Category — Judicial Nominations

Massachusetts judges really need to be elected because the current appointment system is failing us miserably:

A convicted sex offender arrested this week on charges of raping a 6-year-old boy in the public library had been released from prison a year ago, despite the strenuous objections of the district attorney and three psychologists who argued that he posed a serious threat to children.

Superior Court Judge Richard Moses denied the prosecutor’s motion to keep Corey Saunders in custody indefinitely, arguing that he had a low IQ and had suffered physical and sexual abuse as a child.

So, the bleeding heart JD overruled 3 PhDs. Isn’t that nice? The case for keeping this predator locked up was strong, but the judge “knew” better. And although he should be removed from the bench, my guess is that very little will happen. Welcome to justice in MA where criminal rights and bleeding hearts come first.

Combine our judges with Patrick’s CORI “reforms” and pretty soon the real prisoners will be the average person in their home.

USA Today pretty much sums up the liberal media’s reaction to Samuel Alito’s elevation to the High Court:

Samuel Alito, who once said the Constitution doesn’t protect the right to an abortion, won a swing seat Tuesday on the Supreme Court.

In the left’s mind, Sam Alito has done nothing but plot Roe’s reversal for the past twenty years! I would call that projection.

The radical left’s lap dog, Sen. Chuck Schumer, is pulling for straws in his witch hunt against future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito:

“The ABA ratings do not take into account whether a judge’s judicial philosophy and views are in or out of the broad mainstream,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. “That is the $64,000 question with Judge Alito and we will have to wait for the hearings to get a better answer.”

And who better to decide what is mainstream than a New York liberal who supports gay marriage, partial-birth abortion and higher taxes! I repeat, I dare liberals to filibuster.

Captain Ed is was of the many vocal conservatives that were disappointed by President Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, but he says enough is enough:

In the end, though, we owe Bush the same consideration we demand from the Democrats — a recognition that the President picks the nominee based, most times, on his view of the country’s best interests. He won election from more than just the right-wing bloggers. I don’t truly believe that Miers will turn into David Souter; I think her personal views will make her at worst another O’Connor.

Some ask me to join in bombarding Senators to vote her down. To what purpose? Bush will never withdraw her from consideration, and the splintering among the base will only serve to weaken the Bush Presidency. That, unfortunately, gives us three years of lame-duck representation and probably will cost us the chance to make good on our electoral advantages in the 2006 Senate races. If the Democrats have to rescue Miers, they will — if only to ensure that Bush doesn’t throw them a Luttig or a McConnell as a punishment for having rejected Miers.

Our voices have been heard by the GOP, which has gone into overdrive to get us to buy the song and dance they’ve offered for two days on Miers. She may turn out well on the bench, but we only get opportunities a couple of times in a generation to put a true and tested conservative scholar on the Supreme Court, and the Bush Administration blithely ignored one here. That doesn’t make Miers a bad pick, but certainly a disappointment.

Now, though, enough is enough. We’ve made our point. It’s time to move on and remember that we have other priorities at stake, and we need a center-right President to even have a shot at getting them accomplished. We need a Senate that has the leadership to get nominees through the process without damaging them or ourselves. Setting a match to all that we have accomplished in three electoral cycles just to protest a single nomination makes as much sense as lecturing us that Harriet Miers had better qualifications than the thousands of other managing partners in law firms around this country, the constitutional scholars who have spent their time studying the issues that Miers will be tasked with solving, or the judges who have performed that work at state and federal appellate levels for years.

The choice has already been made, by the man we elected to make it. We have demanded deference to presidential prerogative from the Democrats for the past five years on judicial nominations, and now it’s our turn to demonstrate that we know what that means.

If the conservative base chooses to split from the President, they better get used to the words “President Hillary Clinton”. The base split in 1992 and as a result we got Bill Clinton. After eight years of him we saw the results of his presidency on 9/11. I would hate to see what the results would be after 8 years of Hillary.

Update: Betsy’s Page has a similar take:

What does irritate me is those conservatives who basically want to take their marbles and go home since they’re disappointed in Bush’s nomination. Fine, stay home next election. I hope your sanctimonious conservative purity is warm comfort through the years of Hillary’s presidency. Remember that our choice is rarely between the perfect candidate and some other person. Mostly, we have to deal with two imperfect candidates and figure out which one would be less bad for the country. If you’re lucky, there might even be a candidate you can like. My experience is that such politicians are rare.

Red State is running with their usual Supreme Court rumors that keep us guessing. Erick’s confidential White House source dropped the ball on conservatives today:

An example of that frustration, he says, is the reaction in some corners to Judge Roberts nomination. “Short of John Roberts getting a sworn affidavit from Jesus Christ or personally overturning Roe v. Wade with a baseball bat and machine gun, some very vocal people on the right will not be happy with him and are marginalizing the rest of us.

“We all know the litany: Brown. If not Brown, Jones. If not Jones, Garza. If not Garza, Alito. If not Alito, Luttig. Here’s a hint. It will be none of them. The first four have been too vocal on abortion. Luttig has been sabotaged by the Chamber and others because they don’t think he would side with them on some key issues stemming from federal regulations. The President is not going to name anyone who has specifically written that Roe should be thrown out. It’s not going to happen and people should deal with it.”

