Republicans Are Still Obstructing Judicial Nominations

Just before adjourning for another vacation on Friday, the Senate finally voted to end the obstructionist right-wing filibuster against Michelle Friedland, who had been nominated for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 1, 2013. She was rated unanimously "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. In January the Senate Judiciary Committee voted, by a wide bipartisan margin, 14-3, to forward the nomination on to the full Senate. But Miss McConnell and the other poutraged extremists have been doing everything they could to clock her and obstruct the nomination. Finally, April 10, 2014 the motion to invoke cloture was agreed to by a vote of 56-41, every Democrat and two Republicans voted to proceed with a final vote, which-- because of more McConnell obstructionism, can't happen until April 28.

Why do Republicans hate her so much? It's not just because she's a woman. It's not just because she was born in Berkeley. It's not just because she was a brilliant student who graduated at the top of her Stanford Law class after studying philosophy at Oxford (on a Fulbright scholarship). It is true that Republicans generally hate all of those things but their collected animus for Freidland went even deeper. An unhinged form-letter sent in February to right-wing Republican senators from a veritable who's who among American neo-fascist movers and shakers demanded they vote against her confirmation. They warned that "her record leaves little doubt that, were she confirmed, Friedland would abuse judicial power and usurp the legislative powers of the Senate, the House, and other law-making bodies.

Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ called her "another radical nominee unfit for the bench. They were unimpressed that she had clerked for Republican Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and that O'Connor testified on behalf of the nomination. "Friedland’s record," to the neo-fascist and Confederate communities, "indicates a clear disregard for 'separation of powers' and a government run 'by the people,' and her radical interpretation of judicial power has led her to create new rights while ignoring those long enjoyed by Americans. According to her own writings, rights begin and end with judges. Her amicus briefs have sought to limit religious liberty, and she recently dismissed traditional Judeo-Christians beliefs on homosexuality as a “discredited practice." You may read that as a bunch of radical right mumbo-jumbo, but these people take themselves very seriously:

She has repeatedly advocated international judges as authorities over state law and holds such a radical belief in judicial supremacy that even the most liberal Senator should heavily weigh the implications of her confirmation. Her judicial philosophy seeks to make the legislative branch completely irrelevant. Confirming Michelle Friedland would be another blow to the idea of a limited judiciary.

Not only would she be a deplorable judge, but Harry Reid’s complete usurpation of power should not be rewarded and deserves a bold response. Conservatives should work adamantly to defeat her by ensuring their Senators vote no on confirmation. At the end of the day, however, the only way to end the tyranny of the judiciary is to elect a conservative Senate, starting in November of 2014.

…Over the past 60 years, liberals have stealthily and intermittently begun confirming radical activists to the courts. Although Senate procedure provides the power of the “filibuster” to stop or stall nominees, Senators have often neglected to stop bad nominees, generally deeming them to be the President’s prerogative. As a result, virtually no issue goes untouched by the courts.

From religious liberty to property rights, and most recently from marriage to government-run healthcare, the American way of life has fallen prey to decisions from judges who legislate liberal policies from the bench. Phyllis Schlafly has written extensively on this topic and in her book The Supremacists notes that these individuals have “replaced the rule of law with the rule of judges.” 

People for the American Way had a very different perspective, far more in synch with the way most people who have looked into Friedland's career see her.

Friedland was one of many superb, highly qualified judges caught up in Republicans' blanket obstruction of judicial nominees, and President Obama was forced to re-nominate her for the court this year. After today’s vote, she still faces 30 hours of potential "post-cloture debate," unless Republicans allow the Senate to move forward on the nomination more expeditiously.

Even though the Senate changed its filibuster rule for judicial and executive branch nominations, lowering the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority in order to invoke cloture and advance nominees toward confirmation votes, Republicans continue to force cloture votes as a procedural hurdle. The delay created by these votes and the subsequent 30-hour wait before a confirmation can occur amounts to a stubborn form of obstruction in itself.

And this is just one way that Senate Republicans are continuing to hold up the judicial nomination process. Judicial nominees from states with Republican senators also face unreasonable, meritless obstruction due the GOP's abuse of the Senate's "blue slip" policy, by which a senator can unilaterally put a permanent hold on a nominee from his or her state before they even get a hearing.