2008 Woodie Awards
The Nuclear option
Republicans push, Dems fall over as the filibuster is threatened
Jenn Broome
Issue date: 6/14/05 Section: Opinions
Nominee Janice Rogers Brown, of the California Supreme Court, ignored judicial precedent in her opinion on Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. Brown upheld the "rights" of workers to use racial slurs directed at minority employees while on the job, even whenuch an act constitutes illegal racial discrimination. Her minority opinion in People v. Mar upheld the Constitutionality of making defendants wear stun guns strapped to their bodies while giving testimony; moreover, it upheld the conducting of warrantless searches of houses by local police in direct contradiction with the Fourth Amendment.
A third nominee, Terence Boyle, has been nominated to take a seat on the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (which hears cases for North Carolina and other adjacent states). Boyle was recommended by none other than former Senator Jesse Helms. It's interesting that the very court to which Boyle has been nominated has reversed over 150 of his decisions - the worst reversal rate of any of Bush's nominees. Among Boyle's most famous decision is his opinion in United States v. North Carolina. Here, he ruled that the state could lawfully discriminate against women because such discrimination is part of North Carolina's "culture." In Ellis v. State of North Carolina, Boyle decreed that the doctrine of states' rights prevents African Americans from bringing claims of racial discrimination against the state. Both decisions were later overturned by the Court of Appeals to which he has been nominated.
Finally, William Pryor, who was recess appointed by Bush in 2004, has an astounding history of activist decisions. Pryor, the former Attorney General of Alabama, challenged the Constitutionality of women's right to redress against sexual assault and domestic violence (see United States v. Morrison). He also urged Congress to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act that protects the franchise rights of African-Americans. Most famously, he filed an amicus brief for Lawrence v. Texas that compared homosexual activity to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia."
In short, it appears that the "nuclear option" is not aimed at putting strict interpreters on the federal bench. Rather, it is a power play by Republicans to get their own version of activist judges - homophobic, anti-women, anti-civil rights judges - ensconced in lifetime appointments. It is one thing to play politics, but to mask obvious power ploys in a cloak of Constitutional respectability is a foul breech of both the law and civil decency. I can only hope that a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans can band together to stop this insanity.
A third nominee, Terence Boyle, has been nominated to take a seat on the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (which hears cases for North Carolina and other adjacent states). Boyle was recommended by none other than former Senator Jesse Helms. It's interesting that the very court to which Boyle has been nominated has reversed over 150 of his decisions - the worst reversal rate of any of Bush's nominees. Among Boyle's most famous decision is his opinion in United States v. North Carolina. Here, he ruled that the state could lawfully discriminate against women because such discrimination is part of North Carolina's "culture." In Ellis v. State of North Carolina, Boyle decreed that the doctrine of states' rights prevents African Americans from bringing claims of racial discrimination against the state. Both decisions were later overturned by the Court of Appeals to which he has been nominated.
Finally, William Pryor, who was recess appointed by Bush in 2004, has an astounding history of activist decisions. Pryor, the former Attorney General of Alabama, challenged the Constitutionality of women's right to redress against sexual assault and domestic violence (see United States v. Morrison). He also urged Congress to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act that protects the franchise rights of African-Americans. Most famously, he filed an amicus brief for Lawrence v. Texas that compared homosexual activity to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia."
In short, it appears that the "nuclear option" is not aimed at putting strict interpreters on the federal bench. Rather, it is a power play by Republicans to get their own version of activist judges - homophobic, anti-women, anti-civil rights judges - ensconced in lifetime appointments. It is one thing to play politics, but to mask obvious power ploys in a cloak of Constitutional respectability is a foul breech of both the law and civil decency. I can only hope that a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans can band together to stop this insanity.
Be the first to comment on this story