What's the REAL issue with the Senate's judicial confirmation process?

[Shodan]

Come on, Bricker - you know he was hoping you would link to FreeRepublic.com or a blogsite so he could pretend the cites weren’t valid.

Now he has to come up with a different reason for telling us “it doesn’t count for a Democrat”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hamlet]

@Shodan

This basically boils down to Democrat Congresspeople calling a judge they don’t like a whole bunch of the worst names they can think of. Partisanship, in other words. And on all the judges they oppose.

Or, it could be that some Senators believe these nominees are horrible judges. Perhaps they are concerned that judicial nominees like Owen will not follow precedential cases when those cases are against their ideology. Owen, for example, has shown she has problems following the law as set down by the U.S. Supreme Court. She has also shown her inability to do her work promptly. One of her rulings was called: "“unconscionable act of judicial activism” by none other than Alberto Gonzalez, Bush’s Attorney General.

As shown by the fact that the Senate democrats have only attempted to block a minority of Bush’s nominees shows that this isn’t simply a partisan pissing contest. It’s about not having judges who put ideology before the law.

[manhattan]

@Hamlet

It’s about not having judges who put ideology before the law.

Well, according to the Newsday article on the first page, in three instances it’s exactly and precisely a partisan pissing contest and the Senate Democrats, to their credit, seem to be admitting that. Partisans are acting partisanly – alert the media!

As to the others, what you’ve proposed is a testable hypothesis. There’s all kinds of reasons for Democratic opposition given by the Newsday article. The closest to your hypothesis is given for Janice Rogers Brown. “Democrats say the California Supreme Court justice is a conservative judicial activist who ignores the law in favor of her own political views.”

That, obviously, would be bad if true. So let’s test the hypothesis. What are some examples or other evidence (not all have been judges, so they can’t fairly have “examples”) of the nominees putting ideology before the law? Surely there are some specific decisions, policy pronouncements or public statements to support this hypothesis if you’re making it.

[Hamlet]

@manhattan

Well, according to the Newsday article on the first page, in three instances it’s exactly and precisely a partisan pissing contest and the Senate Democrats, to their credit, seem to be admitting that. Partisans are acting partisanly – alert the media!

To be completely honest, there is a little bit of me that agrees with the premise that since Republican’s blocked Clinton’s nominees to that circuit, they shouldn’t now get to get their guys on. A big “fuck you” as it were. Especially after Bush rejected the compromise that those three would be confirmed if one, just one, of Clinton’s nominees got a hearing. I haven’t done any research about those three judges, so I can’t say whether there are other good reasons for keeping them off the federal judiciary.

@manhattan

As to the others, what you’ve proposed is a testable hypothesis. There’s all kinds of reasons for Democratic opposition given by the Newsday article. The closest to your hypothesis is given for Janice Rogers Brown. “Democrats say the California Supreme Court justice is a conservative judicial activist who ignores the law in favor of her own political views.”

That, obviously, would be bad if true. So let’s test the hypothesis. What are some examples or other evidence (not all have been judges, so they can’t fairly have “examples”) of the nominees putting ideology before the law? Surely there are some specific decisions, policy pronouncements or public statements to support this hypothesis if you’re making it.

Janice Rogers Brown: Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose, Loder v. City of Glendale.

William Pryor: Alexander v. Sandoval, Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, United States v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas

William Myers: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Army Corps of Engineers, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities of Oregon

Priscilla Owen: In Re Doe, Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, Provident American Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, Ford v. Miles.

Now, rather than dissecting each and every case listed, I’ll point you to Save Our Courts, which does a much better job pointing out problems with each of these nominees. Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and William Myers. You can also check out Independent Judiciary.com.

Now, especially with Myers and Pryor, there may not be a complete judicial record of actual cases in which they’ve been “judicially active”. In those cases, much of the concern is based on their ideological actions in other roles, Myers in the Department of the Interior, Pryor as the AG of Alabama (where he actually had enough brains not to completely support Roy Moore’s refusal to recognize the authority of the federal bench.) Concerns over their potential judicial activism isn’t the only rationale for witholding consent for these nominees either. And not all of them boil down to purely partisan bickering.

