JUDGE, NOT!

-by Noah

"Putting conservative judges on the judiciary, that is the key to everything," so said top level Republican spokescreep James Dobson on one of his favorite TeeVee networks, ABC, back in 2004, after the alleged re-election of George W. Bush. His partner in slime and smarm, Rev. Jerry Foulsmell made a similar statement at one of Dobson’s "Justice Sunday" rallies when he called for the reconstruction of a court system he feels has "gone awry." Too many of those damn rights and protections, I guess. At the rallies, Dobson’s disciples pray for, among other things, Senators who fit the Repug warped criteria, ie. Senators who oppose the teaching of evolution, abortion under any circumstances, civil rights for various groups in our society, especially gays; well, you get the picture. The important thing is that Dobson’s mob speaks loudly, prays loudly... and votes. Fortunately, in the most recent election, God said "no" and God said it loud enough to overcome various attempts at voter fraud. Six Democratic Senators have replaced six Repuglies in the current U.S. Senate, and, now, New York Senator Chuck Schumer sits, as Chairman of the Administrative Oversight and Courts Subcommittee. Praise The Lord!

The reasons why this is a good thing for America are obvious. With reasonably sane judges sitting in our courts, future generations of children can grow up, go to school and learn a healthy respect for science and other Americans, just for starters; concepts too arcane and bothersome for most Republicans. A healthy respect for the founding father’s ideas of a separation of church and state is also in the mix. In the recent years of Repug domination in all branches of our government, there have been many battles over so-called President Bush’s heinous nominees for our Federal Courts. There were also battles over President Clinton’s nominees. After all, they had to be approved by a Senate with a high kook quotient, too. Most of Bush’s disturbing nominees have been approved over the years of his reign. Some of the absolute worst have not. There are currently more than 50 federal judicial seats still waiting to be filled. For these positions, time has worked in civilization’s favor. Keep in mind that federal judges are appointed with LIFETIME tenure. Congresses come and go. Which party dominates our government changes along the way. Judges, however, are appointed for life and their rulings continue on well after the judges themselves have passed on to the ultimate gated community in the sky.

For some reason, the media like to devote a lot of time to Supreme Court vacancies. I suppose they feel they have to, but, our federal appellate courts are really just as important. It is there that what even gets to considered by The Supreme Court can be decided. Perhaps the media just feels issues relating to the appointments of federal appellate judges is just all too complicated for our little brains to understand. Perhaps it’s all just too many numbers and names. Then again, maybe it would cut into their cherished Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Tom Cruise time. I don’t know, but, most Americans are left in the dark about how their court system works and how it changes their lives. Hell, just imagine if The Supreme Court had been peopled with truly impartial, uncorrupt judges in, say, December of 2000 when they appointed George W. Bush as their President, if not ours. Things might have turned out differently over the last six years, no matter how much Chief Justice William Rehnquist was hallucinating from his recently revealed little problem. "Hi, my name is William and I'm… oh, hi Rush, what are YOU doing here?"

Back to the federal appellate courts: Whereas our Supreme Court (not really so Supreme since 2000 or so) consists of nine judges, appellate courts have numerous members, even as many as a dozen, but hear appeals cases as three judge panels. One of the most important things about the appellate courts is that there needs to be strong evidence to overturn a jury's verdict. The appellate courts are regional courts (12 in number), spread around our country. If one of the three judges is ill or excused for some reason, after the case is heard, two can decide the case, IF they agree. If not, the case will probably be reheard by another panel drawn from the same region's court. We also have the right to request that a decision by a three judge panel be reheard by the ENTIRE court, i.e.- ALL the judges. Cases are not moved to other regions. They have to be filed in the region that has jurisdiction in which at least one of the parties resides. To complicate the matter, sometimes a judge from one region will come in and sit on a panel to hear a case if there happens to be a shortage of judges. Retired judges may also be called in (from the local nursing home?) as substitutes. Rest assured, there is no shortage of lawyers.

