The Judicial Witchhunt Has Begun

[Bonnie]

David Limbaugh


May 17, 2005

If anyone doubted which side of the political aisle is playing dirty in the fight over federal judicial nominees, he hasn't read about the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League's mission to dig up financial and other dirt against 30 sitting federal appellate judges.

Columnist Bob Novak unveiled the story in his May 16 column, reporting that a California political consulting firm requested the financial records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones and 29 other "appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities." According to Novak, such a mass request for disclosure by federal judges is unprecedented.

But what makes this more interesting is that one of the partners in the consulting firm is Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Should we assume complicity on Reid's part?

Until I hear him denouncing this outrage, I'll presume he's supportive of it. With his consistent pugnaciousness and pettiness in these Senate skirmishes and his recent demeaning reference to President Bush as a "loser" before high school students, we now know Reid's not the mild-mannered public servant he pretends to be.

Don't forget, also, that Reid recently smeared by innuendo one of the president's appellate court nominees when he suggested that very damaging information existed in the judge's confidential FBI file.

And Reid has the audacity to lecture Republicans about a so-called "nuclear option" when his former associate and his current constituency groups are engaged in this kind of wholesale privacy invasion against federal judges?
Do you think it's even possible there is something suspicious about all 30 judges prompting an investigation into their financial records? Could it be any more obvious that we are witnessing a Larry Flynt-style fishing expedition?

Can you imagine the chilling effect this could have on federal judges? Many doubt the dirt hunt is limited to the judges' public records. Judicial Confirmation Network counsel Wendy E. Long said: "It's clear that Sen. Reid's former communications director, who now runs a left-wing political research firm, has not been hired by NARAL simply to obtain public records. You don't hire an expensive political research firm to do what the Senate Democratic staff can easily do."

Long has a point. No one with the slightest discernment would believe that you'd hire such a high-powered group merely to file a public records request. What else do you think this group might be up to?

Is nothing sacred anymore? I wonder what it would take these days to offend the sensibilities of rank and file Democrats, whose party leadership continues to descend lower and lower into the ethical abyss in furtherance of its ideological ends.

I'm not confident anything would, given the gravity of the stakes involved in this war over judicial nominees. Democrats seem to be wholly committed to preventing the federal bench from being divested of its extra-constitutional components. Only over their figurative dead bodies will judges who believe in interpreting the Constitution according to its original intent and plain meaning be confirmed.

Of the two political parties, which has the cleaner hands in the fight over federal judgeships? One party is fighting to the death for the "privacy" "rights" of women to "choose" to kill their own babies in the womb on demand and, in the process, is in bed with groups engaged in the most egregious privacy-invading expedition against prospective Supreme Court nominees.

This party is so adamant about achieving the policy end of sanctioning this form of murder that it is willing to obliterate the Constitution both by converting the judiciary into a policy-making branch and by using its minority weapon of filibustering the president's judicial nominees to usurp his appointment power and the Senate majority's advice and consent prerogative.

The other party is guilty of wanting to confirm the president's appointment of judges who would respect the Constitution and who might overturn Roe v. Wade and its judicial progeny such that the issue of the legality of abortion would revert to the states to be decided according to the will of their people.

If everyone's finances are so relevant all of a sudden, perhaps someone should do an expose concerning the financial workings of NARAL to inquire, among other things, into what kind of incentives NARAL and other such groups have actually to be pro-choice, as opposed to pro-death. What's good for the goose ...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050517.shtml

 

[SmarterThanYou]

thats so much spin I'm dizzy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Good article. How about an investigation into Harry Reid? I understand he/his family has their hands into just about every thing in his state. Turnabout is fair play...who knows what might be turned up? :bat:

 

[musicman]

Let me see if I've got this straight. Tom DeLay's statement that "judges will have to answer for their actions" is, at best, rank intimidation of the judiciary ( and, at worst, an open invitation for extremist wackos to start offing judges) - for which he should apologize, resign, or kill himself.

But this is OK.

 

[pegwinn]

Columnist Bob Novak unveiled the story in his May 16 column, reporting that a California political consulting firm requested the financial records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones and 29 other "appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities."

What does the private financial records of the judge have to do with the job? Let me see if I can figure it out........ This is to see if they have heard and ruled on cases where they may have a financial interest? Probably so I'd guess. Don't public officials have to suspend certain investments and do an annual disclosure statement anyway?

 

[archangel]

What does the private financial records of the judge have to do with the job? Let me see if I can figure it out........ This is to see if they have heard and ruled on cases where they may have a financial interest? Probably so I'd guess. Don't public officials have to suspend certain investments and do an annual disclosure statement anyway?

All elected and appointed officials must file when running for office or are in the process of being appointed....I also agree that Harry Reid should receive some scrutiny...He is very good at stirring it up...then apologizing when challenged...or he cuts and runs...."No comment"...unless it is a canned answer...!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It looks like the Republicans are going to start with Priscilla Owen (TX) and Janice Brown (CA). Those are two of the most controversial appointments. There is going to be lots of debate over these two, starting with Owen. Since both of these judges needed to be voted in to their respective state judgeships, the debate should make it obvious to the public that the Democrats are trying to stop these judges for partisan politics only.

For instance, Priscilla Owen, received 84% approval by the Texan vote to get on the Texas Supreme Court on which she has served with distinction for ELEVEN long years. This means that she was approved by majorities from BOTH Democrats and Republicans. (I think Brown won 78% approval in CA.)