[John_Mace]

Hamlet: You really do need to dig into the judicial opinions of these nominees in order to make a case against them. Your cite on Brown, for instance just offers this vague critique:

A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown’s record to date raises serious questions and grave concerns about her persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers’ rights, and criminal rights. In addition, Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There’s just nothing there I can dig my teeth into. What specific legal ruling do you find dangerous, rather than just ideologically different from your own?

[Hamlet]

@John Mace

Hamlet: You really do need to dig into the judicial opinions of these nominees in order to make a case against them. Your cite on Brown, for instance just offers this vague critique.

Actually, had you actually took the extra step of investigating the links in the cite, you would have such comments:

In 1999’s Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the defendant employer had violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act by creating a hostile work environment through the use of racial slurs directed at Latino employees. The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s remedy that prohibited the use of racial slurs. In her dissent, Brown argued that the First Amendment protects the use of such slurs in the workplace, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination. This conclusion by Justice Brown virtually ignored several Supreme Court precedents.

and

Brown’s opinion stated that affirmative action is at odds with federal law, despite consistent Supreme Court rulings finding that, under the right circumstances, affirmative action is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution.

and

In Loder v. City of Glendale, a case addressing the constitutionality of a drug and alcohol testing program for employees of the City of Glendale, Brown, in dissent, explicitly rejected binding Supreme Court precedent that called for the use of a balancing test to weigh the interest of the government against those of its employees in assessing whether these types of tests were constitutionally permissible. Despite the clear Supreme Court precedent, Brown would have imposed a bright line rule allowing drug tests for all employees.

and

Justice Brown made this argument despite the fact that other more recent federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, would clearly supercede the 135-year-old banking law on this question.

@JohnMace

There’s just nothing there I can dig my teeth into.

Is it so hard to click on the links in the cite and look at the stuff yourself? Because I’ll tell you right now, I’m not going to go line by line over every decision she made to convince you. You have to do some of the work here yourself. Sorry if that’s too much to ask.

[manhattan]

@Hamlet

Actually, had you actually took the extra step of investigating the links in the cite, you would have such comments:

In 1999’s Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the defendant employer had violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act by creating a hostile work environment through the use of racial slurs directed at Latino employees. The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s remedy that prohibited the use of racial slurs. In her dissent, Brown argued that the First Amendment protects the use of such slurs in the workplace, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination. This conclusion by Justice Brown virtually ignored several Supreme Court precedents.

and

Brown’s opinion stated that affirmative action is at odds with federal law, despite consistent Supreme Court rulings finding that, under the right circumstances, affirmative action is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution.

The cite (on the site, heh) did say that. There are two problems, however.

First, your site lied to you. In Aguilar, Judge Brown was dissenting in a case in which the majority held that prior restraint of speech was permissible as a remedy in a hostile workplace case. Not affirmative action. Prior restraint of speech. It was her opinion that existing remedies available to employees at Hertz (i.e., suing, which they had done and won) were sufficient without going to the extraordinary measure of having the government exercise prior restraint on speech. You can find all the opinions here. I would be very cautious before I trusted anything they had to say in the future if I were you. You’ll certainly understand why I’m hesitant to spend any time looking at other examples.

Second, the site demonstrates why the site’s owners dislike Judge Brown and think her not qualified, but not why Democratic Senators may think so. It’s no secret that my regard for Democratic Senators has been declining. But my opinion of them, collectively, is not so low that I’m willing to ascribe to them a position in favor of prior restraint of speech, something which has historically been reserved only for the most dire of cases, as with national security concerns, and then only rarely.

[Shodan]

Thanks for the links, Hamlet.

A question occurs to me - several of the reasons listed by Democrats for opposing at least some of the nominees are that they represented clients to which the Democrats object. One nominee’s work on behalf of ranchers is presented as proof that the nominee is anti-environment, for example.