Our justice system is a system of tiers. Before a case even has the possibility of getting appealed, it goes before a U.S. Federal District Court. You might have even gone for the dreaded jury duty there. I have, several times and they keep calling me back. Go figure. The combination of Bush nominees and a district court is especially scary. Why? Well, you see, not ALL federal district court cases have juries. That’s right. A judge decides. Do you want a Bush appointee deciding a case involving your phone, your mail, your right to vote, job discrimination against you? Not only that but the district court judge controls what evidence for you or against you even gets entered into the trial. Think about it. At this level, whoever the nut in the people’s white house is and whoever a committee of overgrown fratboys in the U. S. Senate decides is YOUR judge is YOUR judge and there's nothing YOU can do about it except prevent that scenario by carefully deciding just who you want in certain elected offices. You probably won't be able to vote if the court rules against you, so, do it beforehand, and hope that your vote is counted properly, too. Even THAT can be decided by our courts. Yes, both parties can be beholden to the wrong elements in our society and both parties can be dangerously anti-progressive, even if one is more so than the other but… Here come da judge and his name is Bush. Now THAT'S a long national nightmare. Don't count on a pardon from the clown that, in effect, sent you up the river. You're not a member of the club.


With all of this in mind, it's time to look at a small representative sample of so-called President Bush’s nominees. Protecting our freedoms, my ass.
1. Here’s a good one. I’ll start with one of my favorites, Thomas B. Griffin. This guy has a record of hostility to laws prohibiting sex discrimination in education programs or activities that receive federal money. He also has opposed elimination of compliance tests to determine whether schools provide equal opportunities to participate in athletics. What’s next? Girls can’t go to school? In Afghanistan, this guy could go very far! Guess what, the Repugly controlled Senate confirmed him in 2005. It gets better. Before his confirmation, he was "practicing" law in Utah for four years WITHOUT a license. Sound qualified to you?

2. D. Michael Fisher. He disagrees with the legal theory that underlies the right to privacy and voted to protect racist speech in the workplace. Nice guy. Bet he looks great in a black robe. Gotta wonder what color robe he wears after work. Does it come with a hood and a nice patch on the shoulder? Confirmed by the Republikooks? You bet, 2005.

3. Terence Boyle. He ruled for whites and against African Americans in two voting rights cases, both reversed. He says that the federal government should respect discrimination in a North Carolina employment case because such discrimination is part of the state’s culture. Has a problem with the American Disabilities Act as it relates to anti-discrimination law because he feels that working "is not a major life activity" deserving of protection. He was not confirmed but Bush has re-nominated him four times. First nominated by Bush’s dad in 1991. Tells us something, doesn’t it? Why?

4. Janice Rogers Brown. She has interpreted California’s Proposition 209 to include a ban on outreach to women and minorities. Has bitterly criticized legal theories that underlie the right to privacy, abortion, and even access to birth control. Nomination blocked in 2003. Bush re-nominated in 2004. Confirmed by the Senate in 2005.

5. Michael Wallace. Former aide to Trent Lott. He has spent his career lovingly defending far right causes and has personally supported such positions such as giving Bob Jones University tax exempt status despite (or maybe because of?) the schools racially discriminatory policies. Also vigorously opposed legislation in that supported the Voting Rights Act. Does he know D. Michael Fisher? Do they go shopping for clothes together? Not confirmed. Re-nominated but on December 27th, Wallace asked Bush that his name be withdrawn. Now, that’s a holiday gift to America indeed!

OK? That’s just five. The list is huge. Most of Bush’s nominees have been approved, but, still the Repugs whine. The most amazing thing about the extent of Bush's list is not the poor quality of the nominees or the fact that a bunch of small minded twisted little creeps in the Bush Regime can draw up such a list with straight faces and sleep after a busy night of dancing around burning crosses and thinking up new ways to turn back the clock to a time before the Magna Carta was drawn up. It is that there IS even such a huge number of such disturbing people in our judicial system in the first place. This casts doubt not only on the regime, but, the law schools themselves, some of which may advertise on the back of matchbooks for all we know. [And some are just in... Utah.]

Now that the Republicans in our Senate have re-upped their racist credentials by choosing Trent Lott as their leader, we can be sure of some "interesting" floor discussions about these nominations. The putrid and odious Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) has already tossed his sticky gauntlet in the ring, saying if "the Democrats want our cooperation, they’ll give the president's nominations an up-or-down vote." Former Majority leader Bill "diagnosis by video while-u-wait" Frist almost managed to shut down the Senate over Bush's nominees by trying to forbid filibustering last year, but, it's a new year and a new Senate with committees in the control of the Democrats. To quote Senator Patrick Leahy (VT), incoming Chairman Of The Senate
Judiciary Committee:

Advice and consent does not mean giving the president a free pass to pack the courts with ideologues from the right or the left. The American people want the Senate to be more than a rubber stamp.

Or, as Senator Schumer recently said. "There will be no more rightwing judges, period." Let's hold him to it.