Bush Administration’s Nominations for Federal Courts Play to Extremist Base

by Mike Hall, Nov 17, 2006

To most people, bipartisanship means working together, finding common ground, putting aside differences.

But in another strange twist to the Bush administration’s definition of bipartisanship, President George W. Bush this week renominated a controversial group of judicial candidates who have previously failed to win Senate confirmation for important federal judgeships. Senate Democrats, civil rights, environmental, women’s and legal groups all oppose the failed nominees, who are part of a larger package of judicial nominees Bush sent to the lame duck Senate.

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) calls Bush’s action “alarming:”

These judges have built up a record that is dismissive of civil rights issues. The Bush administration pulled their nominations twice now. His dogged attempt to nominate these guys at all costs is alarming.

Most observers say it’s unlikely any of the controversial nominees will win confirmation before the current Republican-controlled Congress closes shop next month, and some say it’s a gesture to his extremist base.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary committee, says Bush’s in-your-face action casts heavy doubt on his bipartisan pledge:

It’s a real slap in the face. It makes you think the talk of bipartisanship is just talk.…I guess it’s a sop to the right, but if keeps doing sops to the right, it means they didn’t pay attention to the result so of the election.

Nominees Terrence Boyle, Michael Wallace, William G. Myers III, Norman Randy Smith, William J. Haynes and Peter D. Keisler each raised significant concerns when they originally were nominated. Civil rights groups, including the Alliance for Justice, the NAACP and People For the American Way, say that their track records on civil rights made them unsuitable for lifetime seats on federal courts.

Says Henderson:

Despite what the president would like us to believe, these nominees are not moderate, fair-minded judges who have the letter of the law and our best interests at heart. They are part of a bigger Bush agenda: a move to pack our courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges who are driven by ideology—not the law.

Since his post-election-olive-branch pledge to take a new bipartisan approach, Bush has:

• Nixed the idea of giving Medicare the right to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for its faulty Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, a Democratic priority.
• Renominated two other Senate-rejected candidates for important Labor Department posts.
• Indicated a clean minimum wage bill—another Democratic priority—wouldn’t get his signature because he favors including “business incentives.”
• Continued to back free trade agreements that lack the human rights, labor and environmental protections and other provisions most Democrats favor.
• Planned to ease newly passed corporate fraud rules.
• Set very narrow boundaries for any new ideas he will consider for new strategy for the war in Iraq.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who is expected to take over as chair of the Judiciary Committee when the 110th Congress convenes in January, says Bush’s nominations make it “appear that he will not be keeping that promise” of bipartisanship.

That unfortunate decision evidences that he intends to stay the partisan course when it comes to judicial nominees.

For a closer look at these and other Bush judicial nominees, visit Save Our Courts, a broad coalition of civil rights, labor, disability, women’s rights, environmental and other groups.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (0)