How far does this go, do you think? If a nominee represented a rapist, for instance, is it necessarily the case that the nominee then opposes women’s rights?

This one, for instance -

Mr. Pryor has sought to limit federal legislation that protects our civil and constitutional rights as an architect of the “state’s rights” movement. For example, in United States v. Morrison, Pryor represented the only state to challenge the constitutionality of the federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence in the Violence Against Women Act.

Since Mr. Pryor was the Attorney General, it would seem to me to be entirely appropriate for him to represent his state.

And I see virtually nothing non-partisan in the reasons cited for opposing these nominees. In pretty much every instance, the People for the American Way and other liberal pressure groups are merely identifying anyone who opposes the federal government’s role in anything as an enemy of gays/women/blacks/cute little puppies/whatever.

And frankly, the notion of liberal groups opposing “judicial activism” on principle is a trifle ludicrous. I have no doubt whatever that “judicial activism” on behalf of gay marriage or some other liberal pet peeve would be hunky-dory with the PFAW.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@manhattan

In Aguilar, Judge Brown was dissenting in a case in which the majority held that prior restraint of speech was permissible as a remedy in a hostile workplace case. Not affirmative action.

Those were two different cases. The second quote is not a continuation of the first.

But you’re right in that the site cited has an obvious political ax to grind. And one thing I think we’ve all learned is that it’s necessary to go to the written transcript of an opinion rather than rely on someone else’s analysis.

Despite Hamlet’s little fit about not being willing to track down specific cites, that is indeed SOP around here. If you make a claim, back it up. Don’t just rattle off a bunch of cites and say “go read for yourself”.

[Hamlet]

@manhattan

First, your site lied to you. In Aguilar, Judge Brown was dissenting in a case in which the majority held that prior restraint of speech was permissible as a remedy in a hostile workplace case. Not affirmative action.. Prior restraint of speech. It was her opinion that existing remedies available to employees at Hertz (i.e., suing, which they had done and won) were sufficient without going to the extraordinary measure of having the government exercise prior restraint on speech. You can find all the opinions here.

As John Mace pointed out, you are confused. Those quotes discuss two different cases, Aguilar and High Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose. I apologize if that confused you in my post, but anyone who took the time to read the specifics in the cite wouldn’t have had that problem. And portraying her dissent in Aguilar as merely an issue of prior restraint on speech is a misstatement of her opinion. The other dissenting judges certain had an issue with the injunction, but her opinion went well beyond that. Her opinion that, because of the First Amendment, there could be no actionable hostile work environment claim based on only verbal conduct is patently contrary to the Supreme Court’s findings in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm’n and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.

@manhattan

I would be very cautious before I trusted anything they had to say in the future if I were you. You’ll certainly understand why I’m hesitant to spend any time looking at other examples.

Well, I’ll certainly be more cautious in asking others to read a cite thoroughly. And, given your gross misinterpretations, I can understand why you would be hesitant to look at the other examples. Seeing as how you were wrong and all.

@manhattan

Second, the site demonstrates why the site’s owners dislike Judge Brown and think her not qualified, but not why Democratic Senators may think so. It’s no secret that my regard for Democratic Senators has been declining. But my opinion of them, collectively, is not so low that I’m willing to ascribe to them a position in favor of prior restraint of speech, something which has historically been reserved only for the most dire of cases, as with national security concerns, and then only rarely.

Good God. There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world for your seemed assertion that the Senators are witholding their consent because they hate free speech. It’s because they hate AMERICA. God, don’t you get any of the memos?

@Shodan

A question occurs to me - several of the reasons listed by Democrats for opposing at least some of the nominees are that they represented clients to which the Democrats object. One nominee’s work on behalf of ranchers is presented as proof that the nominee is anti-environment, for example.

How far does this go, do you think? If a nominee represented a rapist, for instance, is it necessarily the case that the nominee then opposes women’s rights?

Surely you aren’t that dense are you? The belief that Myers is anti-environment is not based solely on the fact he represented ranchers.

@Shodan

And I see virtually nothing non-partisan in the reasons cited for opposing these nominees.

