Another Ideologue for the Courts (A nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)

www.nytimes.com ^ | 04/28/03 | Editorial Writer

[bedolido]

It seems likely that Jeffrey Sutton, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, will be confirmed by the Senate this week. But it is important to recognize why he was selected, and how he fits the Bush administration's plan for an ideological takeover of the courts. Whichever way the Senate votes on him, it must insist that the administration start selecting judges who do not come with a far-right agenda.

There is no shortage of worthy judicial nominees. Federal courts are filled with district court judges, Republicans and Democrats, who have shown evenhandedness and professionalism, and many would make fine appeals court judges. State courts are overflowing with judges and lawyers known for their excellence, not their politics.

The Bush administration, however, has sought nominees whose main qualification is a commitment to far-right ideology. Mr. Sutton is the latest example. He is an activist for "federalism," a euphemism for a rigid states'-rights legal philosophy. Although federalism commands a narrow majority on the Supreme Court, advocates like Mr. Sutton are taking the law in a disturbing direction, depriving minorities, women and the disabled of important rights.

Mr. Sutton argued a landmark disability rights case in the Supreme Court. Patricia Garrett, a nurse at an Alabama state hospital, asserted that her employer fired her because she had breast cancer, violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. Mr. Sutton argued that the act did not protect state employees like Ms. Garrett. His states'-rights argument narrowly won over the court, and deprived millions of state workers of legal protection. He also invoked federalism to urge the court to strike down the Violence Against Women Act. It did so, 5 to 4, dismantling federal protection for sexual assault victims. Mr. Sutton has said that he was only doing his job, and that his concern was building a law practice, not choosing sides. But throughout his career, he has taken on major cases that advance the conservative agenda. He has left little doubt in his public statements that he supports these rulings.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Sutton faced protesters with guide dogs and wheelchairs, who were upset about his role in rolling back disability law. Naturally, they urged the Senate to reject him. But the senators' duty to advise and consent goes beyond their vote on any particular nominee. They must make it clear that in a nation brimming with legal talent, it is unacceptable to focus the search for federal judges on a narrow group of ideologues.

[Brilliant]

These guys at the NYT are so far out of touch with reality it's laughable.

[CFW]

Whichever way the Senate votes on him, it must insist that the administration start selecting judges who do not come with a far-right agenda.

Why? Must all judge come with a far-left agenda? Is that what he is saying?

[martin_fierro]

I had heard that the NYT's subscriptions are way, waaay down since Howell Raines took over.

Not sure whether that's true or not, but I notice them advertising on TV a WHOLE lot these days (one of the actors in the NYT TV commercial tries so hard to appear profound and thoughtful as a NYT subscriber that it's a laugh).

The NYT also hijacked the "Discovery Civilization Channel" such that it's now the "Discovery Times Channel." I watch it with GREAT suspicion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Come on how could you say that? Imagine the horrors of a judge being appointed to a FEDERAL bench who believes in FEDERALISM what could be worse?

[martin_fierro]

Did the NYT endorse Lani Guinier? Just curious.

[usnret99]

Only good judges are liberal judicial activist not....

[bigfootbob]

"The NYT also hijacked the "Discovery Civilization Channel" such that it's now the "Discovery Times Channel." I watch it with GREAT suspicion."

You're right. Didn't the History Channel join the circus by running a show called "Thomas L. Friedman Presents?" What a joke. What's next "Political Icons" hosted by Helen Thomas?

[headsonpikes]

I believe NYT editorialists need a "guide dog" to find their own @ss.

[Rummyfan]

I hope this is true. Only with a serious (series?) drop in circulation will there be any change

But really, will the Times ever change? Who was their man in Moscow who filed glowing reports of the Soviet economy and way of life (and who, it later was revealed, was being blackmailed by the Soviets)? And Sydney Schanberg, who somehow managed to place blame for the Khmer Rouge genocide on the US?

Paul Krugman criticizing the Administration on Enron and later is is revealed that he was an employee!

And how can they keep publishing Dowd's pap?

[Pukka Puck]

"a commitment to far-right ideology."

The NYT is so far left that middle of the road seems like far right to them.

[SunStar]

But it is important to recognize why he was selected, and how he fits the Bush administration's plan for an ideological takeover of the courts.

In order to take back the courts from the Leftist "living document" types (the real idealogues), who hijacked the courts beginning in 1993.

[DED]

Good grief, did this writer read the Constitution? Ever?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Constitution says something about interpreting the law. I thought Congress was supposed to WRITE them.

States rights are important, and the liberals don't like them. The reason: the further down the governmental chain you go, the more conservative the decisions are. Presumably, it's because you're getting closer to the voter's backyard.

So the liberal activists can get decisions at the Federal level that they would never get at the state level. That, and they have to accomplish the same objective 50 times.

[Cable225]

OTOH, what are the odds on ever seeing an article like this in the Times -

It seems likely that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, will be confirmed by the Senate this week. But it is important to recognize why she was selected, and how she fits the Clinton administration's plan for an ideological takeover of the courts. Whichever way the Senate votes on her, it must insist that the administration start selecting judges who do not come with a far-left agenda.

Oh yeah, I could see that in the Times.

[bourbon]

Mr. Sutton argued a landmark disability rights case in the Supreme Court. Patricia Garrett, a nurse at an Alabama state hospital, asserted that her employer fired her because she had breast cancer, violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. Mr. Sutton argued that the act did not protect state employees like Ms. Garrett. His states'-rights argument narrowly won over the court, and deprived millions of state workers of legal protection.

Garrett is not so much a "landmark disability rights case" as it is a landmark 11th Amendment/Federal Jurisdiction case. I guess mentioning the 11th Amendment's crucial role in this case would just require too much painstaking research for the NYT staff, and, God knows that's too much to expect from them. We wouldn't want Howell and Co. to get a headache or anything!

He also invoked federalism to urge the court to strike down the Violence Against Women Act. It did so, 5 to 4, dismantling federal protection for sexual assault victims.

Yes. Never mind that, when Congress passed VAWA, it made the outrageous claim that it could regulate violence against women under its commerce power.

I find it ironic that the NYT editorial board would call Sutton an "ideologue," and then turn around and engage in a powerfully ideological analysis of 2 Supreme Court cases, which obscures all the real legal issues in those cases. I guarantee you that Sutton's briefs before the USSCT in both of these cases contained some serious legal analysis, unlike this garbage recited by the Times.