Backing a judicial nominee <i>because</i> of his record of bias and activism

Last week, it seemed the White House and Senate Republicans had settled on a new strategy when it comes to controversial judicial nominees: start with the least offensive and see what happens.

GOP sources said Judiciary Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has told colleagues he would like to select one of the least controversial nominees and try to win enough Democratic support to defeat a filibuster, then push for other victories. Specter’s office said yesterday that the most likely choice would be William G. Myers III, tapped for a seat on the 9th Circuit.

Now, the idea that Myers is the least controversial of Bush’s would-be judges is a sign of just how far the White House has strayed from a sensible center. Myers is an anti-environmental activist, who’s lobbied for the same ranching, mining and timber interests that would have cases before him on the 9th Circuit. He’s never been a judge, never even participated in a jury trial, and received a poor rating from the ABA.

The guy once said environmental regulations were akin to King George’s tyranny over the American colonies. Indeed, Myers has made it clear that he’s already made up his mind on federal protection of the environment — and he’s against it.

[Myers] attacked the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which set aside land for two national parks and protected millions of acres of wilderness, as “an example of legislative hubris.” In 1996, he also charged that federal management of public lands was comparable with “‘the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes’ on American colonists.” He has said there’s “no constitutional basis” to protect wetlands. He also railed that “environmentalists are mountain biking to the courthouse as never before, bent on stopping human activity whenever it may promote health, safety and welfare.” The cases he was talking about “involved logging on national forests, racial discrimination in the placement of waste treatment plants and protection of irrigation canals from toxic chemicals.”

So, how will Senate Republicans defend Myers’ qualifications for a lifetime spot on the 9th Circuit? With a clever new strategy: concede everything Myers’ critics are arguing.

Last year, before Senate Dems successfully filibustered Myers’ nomination, his Republican backers tried to deny reality and argue that Myers would be an even-handed, open-minded judge, especially when dealing with environmental cases, which are common on the 9th Circuit.

It was an impossible case to make and Republicans had trouble making it with a straight face. This time, they’re trying the opposite.

This time, however, his supporters are trying a new argument, acknowledging that he is indeed a staunch conservative and an advocate for less reach in environmental laws. Mr. Specter said that he believed that Mr. Myers should be confirmed precisely because of those views and added that his confirmation would bring balance to a court widely recognized as being liberal.

“I think that William Myers would give some balance to the Ninth Circuit, and that is going to be one of the arguments I am going to make,” Mr. Specter said last week.

How unconventional of them. Myers should be on the federal appeals court bench because he’s a rigid ideologue who’s already come to right-wing conclusion on issues of government power. To hear the GOP tell it, there aren’t nearly enough foxes guarding the henhouse, so the Senate should help level the playing field by confirming a few.

Senate Dems probably won’t find this persuasive. Call it a hunch.