Judge Pickering rejection. Justified?

Great Debates
1

So the senate judiciary panel rejected Bush’s nomination of Judge Pickering. The Republicans are claiming it is all due to partisanship and is an attempt to send a message to Bush to choose people who are more moderate. The Democrats claim that the decision is based solely on the Pickerings past record. Presindent Bush claims that this somehow hurts democracy which I don’t understand because the mere fact that they voted is democratic isn’t it?

So was this a “smear campaign” as Sen. Orrin Hatch suggests, or was this guy just a horrible candidate? It would seem that the only non republicans that were in favor of the nomination were from the deep south. Given the hints of racism in this guys past, I don’t think he was a good choice but I call on the dopers to enlighten me.

2

First of all, there’s no question but that the accusations of racism were a smear campaign. Many liberal sources agreed.

E.g., the Washington Post said

Democratic columnist Mickey Kaus wrote

Even the New York Times editorial page said

Putting aside the phony charges of racism, the Times and WaPo nevertheless recommended against his confirmation. OTOH the liberal Amercan Bar Association gave him a Hightly Qualified rating. Of course, the conervatives all supported him.

My bottom line is the ABA rating and the fact that no real reason was given by his opponents that he was unqualified. I’d say he deserved to be confirmed.

BTW there was report on Fox News that an offer was made to confirm Pickering if the Missiissippi Republicans would agree to a re-districting plan favorable to Democrats – a plan that likely would have cost Pickering’s son Chip his seat in Congress. Pickering turned down that offer. Later, a redistricting plan more favorable to Republicans was approved by the courts.

3

Pickering was a moderate who was opposed by the extreme “people for the American way” lobby group. Is it any wonder the Dems in the Senate REFUSED to allow him to come before the full Senate for a vote.

4

Do you know why then that the NY Times and Washington Post opposed his nomination if not for his racial views?

It would seem that many groups were against his nomination, not just democrats.

From this site

On the other hand, I’ve also read that the “Log Cabin Republicans” support him and recognize him as being very supportive of gay rights. This of course puzzles me a bit that a conservative southerner would be a supporter, but if that truly is the case, I would have to commend him for that. I also feel that it is possible for people with racist views to see the error of their ways and change. Perhaps that truly is the case here.

5

Sure, NOW he claims a full and fair count is essential to the workings of a democracy. :wally
Judicial confirmations haven’t worked that way in nearly a hundred years. Just because there’s a war on is no reason to play fast and loose with normal senate procedures. Bush should move on and nominate someone who doesn’t raise quite so many red flags.

6

I don’t think the two versions of the truth are mutually exclusive though i would be happy if the democrats laid out their agenda to force an understanding that there would be more moderate appointments. Bush is trying to install a right wing actvivist bench and in my view the democrats are right to oppose him. This is particularly so given the republicans responsibility for the shortage in the first place notwithstanding Clinton’s attempt to compromise by appointing moderates himself. Whether Pickering himself was so bad isn’t as important as the fact that he was a somewhat high status appointment who’s rejection sent the message of how far they would go. I suspect there are potential nominees with much worse in their closets that may be less likely to be considered following this fight.

Calling the decision undemocratic has a point. The decision was not allowed to go to the full senate where only a couple of defections from party unity would have allowed the nomination but Republicans look a bit silly complaining about a tactic the4y used extensively. Bush thinks he is entitled to a fresh start because he is a Governor from texas but Clinton was a governor from arkansas.

Bush needs to learn to bend. His 48% of the popular vote doesn’t entitle him to stack the bench with activist judges.

7

I don’t really know why. They both gave some generalities, but no real, major reason. I suppose the Times was simply going along with the far-left interest groups, as usual. I have much more respect for WaPo’s editorial page, although, again, their reason wasn’t really clear. However, I would tend to believe that they sincerely beleived he was the wrong person for the job. OTOH, there’s that ABA rating…

As far as I know, all the groups on that list were liberal to far left. ( I can’t speak for a half-dozen or so that I don’t know.) Some opposed him because he’s pro-life, although there was no indication or evidence that he wouldn’t follow the SCOTUS rulings. PAW complained that he was religious.

I commend you for this open-minded comment, musicguy. Because someone is a religious southerner who favors smaller government doesn’t mean he’s a bigot.

More evidence for his racially liberal views is the fact that he left his children in public schools with a majority black student body. (How many Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee did that?)

Also, he was strongly endorsed by the local leadership of the NAACP, all Democrats of course. People who actually knew him all agreed that he was racial reconciler, not a racist.

8

Which is not a big deal, a bare qualification of competancy.

9

Actually the ABA rated him “highly qualified.”

10

december, what do you think about David Bunning , who was rated unqualified for a federal judgeship by the ABA?

11

As december well remembers, this subject was hashed out about a month ago–just before the Board went down. Then, as now, december made out that the issue was racism; but the issue wasn’t and isn’t racism. Rather, the issue concerns Pickering’s record: on abortion, on voting rights, etc. In other words, the issue concerns ideology and in opposing right-of-center ideological positions (that the majority of Americans also oppose), the Democrats are simply doing what the Republicans did when Clinton was nominating centrists.

I address this primarily to other readers since it’s plain that december has made up his mind on the subject and will continue, quasi-troll-like, to regurgitate the same arguments and cite the same cites as though he’d never heard a single rebuttal; as though the function of the SDSM were not debate, but endless and impervious monologue.

