I’d hate to see the non-controversial ones

For those who’ve been following the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of some of Bush’s already-rejected would-be judges, you’d be forgiven for getting a little confused. After all, there’s a strategy in place, which seems to have no connection to reality.

The strategy, as stated by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, was pretty straightforward: start with the least controversial nominees and try to win enough Democratic support to defeat a filibuster, then push for other victories.

But since this plan was unveiled, one of two things has become apparent: either Republicans quickly abandoned the idea or they have no idea what constitutes a “controversial” judicial nominee.

As I’ve mentioned on a few occasions, the Senate started with William G. Myers III, tapped for a seat on the 9th Circuit. 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. He was the first non-controversial nominee brought forward, just to get the ball rolling.

Following Myers among the “easier” would-be judges is Terrence Boyle, a “right-wing judicial activist who has sought to roll back well-settled precedents and override the express will of Congress.” Boyle is so ideological, even the 4th Circuit, the nation’s most conservative circuit, has admonished Boyle, “repeatedly reversing or criticizing him for subverting basic procedural rules and misconstruing clear legal principles.” Indeed, Boyle has been reversed over 150 times by the 4th Circuit.

The man’s record is one of hostility for minorities, the disabled, and women. Again, Boyle’s nomination was brought up second because Senate Republicans thought he’d be less likely to generate opposition than some of Bush’s more conservative picks.

Which leads us to the third Bush judicial nominee to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing yesterday.

Thomas Griffith, nominated by Bush for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit practiced law without a license in Utah for nearly five years, lost his D.C. law license, and passed up 10 opportunities to take the Utah bar exam. (Practicing law without a license is illegal.) Better yet, the American Bar Association gave Griffith the lowest possible passing grade for a judicial nominee. This nomination, in the GOP’s collective mind, is among the least controversial of Bush’s judicial nominees.

So, let’s take stock for a moment. The first three would-be judges brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee — the ones intended to difuse the acrimonious and hostile environment on this issue — include a right-wing lobbyist with little judicial experience, a right-wing ideologue who’s considered too extreme by other conservative judges, and a man who’s been practicing law illegally since 2000.

We’ll have real fun when we get to the nominees the Republicans consider controversial.