So Tell Me Whats Wrong With Them?

[Gem]

There are several discussions about the filibuster, why its happening, whether it is right or wrong. Lost in all of these, seems to be the people who are sitting in limbo, waiting for the senate. Some have removed their names, tired of waiting, tired of having their characters impugned.

So here are just a few of the more well-known judges waiting....for those here who oppose them, or even if you just think that the Democratic memebers of the Senate have every right to keep filibustering their appointments...can you tell me why?

Why are you opposed to these people? What have they done, what do they believe, support, represent, what do they do, that you disagree with?

Janice Brown
DC Circuit

Since May 2, 1996, Janice Brown has been an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. From November 4, 1994, she was an Associate Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. From January 7, 1991, to November 1994, Ms. Brown served as Legal Affairs Secretary to Governor Pete Wilson. Prior to joining Governor Wilson's senior staff, Brown was an associate at Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, a government and political law firm. Before joining the firm in January 1990, Brown served for two and a half years as Deputy Secretary and General Counsel for the state's Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, working primarily with business regulatory departments. Brown came to BT&H after eight years (1979-1987) in the Attorney General's Office, where she worked in both the criminal and civil divisions. From 1977 to 1979, Brown worked for the Legislative Counsel.

Charles W. Pickering Sr.
5th circuit

U. S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr., has had over ten years experience on the federal trial bench. He was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on October 2, 1990, by President Bush's father. Prior to appointment to the bench, Judge Pickering practiced law for almost thirty years. Judge Pickering was appointed and served as City Prosecuting Attorney of Laurel and was elected and served four years as County Prosecuting Attorney of Jones County. He served briefly as Laurel City Judge, 1969, and was elected to two terms in the Mississippi State Senate, 1972 to 1980. He was the Republican nominee for Attorney General in 1979, and served as Chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party from 1976 to 1978. Judge Pickering graduated at the top of his law school class at the University of Mississippi where he was on the Law Journal and served as Chairman of the Moot Court Board.

Miguel Estrada
DC Circuit
Withdrawn

Born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Miguel A. Estrada immigrated to the United States with his family as a teenager. He is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he is a member of the firm's Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group and the Business Crimes and Investigations Practice Group. Mr. Estrada graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree from Columbia College, New York in 1983. He received a juris doctor degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Honorable Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then clerked for the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. From 1990 until 1992, Mr. Estrada served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. In 1992, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. In those capacities, Mr. Estrada represented the government in numerous jury trials and in many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Estrada practiced law in New York with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

most all of them have been accused of right wing judicial activism, most of them by their own peers on the benches they currently serve. Many, if not all of them, have had rulings overturned because they were in direct opposition of the precedents for those states that they currently reside in.

 

[freeandfun1]

most all of them have been accused of right wing judicial activism, most of them by their own peers on the benches they currently serve. Many, if not all of them, have had rulings overturned because they were in direct opposition of the precedents for those states that they currently reside in.

Specific examples please. I hear this all the time, yet I have not seen ONE example. If they have had rulings overturned (as if NO judge ever does ) then the info should be readily available.

 

[dilloduck]

most all of them have been accused of right wing judicial activism, most of them by their own peers on the benches they currently serve. Many, if not all of them, have had rulings overturned because they were in direct opposition of the precedents for those states that they currently reside in.

ahhhh ---thier own liberal peers don't like em and thier rulings are different than the previous liberal rulings. those bastards !!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

ahhhh ---thier own liberal peers don't like em and thier rulings are different than the previous liberal rulings. those bastards !!

with the exception of janice brown, all of the others have served, or are serving, on conservative courts. You want to try and convince me that the 4th and 5th circuits are liberal courts?

 

[Gem]

So is it their "judicial activism", which you haven't given examples of, the condemnation of their "peers", which you haven't provided links to, or the fact that they sit on conservative courts (except that one of them doesn't) that gives the Democrats a reason to halt their nomination?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Specific examples please. I hear this all the time, yet I have not seen ONE example. If they have had rulings overturned (as if NO judge ever does ) then the info should be readily available.

