# Judge Pickering rejection. Justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2002, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383 "2002-03-15T01:12:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/1 "2002-03-15T01:12:23Z")
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? > [@](#): > > In a written statement after the committee’s vote, President Bush said: ``The action of the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse Judge Pickering a vote by the full Senate leaves another empty seat in the federal judiciary at a time when we face a vacancy crisis. It was unfortunate for democracy and unfortunate for America. 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. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/2 "2002-03-15T02:28:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by musicguy \* > \*\*So was this a “smear campaign”? \*\* 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](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19013-2002Feb15.htmlsaid) > [@](#): > > The judge’s opponents, rather, have tried to paint him as a barely reconstructed segregationist. To do so, they have plucked a number of unconnected incidents from a long career…None of these incidents, when examined closely, amounts to much, but opponents string them together, gloss over their complexities and self-righteously present a caricature of an unworthy candidate. > > The portrayal is **particularly unfair** because Judge Pickering’s history on race is actually quite complicated. His unattractive moments as a politician – voting for unconstitutional voting schemes, for example – hardly distinguish him from other white politicians from his region and of his age. **What does distinguish Judge Pickering is that he testified publicly against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s and that, as a young prosecutor, he aided the FBI’s efforts against the Klan. He has worked since in racial reconciliation efforts.** (my emphasis) Democratic columnist Mickey Kaus [wrote](http://kausfiles.com/) > [@](#): > > Hit Parade–2/17 > Cutting off “People for” at the Neas: _WaPo’s_ editorial is a Voice of Sanity on the Pickering nomination. … Are the apparently spurious charges of segregationism – what the _Post_ calls “the **need on the part of liberal groups and Democratic senators to portray him as a Neanderthal** ” – driven by the need to whip up popular sentiment or the need to whip up direct mail donations? [Both, obviously–ed. Sure, but why pick out Pickering, specifically, unless the liberal lobbying groups (People for the American Way, NAACP) have to have an inflammatory, topical direct mail issue?] … See also David Firestone’s excellent NYT piece on Pickering’s substantial support among local Mississipi black leaders, revealing in pretty stark terms “distance between national liberal groups” (with their fundraising needs) and local liberal citizens. **Highly embarrassing** for PAW head Ralph Neas to be busted by the _Times_. … (2/17) (my emphasis) Even the New York Times editorial page [said](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/opinion/24SUN1.htmls) > [@](#): > > …We believe that Mr. Pickering bears no animus toward blacks and that charges of racism have no place in this debate. (my emphasis) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Barking\_Spider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Barking\_Spider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Spider)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/3 "2002-03-15T02:55:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/4 "2002-03-15T03:15:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*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. > \*\* 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 > [@](#): > > ADA Watch > AFL-CIO > Alliance for Justice > American Association of University Women > Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law > Coalition to Stop Gun Violence > Committee for Judicial Independence > Feminist Majority > Human Rights Campaign > Leadership Conference on Civil Rights > MALDEF > NAACP > NAACP of Mississippi > NARAL > National Abortion Federation > National Association of Social Workers > National Council of Jewish Women > National Council of Women’s Organizations > National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association > National Organization for Women > National Women’s Law Center > People for the American Way > Planned Parenthood > Society of American Law Teachers > Voters for Choice > Women’s Campaign Fund 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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/5 "2002-03-15T03:24:21Z")
> [@](#): > > By failing to allow full Senate votes on judicial nominees, a few senators are standing in the way of justice > > - Bush 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/6 "2002-03-15T03:45:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by musicguy \* > \*\*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? > \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/7 "2002-03-15T03:46:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by musicguy \* > **Do you know why then that the NY Times and Washington Post opposed his nomination if not for his racial views?** 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… > [@](#): > > It would seem that many groups were against his nomination, not just democrats. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/8 "2002-03-15T03:52:07Z")
> [@](#): > > OTOH, there’s that ABA rating… Which is not a big deal, a bare qualification of competancy. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/9 "2002-03-15T04:18:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > \*\* > > Which [the ABA approval] is not a big deal, a bare qualification of competancy. \*\* Actually the ABA rated him “highly qualified.” ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Kahuna_Burger)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/10 "2002-03-15T04:26:50Z")
**december** , what do you think about [David Bunning](http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york121101.shtml) , who was rated unqualified for a federal judgeship by the ABA? ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/11 "2002-03-15T04:28:46Z")
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](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020318&s=nichols) ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/12 "2002-03-15T04:49:39Z")