I am not surprised in the least that you see virtually nothing non-partisan in the reasons. My post was meant for more… openminded and thoughtful people.

@Shodan

In pretty much every instance, the People for the American Way and other liberal pressure groups are merely identifying anyone who opposes the federal government’s role in anything as an enemy of gays/women/blacks/cute little puppies/whatever.

You got a little blindly partisan rhetoric on your post.

And frankly, the notion of liberal groups opposing “judicial activism” on principle is a trifle ludicrous. I have no doubt whatever that “judicial activism” on behalf of gay marriage or some other liberal pet peeve would be hunky-dory with the PFAW.

Apparently, it’s an epidemic with you.

@JohnMace

But you’re right in that the site cited has an obvious political ax to grind.

Other than daring to disagree with the Republicans, what is the “obvious political ax to grind?” And, even assuming they do, do you have an actual response to what they say? Or is it just the typical thoughtless demonization?

@JohnMace

And one thing I think we’ve all learned is that it’s necessary to go to the written transcript of an opinion rather than rely on someone else’s analysis Despite Hamlet’s little fit about not being willing to track down specific cites, that is indeed SOP around here. If you make a claim, back it up. Don’t just rattle off a bunch of cites and say “go read for yourself”.

You couldn’t be trusted to read a frickin’ synopsis before responding and somehow I should expect to engage you in a legal discussion of certain opinions? Now that’s good humor. Sorry I expected more from you. Next time, I’ll hold your hand as we go from point to point.

[John_Mace]

@Hamlet

Other than daring to disagree with the Republicans, what is the “obvious political ax to grind?” And, even assuming they do, do you have an actual response to what they say? Or is it just the typical thoughtless demonization?

All you have to do is read the stuff on their web site-- they’re a liberal advocacy group. Since that’s your debating technique of choice, I guess that’s all I have to do, right?

You couldn’t be trusted to read a frickin’ synopsis before responding and somehow I should expect to engage you in a legal discussion of certain opinions? Now that’s good humor. Sorry I expected more from you. Next time, I’ll hold your hand as we go from point to point.

Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer? The only way to fairly critique a justice’s opinion on a given case is to examine the original opinion itself. I’m surprised you don’t understand that. The one case of Brown’s that I’m pretty familiar with is the AA case. To be fair to her, I’ll open a thread specifically designed to analyze that case, her opinion on it, and whether or not that gives us any insight into her qualifications as a US justice.

[Shodan]

Well, no, Hamlet, despite the rather heated nature of your own rhetoric, I still don’t see much indication that the Democrats in these cases are doing pretty much in the other four cases as they are doing explicitly in the last three - opposing some nominations on purely partisan grounds. And I am reluctant to take the word of groups like PFAW as to the intensely EEEEE-VIL nature of the nominees, based simply on the fact that the liberal pressure groups tell me that such is the case.

“We oppose these people because they are blindly partisan, and anyone who questions that is blindly partisan. So there.” :rolleyes:

Ah well. The Borking of American politics continues.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Needs a bit of definition, Shodan. Or less definition, if you aiming for an entirely content-free posting.

“Liberal pressure group”, for instance. PFAW is a liberal group, to be sure, but rather a tame bunch. As for pressure, well, isn’t any group formed around a political principle, with the intent of persuasion, to some degree or another a “pressure” group. What, precisely, is the definition of this pejorative you bandy about with such ease? What radical efforts have they put forward that might convince us that they are dangerously removed from the mainstream of your thinking? Pardon, American thinking.

AS to partisan: are we to understand that you have some evidence that the Bushiviks are putting forth an wholly nonpartisan agenda? Innocent as the driven snow? Many of us less informed folk are operating an the presumption that the Bushiviks are putting forth judges they regard as ideologically reliable, and the vast majority of them have been blessed by approval. Are there liberals and socialists amongst them, is that why they skated by so quickly? If you would be so kind as to point out to us these liberal legal scholars so dear to the Admin, that would be helpful.