These have been posted all over the internet, you haven't seen or heard of these?

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1729

Although they served together for a relatively short time in 1999-2000, Gonzales wrote or joined more than a dozen opinions sharply criticizing opinions written or joined by Owen on the court. In most of these cases, Gonzales, a strong conservative on the court, was part of the majority that rejected ultra-conservative Owen dissents as ignoring the plain meaning of the law or otherwise engaging in improper judicial activism to try to reach a particular result. In what could be a close vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Owen’s nomination, the decisive factor could be the concern that Owen has allowed her ideology to get in the way of her responsibilities as a judge. As a Texas Supreme Court Justice, Gonzales repeatedly wrote or joined criticism of Owen’s aggressive right-wing judicial activism. Time and again, Justice Owen attempted to remake the law when it clashed with her ideology. We urge members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to carefully review Owen’s record on the Texas Supreme Court and to reject her confirmation to the federal appeals court."

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12566

When Brown was nominated to the state supreme court in 1996, she was found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee, based not only on her relative inexperience but also because she was "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions" and based on complaints that she was "insensitive to established precedent." Brown's record since she joined the court confirms the accuracy of those concerns. Her many disturbing dissents, often not joined by a single other justice, make it clear that she would use the power of an appeals court seat to try to erect significant barriers for victims of discrimination to seek justice in the courts, and to push an agenda that would undermine privacy, equal protection under the law, environmental protection, and much more. Far from demonstrating the commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights principles that should be shown by all federal court nominees, Brown's record reveals a disturbing tendency to try to remake the law in a way that would undermine these crucial principles.

For myers
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13640

For Boyle
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17979

The judicial record of appeals court nominee Terrence Boyle is marked by an unusually high percentage of decisions reversed by higher courts and a series of rulings that is damaging to individuals’ ability to have their rights protected in court, according to a detailed report on Boyle’s record released today by People For the American Way, a national civil rights and constitutional liberties organization. The Senate Judiciary Committee has reportedly scheduled a hearing on Boyle’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for March 1, 2005.

“Terrence Boyle is a judicial disaster. The third time is definitely not the charm for Judge Boyle, who has twice failed to win confirmation to the Fourth Circuit,” said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. “He has the worst reversal rate of all the district court judges nominated by President Bush, and his rulings reflect a judicial philosophy that is very damaging to the rights of average Americans. Senators should take a careful look at Judge Boyle’s record and vote to stop him from taking a powerful lifetime position on the appeals court.”

 

[SmarterThanYou]

So is it their "judicial activism", which you haven't given examples of, the condemnation of their "peers", which you haven't provided links to, or the fact that they sit on conservative courts (except that one of them doesn't) that gives the Democrats a reason to halt their nomination?

well, lets break this down. Those on the right decry 'judicial activism', yet seem perfectly willing to accept that activism when its based on right wing activism. pretty hypocritical.

the condemnation of their peers SHOULD be a major factor for most people. Here in texas, alberto gonzales is considered pretty conservative, yet now that word has gotten out that he declared Owens a 'judicial activist', now he's not THAT conservative.

I only brought up that they sit on conservative courts to reply to dillo and his claim about 'liberal' rulings.

 

[musicman]

Oh, well - if People for the American Way don't like these folks, they MUST be heinous.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Oh, well - if People for the American Way don't like these folks, they MUST be heinous.

and THUS begins the demonization of another group of people. By all means, lets just ignore all the relevant facts they list and attack the messenger.

 

[musicman]

and THUS begins the demonization of another group of people. By all means, lets just ignore all the relevant facts they list and attack the messenger.

YOU DON'T LOOK ASKANCE AT A MESSENGER LIKE THAT????

If I ever shook hands with one of those bastards, I'd count my fingers.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

YOU DON'T LOOK ASKANCE AT A MESSENGER LIKE THAT????

If I ever shook hands with one of those bastards, I'd count my fingers.

fine, count them, but are the facts that they presented WRONG????