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](http://www.pfaw.org/news/press.asp?id=387) > [@](#): > > If recent rhetoric by Lott, the White House, the _Wall Street Journal_ editorial board, and others is any indication, the goal of this campaign will be to portray Pickering as a decent man who has been smeared by irresponsible Washington insiders… > > _ **People For the American Way has not said, and does not believe, that Charles Pickering is a racist.** _ > > We acknowledge that some of Pickering’s actions during his 40-year public career are commendable and have won him praise from people in his hometown. But those actions are far less relevant to his potential role as a 5th Circuit judge than his judicial philosophy and his record on the federal bench and as a state senator… > > _The notion that only deliberate racism can threaten civil rights is false._ It is quite possible for judges to treat individuals decently and to approach broader constitutional and legal questions in ways that threaten the enforcement of civil rights protections… > > _ **The Record** _ > > Here is a summary of some issues raised by Pickering’s record. For more details [see the web site]: > > As a federal judge during the past decade, Charles Pickering has: > > - criticized the “one-person, one-vote” principle recognized by the Supreme Court. > > - suggested that large deviations from equality in drawing legislative district lines, which the Supreme Court has held presumptively unconstitutional, were “relatively minor” and “de minimis.” > > - criticized or sought to limit important remedies provided by the Voting Rights Act. > > - repeatedly inserted into his rulings, in cases involving claims of employment discrimination, severe criticisms of civil rights plaintiffs and the use of civil rights laws to address alleged discrimination. > > - demonstrated a propensity to make it harder for some people to obtain access to justice, especially less powerful litigants, such as people raising civil rights or liberties claims and prisoners. > > - been reversed 15 times by the 5th Circuit for ignoring or violating “well-settled principles of law” – 11 of those 15 in cases involving constitutional, civil rights, criminal procedure, or labor issues;… > > As a state senator, Charles Pickering: > > - co-sponsored a Mississippi Senate resolution calling on Congress to repeal Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (federal oversight over jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting) or to apply it to all states regardless of their discrimination history, widely seen as an effort to gut the Act. > > - supported “open primary” legislation that was blocked by the Justice Department over concerns about discrimination against black voters. > > - supported a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to ban abortion. > > At his confirmation hearing, Charles Pickering’s record raised ethical related issues: > > - Senators questioned Pickering about extraordinary steps he took to obtain a more lenient sentence for a defendant in a cross-burning case. Unhappy with sentencing disparities between two defendants who agreed to plea bargains and one who was convicted at trial, Pickering ordered prosecutors to raise the issue with the Attorney General and called a Justice Department official to complain. Following the hearing, independent ethics experts confirmed the impropriety of his conduct, concluding that Pickering violated both the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (See resource list for letters from ethics experts.) > > - Senators also questioned Pickering about the fact that he asked lawyers, some of whom come before his court, for letters of support for his nomination to the 5th Circuit. He asked that those letters be sent to him and reviewed “most of them” before forwarding them to the Justice Department. At his hearing, Pickering failed to recognize to the potential for coercion in that kind of request, which legal ethics experts have concluded violated ethical standards. (See resource list for letters from ethics experts.) > > - Pickering said he believes most “good” job bias cases are resolved by the EEOC and thus that cases coming before his court are likely to be without merit. (This is incorrect on the facts and inexcusable as a reflection of his predisposition against people bringing this kind of case to his courtroom.) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/13 "2002-03-15T04:53:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Actually the ABA rated him “highly qualified.” \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/14 "2002-03-15T05:47:38Z")
**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? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/15 "2002-03-15T13:58:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BigKahunaBurger \* > \*\ ***december** , what do you think about [David Bunning](http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york121101.shtml) , who was rated unqualified for a federal judgeship by the ABA? \*\* I know nothing about him, but his father was a helova pitcher. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/16 "2002-03-15T14:05:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > \*\*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](http://www.pfaw.org/news/press.asp?id=387)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. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/17 "2002-03-15T14:10:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > \*\*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](http://www.pfaw.org/news/press.asp?id=387)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. \*\* 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: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/18 "2002-03-15T14:13:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/19 "2002-03-15T14:34:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383/20 "2002-03-15T19:54:32Z")
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.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-pickering-rejection-justified/98383.md?page=2)