Bush Plans to Re-nominate Failed Conservative Judges

By Hazel Trice EdneyNNPA Washington Correspondent WASHINGTON (NNPA) – Those eager to know how President Bush will operate in his second term got a quick answer last week when the White House unexpectedly announced that Bush will re-nominate 20 ultra-conservative judges, including seven whose nomination reached the Senate floor but were never confirmed. “Efforts to pack the federal courts with Right-wing extremists will continue to be resisted,” says Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of more than 180 human and civil rights groups. “This is an effort to highjack the federal courts by way of appointments.” The White House announcement was a clear signal that Bush’s stated efforts reach out to those with opposing political views was more rhetoric than reality. “The Senate has a Constitutional obligation to vote up or down on a president’s judicial nominees and the president looks forward to working with the new Senate to ensure a well-functioning and independent judiciary,” the White House statement says. “When the Senate reconvenes, the President intends to nominate again the following 20 individuals who did not receive up or down votes in the President’s first term, 16 of whom were nominated more than a year ago.” Ironically, the announcement came two days after Bush held a long-awaited meeting with outgoing NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume. According to Mfume, Bush pledged to reach out to African-Americans in particular. However, that’s not how his latest action is being interpreted. “It’s so unfortunate. It sends a troubling message that just a couple of days after meeting with the president of the NAACP, he would nominate judges as extreme as many on the list,” says Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau”The meeting with Mfume was hopefully going to be a door-opening to begin working with this administration to not only address the real issues and concerns of our communities, to pass laws and appropriate resources to address these concerns, but also to put in place judges that could very well earn the trust, the respect and to maintain the integrity necessary for all Americans regardless of race, general ethnicity or national origin to be able to respect.” Henderson says Bush’s announcement is also disingenuous after saying in his first speech after re-election that he would work to earn the support and trust of those who voted against him. ”A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation,” Bush said. “The president’s provocative announcement of his intent to re-nominate to the federal courts individuals who have been largely rejected by the Senate is a slap in the face to those who seek compromise and conciliation over conflict and struggle,” Henderson says. “The president announced his desire to work with those who disagreed with his positions in important areas and none is more important in that regard than the appointments to the federal courts. His stated views have more rhetoric than substance.” Rights advocates see federal judicial appointments as among the most important of issues since their decision will often become the laws of the land. Of the 8,000 to 9,000 cases appealed to the Supreme Court each term, for example, no more than 100 cases are accepted for review. The fight over federal judges is expected to lay the groundwork for intense debates over Supreme Court nominees. Bush is expected to make at least three appointments to the Supreme Court. He has stated that he will appoint justices in the philosophical mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the two most conservative members on a conservative Supreme Court. Of the nine members, seven were appointed by Republican presidents. ”Instead of working in a holiday spirit of conciliation and compromise, the president has regrettably signaled his renewal of partisan warfare,” says Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way. “His plan to re-nominate extremist nominees shows absolutely no recognition that a deeply-divided nation deserves bipartisan consultation over these powerful, lifetime appointments to the federal bench.” Neas says more is at stake than whether Bush gets his way. ”If justices like these are appointed, we can say goodbye to a woman’s right to choose. We can watch as our rights to privacy and civil liberties are eroded, and the government’s ability to protect our clean air and clean water vanishes,” he says. According to the White House, the 12 nominees for the federal courts of appeals are: Terrence W. Boyle, 4th Circuit, (first nominated May 9, 2001); Priscilla Richman Owen, 5th Circuit, (first nominated May 9, 2001); David W. McKeague, 6th Circuit, (first nominated November 8, 2001); Susan Bieke Neilson 6th Circuit, (first nominated November 8, 2001); Henry W. Saad 6th Circuit, (first nominated November 8, 2001); Richard A. Griffin, 6th Circuit, (first nominated June 26, 2002); William H. Pryor, 11th Circuit, (first nominated April 9, 2003); William Gerry Myers, III, 9th Circuit, (first nominated May 15, 2003); Janice Rogers Brown, District of Columbia Circuit, (first nominated July 25, 2003); Brett M. Kavanaugh, District of Columbia Circuit, (first nominated July 25, 2003); William James Haynes, II 4th Circuit, (first nominated September 29, 2003); Thomas B. Griffith District of Columbia Circuit, (first nominated May 10, 2004). The list includes some of the most controversial names. For example, Texas Supreme Court Justice Owen, who was to the Right of even Bush’s nominees to the state’s high court, was rejected for a full Senate vote three times. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, like Owen, was a frequent dissenter on the Republican-dominated California court. Former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor was opposed by the NAACP; he was accused of being hostile to voting rights issues and affirmative action views. Associate White House counsel Kavanaugh also widely viewed as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court. U. S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Charles Pickering, among the most controversial of appointments, will not be returning to the bench. To circumvent the Senate, which has the constitutional responsibility to reject or approve all federal judicial nominations, Bush elevated Pickering last January with a recess appointment, bypassing the Senate, but limiting the time that he could serve in the “temporary” position until the next Congress convenes. He has now retired. Claude A. Allen, former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, also was not re-nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond at his request. The other eight pending nominees are to the lower federal districts courts. The general public can make a difference as the nominations begin next month, Shelton says. “They really should write the president and urge him in the strongest possible terms to nominate judicial nominees that are more consistent with mainstream American values. That’s the first thing,” he says. “Number two, they need to contact their senators right away and urge their senators to oppose these extreme nominees and to use their influence and their powers to urge the president to send less controversial nominees who can be confirmed. This is as crucial as it gets.”