I cant stand kay bailey and john cornyn, but if they show the truth, i'm not about to disregard it because I don't like them.

 

[musicman]

fine, count them, but are the facts that they presented WRONG????

I cant stand kay bailey and john cornyn, but if they show the truth, i'm not about to disregard it because I don't like them.

Torturously worded, convoluted, and heavily opinionated diatribes from one of the premier America-hating groups extant. One of the nominees sported a laundry list of detractors that ought to - in and of itself - qualify her as a patriot. This is why we have hearings - so that nominees are permitted to respond to tripe like this. Most of it - I'll bet - won't even be brought up.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Torturously worded, convoluted, and heavily opinionated diatribes from one of the premier America-hating groups extant. One of the nominees sported a laundry list of detractors that ought to - in and of itself - qualify her as a patriot. This is why we have hearings - so that nominees are permitted to respond to tripe like this. Most of it - I'll bet - won't even be brought up.

so yet again, your opinion of the nominees is supported only by the current GOP rhetoric. Judicial activism is OK, and even preferred, when it supports YOUR view of the constitution and ANY judge who rules against the current law should be considered a PATRIOT as long as YOU like their ruling. :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

 

[musicman]

so yet again, your opinion of the nominees is supported only by the current GOP rhetoric. Judicial activism is OK, and even preferred, when it supports YOUR view of the constitution and ANY judge who rules against the current law should be considered a PATRIOT as long as YOU like their ruling. :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

I don't know where you get "yet again", but my opinion of the nominees is that they deserve a fair hearing. Your and PAW's calling them "judicial activists" doesn't make them judicial activists.

I will admit, though - in all candor - that reading the list of organizations who loathe these judges does give me a warm fuzzy feeling about these judges.

 

[Gem]

Smarter,

I find it fascinating that Alberto Gonzales, who people like PFAW ranted and raved about as an out-of-control madman who supported torture are now singing his praises when they find that he used to disagree with someone they now dislike.

Someone is being hypocritical here, but it isn't any of us who are trying to determine why these judges are so controversial.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Smarter,

I find it fascinating that Alberto Gonzales, who people like PFAW ranted and raved about as an out-of-control madman who supported torture are now singing his praises when they find that he used to disagree with someone they now dislike.

Someone is being hypocritical here, but it isn't any of us who are trying to determine why these judges are so controversial.

i'm not pointing the hypocrite finger at anyone in particular, and you certainly have a good point in PFAW and gonzalez, however I don't think that they are necessarily 'singing his praises' as much as they are using his statements for this issue against owens.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I don't know where you get "yet again", but my opinion of the nominees is that they deserve a fair hearing. Your and PAW's calling them "judicial activists" doesn't make them judicial activists.

I will admit, though - in all candor - that reading the list of organizations who loathe these judges does give me a warm fuzzy feeling about these judges.

so basically, it all comes down to different interpretations of what a 'strict constitutionalist' is, right? See, my definition is one that issues rulings according to the laws of the land set forth by the US and state constitutions along with legal precedents of the other federal courts. Some others feel that a 'strict constitutionalist' is one that issues rulings based on personal ideologies or political leanings.

whats yours?

 

[Bonnie]

As Gem asked and so will I..What specifically in their duties in making decisions have rendered them activist????
Someone else including Gonzalez telling us they are is not sufficient evidence??????????????????????????????

 

[musicman]

so basically, it all comes down to different interpretations of what a 'strict constitutionalist' is, right? See, my definition is one that issues rulings according to the laws of the land set forth by the US and state constitutions

So far, so good.

along with legal precedents of the other federal courts.

Not necessarily so good. "He/she rules contrary to legal precedents established by other federal courts" doesn't damn a nominee out of hand IMO - especially given the hilarity perpetrated by the federal courts in the last thirty years.

Some others feel that a 'strict constitutionalist' is one that issues rulings based on personal ideologies or political leanings.

See above.

whats yours?

Which party do you honestly believe is more interested in advancing the cause of constitutionalist judges - really? Feel free to take judicial behavior across your and my lifetimes into account.