President Bush’s pledge the day after the elections to be more bipartisan apparently doesn’t include judicial nominations. He resubmitted a list of nominees that Senate Democrats have already rejected and that have no hope of being approved. One nominee — Michael B. Wallace (in photo) — was rated unqualified by the American Bar Association and has been accused by Democrats of being hostile to civil rights and to the poor.
Why is Bush doing this? Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspapers wrote that the renominations could be part of Bush’s negotiations with Democrats. Or they could be an attempt to paint Democrats as obstructionist. Or they could be an attempt to rally a demoralized conservative base.
But a New York Times editorial concluded that “the renominations suggest that when it comes to filling judgeships, Mr. Bush is still not looking for either excellence or common ground.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
15 Comments
And what group of idiots wants to replicate the federal judicial selection system here in Kansas? ‘Nuf said.
Did anyone really think that Bush was going to abandon his base for more moderates. That’s the thing about the right, they just don’t understand when they’re wrong.
When 70% of the white evangelicals still voted for Republican even knowing about all the GOP sex and bribery scandals, do we really expect the Religious Right to understand that the majority of Americans think their group is a bunch of hypocrits?
Do we really think George W. Bush is going to make nice with the Democrats just because they won the election? If you do, I have some beachfront property in downtown Wichita for sale.
Here is another good one, yes, by all means put someone who is against birth control in charge of birth control in the government. That’s the way to increase abortions (which have gone up since abstinence only education took over).
From NOW
The recent appointment of Eric Keroack (more background below) to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Populations Affairs is an embarrassment to the Bush Administration and to our nation. This position oversees $283 million that is “designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons.”
Background:
Dr. Eric Keroack has a long history of opposing contraceptive use, supporting ineffective abstinence-only educational programs, and working against women’s right to choose abortion. He is the medical director of A Woman’s Concern, an anti-contraception, anti-abortion network of “pregnancy counseling” centers based in Boston.
His outrageous positions include the belief that “premarital sex is really modern germ warfare,” and in a speech he made to the Annual Abstinence Leadership conference, he claimed promiscuous women are unable to form lasting relationships because they have used up all of their “bonding” hormones on casual sex, according to AlterNet. His “research” has been used to advance federal legislation that would fund expensive and obtrusive ultrasound machines at the deceptive clinics he calls “crisis pregnancy centers.” Part of A Woman’s Concern’s “faith” statement is to “help women escape the temptation and violence of abortion.” Their website also states that “A Woman’s Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness.”
Yeah, none of this is a surprise. He’s daring the Democratic leadership to challenge the powers he’s stolen for himself. In response, they need to put his balls in a vice.
I say they ought to do it by investigations, and in the meantime run out the clock on all the nominees. Mitch McConnell can take his “the nominees all deserve an up or down vote” and shove it up his pompous ass.
Democrats on the Hill have long memories, and the GOP’s logjamming of Clinton’s federal judicial nominees is still fresh. Not surprisingly, baldly lying about this history has been a prominent GOP talking point on the part of McConnell and others.
This aggressive intransigence is yet another sign that George Bush needs to be removed from office. And if he forces a Constitutional showdown, it may just happen.
The guy is an ideologue, period.
The reason he renominated these people is likely related directly to one of what is obviously a set of unwavering core political principles he holds. Note that I didn’t write core “personal” principles, I wrote core “political” principles. When he’s talking about his philosophy here, he holds to his course and allows his poor language skills muddy the waters.
Example, Bush from 2004: “I will try to explain how without negotiating with myself. It’s a very tricky way to get me to play my cards. I understand that.”
Thinking people read that and tend to giggle. What he means is that he wants to start negotiating from a point that he’s tipped his hand to previously. He doesn’t want to let his opponent know just where his real valuation of xxx lies, in other words.
It’s an eminently sound negotiating strategy that’s routinely taught in biz schools. However, in real life if I tell a person selling a home and asking $250,000 that I think the cracks in their buckled basement walls are so serious that I want him to seriously consider my offer of $32,000 for his home, I will tend to piss him off.
Great strategy, from an ideological standpoint, but when applied in real life it not only stifles debate it creates enemies. Unintentionally created enemies, but again that is clearly Bush’s pattern.
One thing you can take to the bank with Bush: his idealism is unblemished by reality, and its roots lie in ideology only. Another word for this outlook is idiocy. Again, clearly Bush’s pattern.
Speaking of idiocy, I wrote:
“What he means is that he wants to start negotiating from a point that he’s tipped his hand to previously.”
But what I meant to write was:
What he means is that he DOESN’T want to start negotiating from a point that he’s tipped his hand to previously.
Having read Mr. Wallace’s bio, I have to wonder about his long time association with Trent “The Hair God” Lott; but, that aside, it seems the ABA and civil rights groups oppose him, not as a person or as able counsel, but because of his able and competent advocacy for his clients. That’s like demeaning the late Johnnie Cochran because of his successful defense of O.J., as an example. Not all causes are popular. Many lawyers have clients they sure as hell wouldn’t want for a neighbor or invite home for dinner.
Mr. Wallace was a law clerk for then Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist…no small accomplishment, after graduating cum laude from Harvard and University of Virginia Law School, where he was on the the Law Review. He is clearly among the best and the brightest.
Federal judicial appointments are vitally important and for life. They should be critically subject to scrutiny.
Will Mr. Wallace bring valuable assets to the 5th Circuit Appellate Bench? I don’t know. I do know, however, he should not be judged adversely simply because he’s damned good at what he does.
Only qualification of interest to Bush is personal loyalty to him.
Bush has stated a desire to work with Democrats to achieve a bipartisan consensus. We should hold him to that, and if he fails to come around, appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the phoney intelligence that he used to start his little war, and another to investigate his abuse of office to enrich his friends at Halliburton and big oil at the expense of the American people. And maybe another to look into his attempts to sign the country over to corporate religion. The Republicans were the ones who insisted on playing hardball!
He has that glazed goober expression, must be his qualifying point.
The Lib media seem to think that bipartisianship is a one way street. All Bush wants is an up or down vote. Isn’t that fair?If that is not allowed, then who is being partisan?Libs = talk a good game, but …
Jed~ you are a cliched dumb ass, without an original thought in your ‘brain’.Here’e a Christmas list suggestion for you: Ask for a clue, ’cause you don’t have one.
Hey, Hotwood?
You mean like the “up or down” votes the Repubes didn’t give Clinton’s nominees?
BTW, could that guy in the photo LOOK anymore Republican?
I can see this guy golfing all afternoon and then having a press conference about how the poor “don’t work hard enough.”
This is the face of the man who stuffs 50’s into the g-string of a surgically enhanced stripper with her implants in his face while he’s on record supporting “abstinice only” sex ed.
Sanford,Psychologists refer to that as projection.