Give Her A Break

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10/15/05 | MELANIE KIRKPATRICK

[harpu]

Many of my friends on the right have signed up for the conservative revolt against Harriet Miers. Count me out -- at least for now.

I don't know enough about President Bush's most recent nominee for the Supreme Court to stand up and shout, "Hooray for Harriet." Her judicial philosophy remains a mystery and the White House's attempts to explain who she is have been ineffective, to say the least.

But I do know enough about Mr. Bush's judicial appointments over the past five years to give three cheers for his record on picking judges. Almost to a man and a woman, they are judicial conservatives who are already shifting the ideological balance of the federal judiciary to the right. Conservatives who have rushed to bash Mr. Bush for his selection of Ms. Miers should brew themselves a cup of chamomile tea and go back and review the roster of Bush judges. They'll sleep better, though it's probably too much to hope that they'll wake up with a more open-minded perspective on Ms. Miers.

Mr. Bush was elected in part on his pledge to remake the federal judiciary, and he's demonstrably followed through on that promise. That includes the appointment of John Roberts as chief justice of the United States, 43 appointees to the appeals courts and nearly 200 judges on the federal district courts. There are 871 judges in the federal judiciary, including 50 current vacancies. By the end of his second term, Mr. Bush will have appointed one-third or more. Ms. Miers has served on the committee that advises the president on judicial picks and, as White House counsel, has been chairman of that committee for the past year.

This reshaping of the judiciary hasn't been easy, and Mr. Bush has had to fight to keep his word.

[maica]

So you are saying that she has "changed" or "grown" with the passage of time?


#####

Serious question: How many people, especially political figures have morphed from conservative TO liberal in their mature years? I would love to see some names, because I don't recall any.

Moving toward conservative values and outlook seems to be a permanent change for the many who have made the transition.

[visualops]

The study, by the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute, looked at 325 federal trial and appellate court rulings between 2001 and 2004 concerning the National Environmental Policy Act, a foundation of U.S. environmental law that requires all federal agencies to take into account the impact of their actions on the environment.

It found that a plaintiff with pro-environmental goals had less than half the chance of success before a Republican-appointed judge (a 28 percent success rate) than before a Democratic appointee (59 percent success rate). Conversely, plaintiffs with pro-development or industry goals were successful only 14 percent of the time before Democratic appointees, but 58 percent of the time before Republican appointees.

The GOP judges' anti-environmental stance has grown more pronounced under Bush. Of the 23 NEPA cases heard by the president's appointees, only four were decided in favor of the environment -- that's 83 percent of cases decided in favor of industry, a marked decline from the already poor environmental success rate scored with nominees of past Republican presidents. (The report does note, however, that the Bush judges have served for such a short time that more data will be needed to fully affirm this trend.)

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/20/scherer-judges/

___________________________________________

Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/judges/papers.html

___________________________________________

Confirmed Judges Confirm Our Worst Fears

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13509 ... Bush-nominated judges who received significant opposition, such as Jeffrey Sutton, Dennis Shedd, Michael McConnell, and John Roberts. These judges have issued a number of troubling opinions, primarily in dissent, that have sought to:

 

• question the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act
   
• allow the Bush Administration to keep secret the records of Vice President Cheney’s energy task force
   
• overturn National Labor Relations Board rulings against anti-union discrimination and other unfair labor practices by employers
   
• re-write by court order a state law regulating First Amendment activity
   
• cut back severely on the scope of the federal arson law due to “federalism” concerns

  (PFAW goes on to cite specific cases for each circuit court level.)

  _______________________________________________

  Cornerstones of American Democracy - A Primer on Judicial Restraint, Federalism, and Nominations to the Federal Bench  

  _______________________________________________

  http://www.endangeredlaws.org/

  A new report released by the Endangered Environmental Laws Program, Judging NEPA: A "Hard Look" at Judicial Decision Making Under the National Environmental Policy Act, shows that federal judges' political affiliation may be a decisive factor in determining the outcome of cases brought under the National Environmental Policy Act.

  A new article published in the Environmental Law Institute's Environmental Forum, "The Rise (And Fall?) Of Fundamentalist Federalism," discusses the role of federalism in today's environmental litigation and whether federalism will return to a pre-new deal form of government or continue to support modern environmental laws.

  The Threat

  A well-organized movement is working to persuade federal judges to adopt radical reinterpretations of our Constitution that would endanger the future of environmental law. Recent decisions have threatened to undermine the power of Congress to protect the environment through the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. New interpretations of states' rights and sovereign immunity are stripping the federal government of jurisdiction over environmental issues and denying citizens access to federal courts. Environmental protections continue to be challenged under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and standing to file citizen suits has been narrowed.

