Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Confirming Judge Owen

The filibuster is safe for now, after moderate Republicans and Democrats reached a last-minute deal that allowed some contested judicial nominees to go through while supposedly reserving the filibuster and nuclear option for extraordinary circumstances. Conservative groups are furious with Republicans for compromising (and liberal groups with Democrats for allowing the contested nominees through). Because a good compromise leaves no one happy, don’t expect this one to last long.

I never thought that the judicial nominees the Democrats were blocking were really that objectionable. Sure the nominees are conservative, but what else do you expect from President Bush? I’m far more concerned about the swamping of the judiciary with the more than 200 conservative judges that President Bush has appointed so far, but party control of the judiciary comes with party control of the White House and it was inevitable after President Bush was elected in 2000 and again in 2004.

I think Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid knows that the judges long under scrutiny are not really that objectionable. After Priscilla Owen finally won confirmation after a four year wait, here’s what he had to say about her, in case Judge Owen isn’t the nightmare liberals have made her out to be:

I hope she surprises those of us who have fought her nomination. Perhaps her experience as a judicial nominee has exposed her to a broader range of views, and that experience may make her more sensitive to concerns regarding privacy, civil rights and consumer rights.

I don’t think Judge Owen will be any worse than your average conservative judge and I wouldn’t be surprised if she decided cases the “liberal” way on many, many occasions over the years, even if in the aggregate her opinions have a conservative bent to them.

3 Comments:

Blogger The Critics said...

POYS states that "party control of the judiciary comes with party control of the White House."

Normally POYS makes astute statements, but after reading this post, I'm beginning to wonder if some of the comments made earlier (See Taking Stock) about POYS arent true.

I can think of several presidencies where "party control of the judiciary" DID NOT "come with party control of the White House", including, but not limited to; Nixon, Reagan, Eisenhower... Need I go on?

Perhaps POYS meant that "party control of the judiciary comes with party control of the Senate". The White House has very little to do with it.

I believe POYS should do some more research before bloging so hastily in the midst of his "busy" summer. Either that or take a remedial Con Law course.

(formerly JTERPSLAW)

5/25/2005 10:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, POYS is pretty much dead on. Merely because Nixon was disappointed with Blackmun, or that Reagan didn't think that O'Connor or Kennedy followed the conservative mantra to the letter doesn't mean that they didn't otherwise stock the judiciary with staunch conservatives.

Unless you're one of those folks who thinks that the courts aren't conservative enough already and we need Roy Moore-like judges in the federal courts.

5/26/2005 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger Ha ha hit him again said...

yea Janice Rogers Brown saying private property is dead in California.

Other than that I agree with POYS. The most ironic thing is they are throwing Myers overboard, who wouldn't make a dent in the liberal 9th circuit, which proves Reid didn't care about the individual nominees.

5/26/2005 12:43:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home