On Monday evening, 14 Democratic and Republican senators calmed
a turbulent and partisan storm over the constitutionality of the
filibuster and the merits of several judicial appointments. But the
agreement is no better than putting a new coat of paint on a
burning building.
The peace will likely be brief. Worse, the damage from
appointing three of President Bush’s five conservative
federal judicial nominees will be irreversible.
In return for delaying the destruction of the filibuster ““
a strategy many Republican senators vowed was still on the table
Tuesday ““ Democrats stopped fighting against three appellate
court nominees.
Appeasing such radical illogic is hardly a sound policy of
governance. Democrats had valid concerns about granting these
individuals seats on federal courts.
For example, Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen will
likely be the first Bush nominee approved by the Senate under the
new agreement.
Owen has argued against the right of minors to receive abortions
without parental notification, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior
Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says she is a
“judicial activist … (whose) record shows a bias in favor
of government secrecy and business interests, and against the
environment, victims of discrimination and medical
malpractice.”
And California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown ““
another Bush nominee ““ has championed Prop. 209, which bans
preferential treatment for women and minorities in public
contracts, hiring and college admissions.
And, in her dissenting opinion when the court overturned a law
requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion, Brown
called the decision “an excellent example of the folly of
courts in the role of philosopher kings.”
Former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, also slated
for approval, appears to have the most destructive potential.
Pryor has said he is proud of his unwavering stance that Roe v.
Wade is “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our
history.” He has also arrogantly stated that he was
“not aware of any case, since the death penalty was
reinstated, where an innocent person has been executed.”
On the issue of gay rights, Pryor cast the deciding vote banning
adoption by gay couples in Florida. He also filed an amicus brief
supporting the Texas sodomy law that the Supreme Court struck down
in June 2003. The brief compared gay sex to activities such as
polygamy, incest, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery.
All three of these judicial nominees are expected to win the
simple majority of votes needed to assume their new positions on
federal courts.
Much of the fight over the confirmation process has focused on
the constitutional rights of the 100 senators and the
agreement’s impact on the political chess game. In that
discourse, it is easily forgotten that these new judges will hold
power over life, death and the rights of U.S. citizens.
Allowing Owen, Brown and Pryor to reach that position in
exchange for a delay on the “nuclear option”
isn’t merely bad politics. It is inhumane.