Why is Bush running from his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? That promise helped defeat Democrats nationwide in two consecutive elections. To disqualify a candidate based solely on outspoken opposition to Roe unfairly applies a litmus test. Isn’t that what we accuse Democrats of?

Tonight’s headlines show that the left’s “a woman’s right to choose could be overturned” siren is off in full effect. Case in point here and here. If you read the MSM, you would think all the Supreme Court does is sit around and talk about Roe v. Wade over popcorn and a movie! Clearly, the Democratic owned MSM is using Roe in the PR campaign because they think everyone loves abortion as much as they do.

All in all, most behaved as expected. Feinstein, absent her Cali cohort Barbara Boxer, appeared shrill and liberal (humorless too!). Specter’s ridiculous comment on Roe points how “super duper” embarrassing aging RINOs can be.

The most striking thing about the whole hearing is how much it highlights how little the Democrats have changed in twenty years!!! The same old recycled mouthpieces - Kennedy, Joey “Xerox”, and Leaky Leahy - are distorting Roberts’ record and applying a double standard to the confirmation process. Contrast that with John Roberts’ savvy demeanor and youth and one can certainly understand why the Democrats are the minority party.

Bush managed to out do his opponents once again with the selection of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Even with a thin paper trail, it is widely accepted that Roberts is a conservative… at least in the mold of Chief Justice William Renqhuist.

If confirmed, Roberts could provide the key vote on a host of controversial issues. Justice O’Connor was the deciding liberal vote on partial-birth abortion, affirmative action and the ten commandments. Democrats know this and will do anything to stop him. Roberts will dodge a filibuster by just a handful of votes and split the moderate and liberal faction of the Democratic Party. I believe Democratic senators Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Pryor (AR), Bob Byd (WV), Ken Salazar (CO) and Ben Nelson (NE) will provide the breaking votes if necessary.

The left-wing arm of the Democratic Party is at it again - and they don’t even realize it. CBS released a poll yesterday gaging public support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. The results were generally positive and in line with previous justices CBS polled on. Public reaction to John Roberts was compared to Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas and defeated Reagan nominee, Judge Robert Bork. Noticeably absent from comparisons were Clinton appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom were appointed after Thomas and Souter.

Did CBS never bother asking the American public how they felt about President Clinton’s nominees to the high Court? Was it not important to ask the public about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s position on abortion? Of course not. CBS and the rest of the MSM knew a Democratic President’s selection to the Court would be rabidly pro-abortion and that’s all that matters to them. The very fact that they didn’t poll on Ginsburg and Breyer shows not only their blatant left-wing bias, but their stupidity. Had CBS polled on Clinton’s hard left nominees, they might have been able to see the GOP tidal wave coming just months later in 1994. I suppose for conservatives, CBS’ ignorance is bliss.

Another concern among conservatives is that John Roberts may not rule to overturn Roe v. Wade. While I don’t approve of this type of litmus testing, I would argue that he probably would. First, his wife was executive VP for the pro-life organization, Feminists for Life. Second, Roberts’ adorable children are adopted. One could assume that Roberts and his wife could not bear children. This could make an already pro-life person adamant about their position. Lastly, I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue overturning Roe v. Wade if they didn’t believe in it to some degree. It’s just too unpopular a stand in legal circles.

Of course, it’s not appropriate for Roberts’ to answer whether he would overturn Roe although I am sure it will be asked. Conservatives should focus on more pressing abortion issues like the partial birth ban and parental consent cases the Court will hear next term. I highly doubt a man who goes to bed with a pro-life “feminist” every night would rule against conservatives in either of those cases….

After the dust has settled, I am now seeing the other side of the John Roberts coin. Many respected conservatives, including Ann Coulter and Polipundit are upset with the President for picking a candidate with a “blank slate.” Both argue that President Bush should have gone with someone with a clear, conservative paper trail. While I agree that Republicans should not fear a paper trail, I think these folks are over reacting.

USA Today breaks down John Roberts’ legal history and it looks pretty conservative to me. To compare Roberts to O’Connor and Souter is just plain unfair. In the 1970s, O’Connor was an abortion rights activist in the Arizona senate and she was appointed to the state appeals court by then Democratic Gov. Bruce Babbit. In my opinion, Reagan appointed her specifically to placate moderates. O’Connor’s only asset to conservatives was that she was a partisan Republican. As for Souter, I will never understand why 41 appointed such a clueless liberal partisan.

Considering that the current Court consists of seven Republican appointees and four of them were disappointments, conservative angst is understood. On the plus side, the lack of a Roberts’ paper trail will make it easier to fight against Gonzales if the Chief steps down later this year. That being said, I trust that Roberts will be at least a Renqhuist type conservative. Supreme Court nominees are like a box of chocolates - you never quite know what you’re going to get.

