|
Edited on Tue May-24-05 06:50 AM by in_cog_ni_to
From Moveon.org:
The judges who President Bush has renominated were blocked by Democrats because they've sided so consistently with powerful special interests over ordinary Americans that they simply could not be given lifetime appointments on the federal bench.
Take a look at just the first ones to be reconsidered this term:
Janice Rodgers Brown will most likely be the first judge the Republicans push through using the nuclear option—and its not hard to see why she is so important to them or so dangerous for the American people. Brown is against the most basic protections for workers and the environment that have kept our country strong since the Great Depression.1 She follows a radical judicial philosophy that says courts have a duty to block Congress from interfering with, for example, a corporation's "right" to pollute (if it's profitable), or an employer's "right" to demand unlimited hours at any wage from their employees.2 With judges like Brown flooding the bench, everything from the Clean Water Act to the 40-hour work week could be struck down and eliminated.
William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.7 He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.8
From People For The American Way:
Priscilla Owen – Remaking The Law For The Radical Right
Owen’s own conservative judicial colleagues – including even current Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales – have criticized her right-wing judicial activism. In more than a dozen cases on
reproductive rights, consumer protection, and other issues, Gonzales and other Texas Supreme Court
judges criticized Owen for improperly trying to “judicially amend” Texas law or for “an unconscionable act
of judicial activism” that would harm individual rights.1
Priscilla “Enron” Owen—While serving on the Texas Supreme Court, Owen accepted campaign
contributions from giant corporations including Enron and Halliburton and then issued rulings in
their favor.2
Even several Texas newspapers have criticized Owen’s nomination. Referring to Owen’s nomination
to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board wrote, “Texas may be saddled with
justices who elevate partisan ideology above law and logic, but justice and reason should discourage
their infliction on the nation.”3 The San Antonio Express-News wrote that Owen’s record “demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.”4
Owen opinions would harm consumers and individuals and benefit corporations. When a liquor
retailer sold alcohol to an obviously intoxicated customer, who then got behind the wheel of his car,
crashed, and caused 9-year-old Ashley Duenez permanent brain damage, Owen wanted to let the retailer
off the hook.5 When a man suffered serious injury as he was leaving his truck, Owen wanted to tell the
insurance company it didn’t have to pay.6 In one dissent, Owen endorsed the radical notion that polluters
should be able to opt out of municipal water-quality and other environmental ordinances because private
property rights take precedence.7
Texans oppose Owen’s nomination. Owen’s nomination to the Court of Appeals is broadly opposed by
Texas groups including Texans for Public Justice, the Texas AFL-CIO, the Texas Civil Rights Project,
Texas Watch, the Texas Freedom Network, the Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, the
Texas State Confederation of NAACP Branches, the Gray Panthers of Texas, and the Texas Women’s
Political Caucus.
Mike DeWine, in last night's press conference, said (I paraphrase) the repukes reserved the right to "individually" decide when to use the nuclear option depending on whether they felt the Dems had overstepped the bounds of what's considered "extraordinary circumstances". SO, IMCPO, the Dems can still filibuster under "extraordinary circumstances", BUT the repukes can still pull the Nuclear Option out of their ass, at will, since "extraordinary circumstances" is subjective.
I still don't see how this is a win for the Dems.
The ONLY good that came out of this: The Nuclear Option is off the table TODAY...who knows about tomorrow?
The Repukes, Frist and his religious radical right, are pissed as hell...THAT is a good thing, but they can remedy that at will. All they have to do is play the Nuclear Option card again and they can do THAT at any time.
HOW IS THIS A WIN FOR THE DEMOCRATS? Owen, Brown and Pryor get rammed through. Why were the Dems filibustering these judges? Was it because they are so "moderate"? No. They are RADICAL judges who should never be confirmed. IMCPO.
We saved Roe v. Wade? HOW? When a Supreme Court Nominee is filibustered because the Democrats find an "Extraordinary Circumstance", being subjective, the repukes can say, "no it isn't" and play the Nuclear Option. How is that a win, I ask you?
IMCPO, this only postponed the Nuclear Option for another day and that day will probably come during a Supreme Court Nominee filibuster in 2006 during the 110th Congress. The Nuclear Option is inevitable. The repukes are in the MAJORITY. They WILL have their way.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
