When Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are particularly distraught, and feel as if their caucus and grassroots allies really need a jolt, they have one fallback idea they always turn to feel better. It’s not Iraq demagoguery, gay bashing, or tax cuts for millionaires — it’s [tag]conservative[/tag] [tag]judicial nominees[/tag].
The [tag]White House[/tag] announced Wednesday that President [tag]Bush[/tag] would revive the expired nominations of five controversial appeals court candidates. The move sets the stage for yet another election-year battle over the federal judiciary.
In reality, these nominations are rather pointless. The would-be judges’ nominations had expired and [tag]Senate[/tag] Dems blocked a motion that would keep them under consideration, prompting the White House to renew them. What’s more, there are only a few weeks left before the Senate ends its session for the year, suggesting there will be precious little time for controversial judicial nominees.
So, why bother? Because, as the NYT reported, “the White House move cheered conservatives…. The battle over the judiciary was a big feature of the 2004 Congressional campaigns, and conservatives are eager to replay that fight.”
Given the nominees’ far-right records, a) it’s hardly a surprise the GOP base would be happy; and b) there’s no way Dems can sit back and let these nominees get lifetime positions on the federal bench.
Let’s take a closer look at some of these nominees.
Terrence Boyle, nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, has been accurately described as 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. The Washington Post recently editorialized:
[[tag]Boyle[/tag]] has a high rate of reversal, some of his work is surprisingly sloppy, and some of his civil rights opinions are terrible.
Moreover, in recent weeks it has emerged that Judge Boyle has been careless about ethics. The law forbids judges to rule in cases in which they own stock in one of the parties. Judge Boyle has done this repeatedly, even in the years since his nomination to the 4th Circuit. His pattern of disregard for clear legal obligations is exceptional. The Senate should not condone it.
And then there’s William G. Myers III, nominated for the 9th Circuit, who is an anti-environmental activist who has 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.
[[tag]Myers[/tag]] 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.”
And let’s not overlook my personal favorite, William J. [tag]Haynes[/tag] II, general counsel at the Defense Department, nominated to the 4th Circuit. If you’ve forgotten about Haynes, he’s the Pentagon’s general counsel who was directly involved in setting U.S. interrogation policies for suspected terrorist detainees and who, in 2003, oversaw a Pentagon “working group” that embraced the reasoning in a now discredited Justice Department “torture” memo. The administration’s radical legal approach to tribunals, the Geneva Conventions, and even the incarceration of U.S. citizens without counsel or judicial review? Haynes literally helped write the book.
Given the circumstances, a year ago a senior GOP Senate source told Newsweek that Haynes’ nomination to the 4th Circuit is “DOA.” And yet, here we are, more than a year later. Bush still wants Haynes to get a lifetime position on the appeals court bench.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for [tag]Democratic[/tag] Senate leader Harry Reid, told the AP, “We have a limited number of legislative days left before Congress adjourns for the year and much to do, but instead of working with Democrats on issues important to the American people, the president has, once again, chosen confrontation over cooperation with these extremely divisive nominations.”
He sure has. Dems have no reason in the world to back down.