However, for anyone whose mind is still open on the subject, here is a another opinion piece on the matter, from The Nation, and one which contests The New York Times’s article as cited above.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020318&s=nichols

12

It seem that a certain unnameable poster is at least consistent in their “creative” approach to “facts”. Let’s look at the real facts of what PFAW said, shall we?

From People for the American Way web site: P.R. Campaign by White House & Pickering Supporters Ignores Constitutional and Civil Rights Issues at Stake

It is my well-backed position that the Senate comittee acted in the best interests of all American citizens in turning back Pickering’s nomination.

13

No such rating. He was rated well quallified/quallified which indicates the ABAs desire to avoid basing the rating on ideological issues and focus on competency issues like experience, scholarship and judicial temperment.

Bush, on the other hand, has made clear that ideology is the basis for his judicial appointments and it is therefor entirely reasonable for the debate to center on ideology.

14

Ambushed

Thanks for your post. The majority of the information I have been finding only seems to focus on his racism or lack thereof and not on his judgement history, especially in regard to constitutionial concerns. I’m more interested in a persons recent track record than what happened 30 years ago. I do think people can overcome ignorance over time. It would appear he has made some progress.

Personally, he is just too conservative for me and therefore I was opposed to his nomination. I’m far more willing to consider supporting a moderate and I think that is the message sent today by the senate.

I also agree with Ned that Bush is going to need to learn to bend a little. How can he expect bipartisan support of anything until then?

15

I know nothing about him, but his father was a helova pitcher.

16

Just read the original PAW report, as I have. Although they never used the specific phrase, “Pickering is a racist,” that was the clear meaning of their statements about his attitude and actions toward race.

As it turns out, they were embarassed when the facts came out, so they’re back-tracking.

I’m leaving on vacation and cannot debate this further. All I ask is that you read the PAW report.

17

Just read the original PAW report, as I have. Although they never used the specific phrase, “Pickering is a racist,” that was the clear meaning of their statements about his attitude and actions toward race. Just as Joseph McCarthy had code words to indicate that someone was a communist, PAW used code words to call Pickering a racist. Columnists like Bob Herbert more explicity called him a racist based on the PAW Report. He understood the report’s meaning.

They were caught red-handed (and red-faced) when the facts came out. Even the New York Times and Washington Post blasted them. The article cited above is an attempt at CYA,

I’m leaving on vacation and cannot debate this further. All I ask is that you read the PAW report with an open mind. Think about how you’d feel if PAW put out the same report about YOU. :eek:

18

If Bush is worried about the “vacancy crisis”, as well he should be, perhaps he should ask Trent Lott why it exists. I think his individual record for holding up Clinton nominations in the hope of getting a conservative President was over 4 years.

IOW, boo friggin’ hoo, George. The “advise and consent” clause in the Constitution is there for a reason.

19

I suspect Pickering was very qualified for the job. I also tremendously support the perogative of the sitting president to name members of the judiciary.

However, this one nomination cannot be taken out of its historical context. I don’t believe there can be any question that the Republicans actively and effectively opposed Clinton’s efforts to fill judical vacancies. (IANAE, but I understand Clinton may not have been as aggressive as possible in trying to get as many vacancies filled as possible.) Someone may wish to go back prior to Clinton, and talk about Bork. The making and approving of judicial appointments is a highly politicized process. Moreover, it is one of the more lasting acts that can be taken, as appointments are for life, and removals through impeachemnt are (properly) rare.

I do not know “who started it.” But I think it is reasonable for the Dems to hesitate “taking the higher road” now. Reagan had an incredible effect on the federal judicary, which lasts today. Reagan and Bush the elder shaped the Supreme Court, with W having the potential to push it even farther right. There are a tremendous number of judicial vacancies. If Bush is allowed to fill them as he wishes, he will name a substantial portion of the judiciary that will decide your children’s and grandchildren’s issues.

I support the Dem action blocking Pickering’s nomination as a valid and measured “shot across the bow,” letting Bush know that he is not going to have carte blanche in naming whoever he wants. Hopefully, the result will be qualified uncontroversial candidates in the future.

FWIW, IAAL, and for the past 15 years I have regularly practiced before the Courts of Appeals in the 6th, 7th, and 8th Circuits, as well as the federal districts in those Circuits. IME, a judge’s history, or how he/she is presented during the nomination process, is no predicator of the type of judge they will be.

A great example is Manion on the 7th. You may recall that during confirmation hearings he was presented as a clueless boob, overly reliant upon his law clerks and not even having read opinions he signed as having authored. I have argued before him several times. IME&O, he is a very adequate circuit court judge. I would far prefer him on my panel than several of his colleagues.

I also caution relying overmuch on a candidates remote writings to search for bias. You run the risk of tilting the balance towards nameless, faceless grey candidates who have never previously expressed an opinion on anything of significance. Souter comes to mind. Playing it safe is not the way to attract the best and the brightest.

20

It’s also worth noting that in the cross-burning case, Pickering sealed the record; it took quite a long time for investigators to figure out what had actually happened. And the ABA “qualified” rating was issued prior to public revelation of those facts, so it’s an open question whether the same rating would have been granted in light of revealed events. (This was mentioned on NPR this morning.)