A gift-wrapped campaign issue

May 24, 2005

I hesitate to put this in print because I’m probably being hopelessly naïve, but I wonder if there’s a small upside to the worst part of yesterday’s deal over judicial nominees: campaign fodder.

Maybe I’m just rationalizing — and I’m sure readers will let me know — but Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor aren’t just out-of-the-mainstream nominees, they’re true embarrassments. Looking ahead to next year, there are a number of potentially vulnerable Republican senators who will have to vote, up or down, on whether to give these three jurists lifetime positions on the federal bench. Call me overly optimistic, but it seems these might be embarrassing votes to have to defend.

It’s one thing to believe, just on principle, that the president should be able to pick his own advisors, which could be a defense on votes for Secretary of State, Attorney General, or UN Ambassador. But this is obviously different — it deals with a separate, independent branch of government. In this context, there’s plenty of material for campaign ads here.

* Owen has not only been described as a judicial activist by Alberto Gonzales, but she’s shown a Tom DeLay-like attitude towards professional ethics, including having taken contributions from law firms and corporations — including Enron and Halliburton — and then, without recusing herself, ruling in their favor when their cases came before her.

* Brown has an unhinged hatred for government power and believes FDR was a socialist.

* Pryor, meanwhile, has appreciation for “states’ rights” that borders on Strom Thurmond circa 1948, has urged the repeal of parts of the Voting Rights Act, has fought to undercut the Americans with Disabilities Act, and was at the center of a major fundraising scandal in which he was soliciting political contributions from the same corporations facing litigation in his state.

In 2006, Republican Sens. Santorum, Snowe, Talent, DeWine, and Chafee, among others, will face tough re-election fights. Are all of them going to vote to confirm each of these nominees? The election is over a year away, but might there be some consequence for these votes?

if one of the appointees makes some sort of outrageous ruling after being confirmed, then maybe a vote to confirm could be used as a campaign issue. otherwise they (the judges) will be so out of sight that it won’t matter to anyone but political junkies like you and me.

  • I’m glad you didn’t hesitate to put these excellent thoughts into print – particularly your calling attention to the enormous difference between appointing the president’s own advisors and granting lifetime Federal judgeships to nut cases and corporate whores.

    Now if only the Democratic ad boys/girls can get their act together soon enough, and boldly enough, to get your thoughts into the mush-filled brain-boxes of what passes for an electorate in this country.

    By all means be optimistic, even naïvely so. That alone puts you light years ahead of our party’s timid and feckless “leadership”.

  • I think you make a very good, logical point. However; I think you’re counting on the average American voter to have a much longer memory span than they actually possess.

  • “[opponent] supported a judicial nominee who thinks that Franklin Roosevelt was an extremist….” – yeah, I like how that sounds in an ad. I do.

  • However; I think you’re counting on the average American voter to have a much longer memory span than they actually possess.

    That’s true, but I was really thinking about the party, not the public. I know the typical voter will have no memory of the Owen confirmation vote 16 months from now, but the DNC (or MoveOn, ACT, respective state party, etc.) can still use this in ads to remind voters and put the candidates on the spot.

    I’m thinking, for example, of a debate between Santorum and Casey, in which Casey asks, “Senator, you voted to put a woman on the second highest court in the nation who doesn’t believe in minimum wage laws, believes FDR was a socialist, and equates Social Security with ‘cannabalism.’ Can you explain your confirmation vote to the people of Pennsylvania?”

    Sure, voters won’t remember this week in fall of 2006, but that doesn’t mean we can’t remind them.

  • Exactly. It isn’t what happens this week (which will be forgotten). It’s what we can do with it (assuming just a little courage and imagination) next election cycle.

  • According to various sources, Lindsey Graham has said one of the three won’t make it through an up or down vote.

    My money’s on Ms. Brown.

  • Of these three nominees, the one that can do the most long-term damage is Rogers Brown. Pryor in the 4th Circuit and Owen in the 5th will not significantly CHANGE their Circuits, as these Circuits are already in liege with corporate interests and drifting rightward; Pryor and Owen will merely exacerbate them.

    Rogers Brown on the D.C. Circuit Court, however, WILL profoundly impact how government relates to its citizens. The D.C. Circuit has primary jurisdiction over lawsuits regarding the government’s actions and failures to act; the Circuit is presently evenly balanced between Dem appointees, Repug appointees, and vacancies; and this Circuit has a disprotionately higher liklihood of sending its judges to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If only one of these three can be rejected on an up-or-down vote, my preference would be that Rogers Brown is voted down. She has no great LEGAL accomplishments; she was a local private practice attorney with no significant appellate experience when Gov. Wilson tagged her for the CA Supreme Court. Worse, her LEGAL actions both on and off the bench demonstrate a serious lack of appropriate judicial temperament.

    Sure, Rogers Brown is the child of sharecroppers; she is a black, single mother raising a male child; and she succeeded in college and law school after getting in thanks to affirmative action. But those PERSONAL accomplishments, while admirable and worthy of respect (hell, I could show you MILLIONS of similarly accomplished and hard-working individuals, struggling everyday in this country to lead decent lives — they are called “citizens”), these DO NOT, alone, qualify her for a lifetime position on the country’s second-highest court!

    So, Mr. Carpetbagger, I hope your “naivete” today turns out down the road, tomorrow, to be political genius! 🙂

  • By agreeing to give these three Bush nominees an up-or-down vote, the Democratic compromisers have placed the fate of these judges in the hands of their foes across the aisle — where is the plus in that? Why would we want to endure the grotesque decisions these people are likely to hand down against the future hope of a good campaign slogan?

  • I’m sure there is no Republican alive who wouldn’t want to run against a Democrat who’s only issue is a vote for three Appeals Court judges. Especially a judge that got a higher vote PERCENTAGE then Rose Bird.

    • Comments are closed.