Radical Judicial Nominees
Radical Judicial Nominees
President Bush said: “As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench – and I have done so.”
FACT: President Bush has nominated Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes IV for a second time. Haynes led the group of attorneys responsible for the memos contending “the president wasn’t bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn’t be prosecuted by the Justice Department.”
FACT: Bush is determined to install California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rodgers Brown to the federal courts. The New York Times described her record as a “war on mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear.”
FACT: Bush also renominated Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. His confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench would be a huge blow for women’s rights. Pryor considers Roe v. Wade to be “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our nation’s history.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
…huge blow *to* women’s rights…
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:47 pmEgads on William Pryor re-nomination! Take a look at the man behind the curtain. I forsee nomination of the Conservative famous judge from last year, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:35 amJudges – especially those at the highest levels – should never be controversial. They should, rather, represent the core of mainstream legal thought. They should not be partisan, but rather acceptable to both sides.
The Democrats are entirely right to fight this tyranny of the majority by filibustering any partisan, non-mainstream appointments. I wouldn’t mind seeing the bar raised to 70% for Supreme Court appointments.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:15 amIt is amazing to the see the hypocrital world that the left and liberals live in. Instead of looking into his comments, and why he called the decision the worst, liberals immediately disseminate information saying that he is anti-woman. This is not the case, he was referring to it specifically as it pertained to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ITS APPLICATION. I know its a hard concept for most Liberals to understand, but you can devoid yourself of the issue and just associate it with the law without saying that you are going to overturn it someday.
As well, the Liberals have very little ground to stand on. Democratic presidents have used the recess appointment in VAST numbers greater than the Republicans, and almost always have had their nominees confirmed eventually. The only litmus test that a judge should face is whether they apply the law correctly, and if they are incompetent. This is what the constitution calls for, this is what the founding fathers wanted, but the Democrats and liberals take it to mean that if the judge that is nominated doesnt agreee with their liberal mantra, and will not continue with their desired task of dismantling any semblance of order, then they will block the nomination.
They need to look in the mirror and at FACTS before condemning a good and respected Judge.
April 17th, 2005 at 7:40 pmArnulfo
After reading this, I can see why people keep leaving comments. I hope this isn’t rejected, cause i would really like to read more. Can you post some more good literature?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am