I have the feeling that the Democrats are going to have to back down. How can they substantiate that the Republicans are trying to appoint judges with "radical right wing" agendas if these two have received such high approval from both parties in their respective states and have also served with distinction for so many years?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156858,00.html
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/050511f.asp

 

[Bonnie]

It looks like the Republicans are going to start with Priscilla Owen (TX) and Janice Brown (CA). Those are two of the most controversial appointments. There is going to be lots of debate over these two, starting with Owen. Since both of these judges needed to be voted in to their respective state judgeships, the debate should make it obvious to the public that the Democrats are trying to stop these judges for partisan politics only.

For instance, Priscilla Owen, received 84% approval by the Texan vote to get on the Texas Supreme Court on which she has served with distinction for ELEVEN long years. This means that she was approved by majorities from BOTH Democrats and Republicans. (I think Brown won 78% approval in CA.)

I have the feeling that the Democrats are going to have to back down. How can they substantiate that the Republicans are trying to appoint judges with "radical right wing" agendas if these two have received such high approval from both parties in their respective states and have also served with distinction for so many years?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156858,00.html
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/050511f.asp

Absolutely!! Im surprised most of these nominees are still willing to even go thru the process, Ill bet if you asked Clarence Thomas he might say it wasn't worth it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Absolutely!! Im surprised most of these nominees are still willing to even go thru the process, Ill bet if you asked Clarence Thomas he might say it wasn't worth it.

Isn't it interesting how the liberals are against both black and female judges? :duh3:

 

[Bonnie]

Isn't it interesting how the liberals are against both black and female judges? :duh3:

Their missing an important label "Liberal" No litmus test my behind.

 

[Annie]

Isn't it interesting how the liberals are against both black and female judges? :duh3:

It's been my observation that the liberals are at their most vehement, disrespectful, bordering on hate filled invectives to minorities that are not of the democratic-liberal bent. Michelle Malkin has written of this several times, printing emails that she has received. Vile, nasty stuff.

 

[Bonnie]

It's been my observation that the liberals are at their most vehement, disrespectful, bordering on hate filled invectives to minorities that are not of the democratic-liberal bent. Michelle Malkin has written of this several times, printing emails that she has received. Vile, nasty stuff.

You know Kathianne, Musicman was also saying that Michele Malkin has been attacked for her ethnicity on many occasions even to the point of her being called a prostitute by some, because of her Philipino heritage, how disgusting!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It's been my observation that the liberals are at their most vehement, disrespectful, bordering on hate filled invectives to minorities that are not of the democratic-liberal bent. Michelle Malkin has written of this several times, printing emails that she has received. Vile, nasty stuff.

There is nothing worse than a conservative except for a female or black conservative!
(and a non-white conservative female...really watch out!)

Of course, the main fear of the liberals is that judges that actually rule per the Constitution are going to be appointed. They fear a rollback of the activist rulings that they have been working on for so long. They are particularly on the lookout for those who oppose abortion. Here's a warning statement from NARAL:

The Bush Judges: Rolling Back Rights
Summary:

A revolution is indeed underway in the federal courts. Rights and laws that generations of Americans had come to take for granted have been wiped off the books, and more are at risk. Already courts have struck down anti-discrimination laws, part of the Violence Against Women Act, affirmative action programs, and other guarantees of equal opportunity. Federal courts have limited workers’ rights and weakened environmental protections. And the courts are allowing more and more restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.

None of Bush’s 52 courts of appeals nominees has endorsed the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade, and at least 16 have clear anti-choice records. Furthermore, research has shown that appellate court judges appointed by anti-choice presidents (Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush) are four times more likely to issue anti-choice rulings than judges appointed by other presidents. Taken together, these facts cast serious doubt on the ability of the Bush nominees to provide fair and impartial adjudication of issues involving the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/bush_judges.cfm

 

[Freedom Lover]

You can tell the left wing (democrats) are really getting nervous by the actions they are taking regarding judges. This is their last bastion where they can impose their socialist will on the rest of us without votes being taken.

They claim the "Constitutional Option" is a power grab by the Republicans. Was it a power grab when they were the majority in both in the House and Senate and held the White House as well, when judges were appointed?

 

[Bonnie]

There is nothing worse than a conservative except for a female or black conservative!
(and a non-white conservative female...really watch out!)

Of course, the main fear of the liberals is that judges that actually rule per the Constitution are going to be appointed. They fear a rollback of the activist rulings that they have been working on for so long. They are particularly on the lookout for those who oppose abortion. Here's a warning statement from NARAL:

That statement says it all doesn't it? And guess how many democrats who receive campaign money from the NARAL nags have been warned no judges or no money!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

y'all are gonna be wondering 'what the hell were we thinking' when these pro-business extremists come in and start upholding every eminent domain case in favor of taking private property away from people and using 'tax revenue' as public use.

 

[Annie]

y'all are gonna be wondering 'what the hell were we thinking' when these pro-business extremists come in and start upholding every eminent domain case in favor of taking private property away from people and using 'tax revenue' as public use.

do you think 'liberal' judges are less likely to invoke eminent domain?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

do you think 'liberal' judges are less likely to invoke eminent domain?

'liberal' judges tend to make rather far fetched decisions when it comes to civil liberties, not necessarily business decisions....although this united airlines one had me rather baffled when he made it.

 

[Annie]

'liberal' judges tend to make rather far fetched decisions when it comes to civil liberties, not necessarily business decisions....although this united airlines one had me rather baffled when he made it.

I'm confused. Blame it on the Chicago tilt, I keep thinking 'retirements' and I'm not finding the UAL connection...

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I'm confused. Blame it on the Chicago tilt, I keep thinking 'retirements' and I'm not finding the UAL connection...

a clinton nominee, judge wedoff(sp), allowed united airlines to drop its pension benefits to get out of bankruptcy, forcing the PBGC to pick up 6 billion dollars worth of benefits, all at taxpayer expense.