Dick Morris is on Hannity whining that the Chief should step down so Bush can keep the balance of the Court. (BTW, Renny claims he’s staying). Morris also said that replacing O’Connor with an anti-Roe conservative could overturn Roe and cause a mass exodus of white women from the GOP. This is patently false. I am shocked that Morris said this and Sean Hannity let him. While I admit I bought Rewriting History, Morris is certainly not a believer in true conservatism. He loves America, but he seems to like abortion, too.

FACT: The Court is 6-3 pro-Roe and 5-4 pro-partial birth abortion. Kennedy was actually the swing vote who voted to reluctantly uphold Roe, but voted to uphold Nebraska’s partial birth ban. Replacing O’Connor with an anti-Roe conservative gives people exactly what they want if you believe polls. AND like all social liberals, Morris ends by pushing Gonzales.

As I have already said, Bush needs to lay down the marker. If recent events didn’t remind him who he should be pleasing, nothing will. He has time to appoint his AG buddy and if Roe is overturned, so be it. Am I the only one that still believes in the democratic process? People can voice their anger (or happiness) at the polls.

For the record, I am not sad to see Sandra Day O’Connor step down from the Court. However, her departure has Democrats in a tizzy and it’s fun to watch. For years, the lying liberal media has been scared to death of an O’Connor retirement - it was an issue in the 2000 election. But, after the biggest case in my lifetime, Bush v. Gore, O’Connor knew her conservative alignment in the case kept her from retiring right away. So while the talking points fret over abortion, I like to think about what O’Connor did do for conservatives - she knew that Democrats would not accept Bush’s Florida win until the Supreme Court interpreted one.

O’Connor says in spades what liberals value most - abortion. Suddenly, the talking points are favoring AG Gonzales - the left’s new favorite war criminal. If the conservative Chief Justice stepped down, I am sure his role in Bush v. Gore would have been examined. But, when you are dealing with liars who know that the shifting of Roe v. Wade hangs in balance, nothing else matters. Even that temper tantrum over Bush v. Gore.

The AP, scared to death that President Bush may actually appoint someone that thinks like him, is officially on board with Democrats in the Supreme showdown:

Legal experts on both sides speculate that the retirement of O’Connor raises the prospect that Bush will name Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He is not a favorite of conservatives, who continued to target the White House this weekend in their anti-Gonzales campaign, saying his views on issues such as abortion and affirmative action are not aligned far enough to the right.

Someone then drops the bomb on the Supreme Court:

But American University historian Allan J. Lichtman says naming an extremely conservative nominee could backfire on the president because it might prompt Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative who also has been a swing vote on the court, to inch away from the right.

Gee Lichtman, wouldn’t that be awfully political for an “independent” member of the judicial branch? The AP, the Democrats biggest defenders, just sunk Gonzales. It took them less than 24 hours to start propagating the LIE that Presidents cannot seek to shift the balance of the Court.

Not since Desperate Housewife Mary Alice Young put a gun to her head last fall have this many liberal women been contemplating suicide. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s long awaited (and for some, feared) departure from the High Court rocked the Capitol earlier this morning. In a DC instant, President Bush gets his first opportunity to appoint someone to take her place and tip the Court further right. Note to the President - keep the promises you made.

Justice O’Connor answered a question I asked in January and reassured a feeling Bill Kristol had just days ago. O’Connor’s retirement will release the demons of the judicial confirmation process under Republican Presidents. Fortunate for us, liberal hatred is no longer a dirty little secret - it’s natural political discourse these days! The left-wing abortion lobby and their fascist allies have had free reign over the Courts for several years in the post-Bork era. Now suddenly, they are ‘Desperate’ once again.

COMING SOON: The contenders and the opposition

Red State has some inside info on how the Supreme Court retirement process is likely to play out this summer:

• Rehnquist is out. It’ll happen on or about July 5 [Ed. — but why not do it earlier so the Gang can have a 3 day weekend to mull the implications and feel out the Senate before announcing a replacement on Tuesday?!] POTUS is leaning toward Luttig.
• If, however, O’Connor beats CJ to the White House (though POTUS & Co., Inc. does not expect her till Labor Day), we go with Garza first and Luttig second. If Luttig doesn’t want it, we go with John Roberts next — Rehnquist is pushing Roberts. Roberts is a
  Rehnquist protege.
• If O’Connor does go at Labor Day and women are not back on board GWB’s bus (a current POTUS & Co., Inc. concern), he scraps Garza and goes with Edith Brown Clements, an under the radar conservative from the 5th Circuit.
• If any other spot opens, he goes with (a) Gonzales or (b) a sitting United States Senator from a state that currently has a Republican governor. Oh, and there just might be a third spot opening, but not until after January 1.
• Your guess is as good as mine on that one. Until then people in New York and Chicago will be speculating. Source does tell me that POTUS1 really, really, really wants Gonzales and “POTUS is POTUS” but knows the political calculus of a Gonzales nomination would be devastating to the base and to the 14 who have to either vote for a possible Souter or vote against the first Hispanic nominee and then go on and try to get re-elected next year.

I am not sure I buy any of this, but I guess speculation is all we have at this point. Bush needs to get over Gonzales. After last week’s horrible eminent domain ruling, conservatives would have all the ammo they needed to defeat him, humiliate the President, and hand the Democrats a gift going into the mid-term election.