way to treat a nominee, especially after making her wait more than 14 months for the chance to defend herself in the first place.
Republicans, taking advantage of a procedural rule, were able to postpone the vote until September, when the Senate comes back from the August recess. But the message was clear: these Democrats don't care whether the attacks on her record are false, they think they're ready to reject this nominee, and they aren't bothered by how completely vicious they look in the process.
Like the Queen in Carroll's story, they will not allow the truth to get in the way. They want Priscilla Owen's nomination defeated. It doesn't really matter that she's fair, well qualified, and experienced. It doesn't even matter that she can show she defers to the legislature and Supreme Court precedent. Hearings -- and written questions -- are just for show. Vote first. Get the facts afterwards, if at all.
No, it's not fair, just, or even responsible. But that's how these Senate Democrats want it.
(John Nowacki is Director of Legal Policy at the Free Congress Foundation.)
Free Congress Foundation
The Owen Nomination: Liberals Don't Let Truth Stand In Their Way
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: July 18, 2002;
Author: John NowackiDemocrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: June 21, 2002;
Author: Christine HallJudge The Senate Judiciary Committee Not By What It Says, But What It Has Done
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: | June 06, 2002;
Author: John NowackiThe Left Keeps Trying -- And Failing -- To Smear Brooks Smith
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 16, 2002;
Author: John NowackiPickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002;
Author: Jeff JohnsonMake them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002;
Author: David LimbaughThe GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002;
Author: Byron YorkPickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002;
Author: Mort KondrackeStill Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002;
Author: John NowackiDismantling Democracy through Judicial Activism
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 12, 2002;
Author:Tom Jipping'A Troubling Pattern': Ideology Over Truth In Judicial Confirmations
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: February 10, 2002;
Author: Paul E. ScatesDemocrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002;
Susan JonesThe Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002;
Author:Byron YorkSYMPOSIUM Q: Should the Senate Take Ideology into Account in Judicial Confirmations
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 4, 2002;
Authors:
Ralph G. Neas -- YES: The ideology of nominees for the federal judiciary matters more now than ever
Roger Pilon -- NO: Since judges apply law, not make it, the Senate's concern should be with judicial temperamentWhat is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002;
Author: Thomas L. JippingBlasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002;
Matt PyeattJudicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001
Author: Thomas L. JippingSenator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001
Author: By John NowackiSenator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001
Author: Rev. Louis P. SheldonA Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published December 3, 2001Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001
Author:EditorialSen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001
Author: Paul E. ScatesJudicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001
Author: Audrey HudsonPatrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001
Author: William A. MayerJudicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. JippingPartisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001
Author: John NowackiLeahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Author: John NowackiObedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001
Author: Thomas L. JippingWhy is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published:October 26, 2001
Author: Mary MostertPat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001
Author: John NowackiOperation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001
Author: T.L.JippingDaschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001
Author: Dave BoyerLeahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001
Author: Tom JippingDems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Bring this great country to it's knees for their own personel gains.
Remember this on election day:
TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH !!
Further proof - if more were needed - of the absolute necessity for a GOP Senate!Most definitely..
Critical Campaigns
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: July 29, 2002;
Author: G. Hicke
I'm also wondering why President Bush doesn't expend some political capital and get behind his nominees. Get on the 'bully pulpit' and set forth his rationale before the American populace. He has allowed a number of them to whither before the Democrat led Judiciary Committee.
Even if it does, screw "decorum." The Senate Democrats don't deserve any. When is the White House and the Republicans in Congress going to learn to play hardball?
I have a bad feeling that she will be voted down. It looks like Bush is doing a repeat of Pickering - hanging her out to dry and not coming to her defense until it is too late.
Yes, he should recess appoint her and Pickering, after making a speach that he will do the same for any future nominees treated in a similar fashion.
Where is he? Ari? Trent? Hello???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.