  These developments threaten more than three decades of federal environmental legislation passed by large majorities in Congress and repeatedly endorsed by public opinion. Laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act face an uncertain future.

   http://www.endangeredlaws.org/Recent-Decisions.htm

   

   
  
  I'm sure there's more out there, I just don't have time for this now. I did take great pleasure in reading the squealing paranoia of the Left lol

[txrangerette]

Those are easy, if one is inclined to be fair and accurate.

Her firm gave to Gore in 1988 when he was a self-announced, pro-life Democrat from the moderate-to-conservative South, who was running in the Dem primary against more radical Dems. The Al Gore of today, or even of 2000, is very little like the Al Gore her firm gave to.

When she declined to join the Federalists, it was a young organization whose intent may have appeared political to her from her early impressions of it. Later on she had numerous interactions and dealings with the Society and spoke well of it.

It is easy to quarrel with her expressed view that the NAACP was not a political organization. However, the purpose of the group from its founding until today has been the advancement of the cause of Black people in American society and it has claimed to be nonpartisan. There are Black Republicans who are also members of the NAACP. Jackie Robinson was a Black Republican and also a member.

But we know the horrible turn its leadership has taken. No doubt, with their hate towards President Bush, and Harriet's great esteem for him, for personal reasons if no other, she would have to admit that the stated purpose of the NAACP is far, far removed from the reality of today.

I take her joining in the context of how she intended it. She was naive, but she apparently believed in its stated purpose, and she had to know that people from differing political persuasions and parties were members.

Good that you wouldn't vote for her. She isn't running in any election.

Cheers.

By the way, you sure sound mean.

[Rudder]

Excllent!

And thanks.

[KDD]

She's learned in a direction consistent with Christianity.

That might qualify her as a fine Church Lady but Christian piety often seems to run hand in hand with much liberal doctrine. Christianity and Conservatism are ideas exclusive to themselves. Beware false extrapolations. I didn't expect a shell game from this President.

[KDD]

How many people, especially political figures have morphed from conservative TO liberal in their mature years?

Souter or Kennedy ring a Bell...How many Senators and Congressman morphed into liberals after running as conservatives? I'd say most of the Republicans.

[Guenevere]

Your point is well made, but essentially....that's what he meant by 'trust me'...

[harpu]

"Easy for her to say. How about some concrete examples that prove her point?"

Why don't you do your own research and prove her statement to be incorrect!

[harpu]

"Miers comments in 1988 and today on those organizations make perfect sense." AMEN

[harpu]

"It smells strongly of the good ol' boy system."

AND your newness to the forum, and incomplete profile, makes some of us think you smell like a troll but we're calling you a troll - are we!?!

[Leroy S. Mort]

I wouldn't vote for her if she were running for dog catcher.

Sam Brownback....is that you?

[harpu]

"Every absurdity has a champion to defend it." -Oliver Goldsmith

[winston2]

AND your newness to the forum, and incomplete profile, makes some of us think you smell like a troll but we're calling you a troll - are we!?!

Did I miss something?

Is this topic about me - or my profile - or lack there of? Let's get back to talking about the Supreme Court choice please.

[Rumierules]

The problem with he confirmation process is that it has become somewhat politically accepted that Supreme Court nominees must be stealthy. Roberts was stealthy as was Souter.

At the appeals level, it is not quite as bad. The DEMS and RINOs are willing to give a little more there because Judges like Pryon have to follow Roe even though, if he were on SCOTUS, he'd almost certainly vote to reverse it if given the chance.

I don't know how much weight Bush gave to the stealth factor but if he gave it any significant weight that likely ruled out many people he might have selected for an appeals court slot.

[Rumierules]

Pryon = Pryor

[RGSpincich]

It's a good point, and it's a hell of a lot better an argument than "Trust me."

Perhaps the president expected to be judged on his record and expected conservatives to be familiar with his judicial appointments. I expect that he is alot more disappointed in conservatives than they are in him at this point.

[no dems]

"I do know enough about Mr. Bush's judicial appointments over the past five years to give three cheers for his record on picking judges. Almost to a man and a woman, they are judicial conservatives who are already shifting the ideological balance of the federal judiciary to the right."

Exactly. Let me say something for the last time on my favorite website here: We had paper trails on Stevens, O'Connor and Souter. A lot of good it did us. I just have to trust the Prez on this one.

[no dems]

Same here. Forgive my ignorance but I've been a Hurricane Rita evacuee for three weeks with no 'puter or cable TV. When do the Committee Hearings begin?

[I got the rope]

We need rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in private life as well. The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a genius for leaders–many leaders–on many levels. But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, “Trust me.” And a lot of people did. Now, many of those people are out of work. Many have seen their savings eaten away by inflation. Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power. And, today, a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national defense.

“Trust me” government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs–in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

[no dems]

As a born-again Christian, I must agree with you. True Christianity has some economic socialism (charity, giving, sharing, etc.) weaved through it. The first century church was "communal"; they "had all things common". Acts 4:32 "....(neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."