Are you advancing the extraordinary notion that only the Democrats are affected by partisanship, cruelly afflicting such calm moderates as Ms. Brown and Mr. Pryor? How is it that the Republicans, a very large partisan pressure group indeed, are innocent of partisanship and the Democrats awash in it?

[Hamlet]

@John Mace

All you have to do is read the stuff on their web site-- they’re a liberal advocacy group. Since that’s your debating technique of choice, I guess that’s all I have to do, right?

Seems to be your way. Since they’re a liberal advocacy group they must be unreliable. No point in your actually reading what they say and responding. Glad we got that out of the way.

@JohnMace

Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer?

Supposed to be? What the hell does that mean?

@JohnMace

The only way to fairly critique a justice’s opinion on a given caseis to examine the original opinion itself. I’m surprised you don’t understand that.

I was responding to Shodan’s post that it was merely a matter of not liking certain judges that led to the possible filibuster rather than an actual problem with their judicial philosophy, rulings, or temperament. I guess in your world, I needed to post a complete dissertation about each and every judicial opinion of the nominees before I could chime in. I’ll try and remember that next time.

@JohnMace

The one case of Brown’s that I’m pretty familiar with is the AA case. To be fair to her, I’ll open a thread specifically designed to analyze that case, her opinion on it, and whether or not that gives us any insight into her qualifications as a US justice.

Good enough. But if I have time to respond, I may advocate a “liberal” position, so you can simply discount anything I say without responding.

@Shodan

Well, no, Hamlet, despite the rather heated nature of your own rhetoric, I still don’t see much indication that the Democrats in these cases are doing pretty much in the other four cases as they are doing explicitly in the last three - opposing some nominations on purely partisan grounds.

While I’m certain there are Senators who apply a litmus “are they against abortion” test to the nominees, the fact remains that the democrats have chosen to not filibuster many pro-life judges. The reason I, and many others, refuse to support these four is not simply partisanship, but also because we feel they would make very bad federal appellate judges. Again, not just because we may disagree politically, but also because of concerns about judicial activism, ignorance of precedent, and poor judicial temprament. I know that may be hard to grasp, but not every one who disagrees with you are strict partisans.

@Shodan

And I am reluctant to take the word of groups like PFAW as to the intensely EEEEE-VIL nature of the nominees, based simply on the fact that the liberal pressure groups tell me that such is the case.

Have you made a educated determination on these judges? Have you researched both sides and decided that they are acceptable? Then, perhaps you could spare a moment from the rhetoric and explain away the allegations in Save Our Courts. I look forward to your reasoned response.

[Squink]

@elucidator

How is it that the Republicans, a very large partisan pressure group indeed, are innocent of partisanship and the Democrats awash in it?

Have you forgotten 9/11 so quickly? It transformed the metric. These days, republicans are the new centurions, shepherds of the nation. They would never stoop to anything so low as a partisan power grab.

[John_Mace]

@Hamlet

Seems to be your way. Since they’re a liberal advocacy group they must be unreliable. No point in your actually reading what they say and responding. Glad we got that out of the way.

Not really. I suspect that it would be fairly easy to find a conservative advocacy web site that sings the praises of Janice Brown. They’d be pushing their agenda just as the web sites you linked to pushes theirs. I wouldn’t trust either one **if they didn’t refernce original source material. **

Supposed to be? What the hell does that mean?

That you’d recognize how easy it is take a justice’s opinion and spin it almost any way you want and that without actually seeing the text of the ruling, you really can’t take any group’s word about issues that legal experts might simply have a difference of opinion.

Good enough. But if I have time to respond, I may advocate a “liberal” position, so you can simply discount anything I say without responding.

No problem there as long as we’re all looking at the same original source material and not having it filtered thru someone else’s lens.

[manhattan]

@Hamlet

As John Mace pointed out, you are confused. Those quotes discuss two different cases, Aguilar and High Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose. I apologize if that confused you in my post, but anyone who took the time to read the specifics in the cite wouldn’t have had that problem.

And I apologize in turn. I was Websensed out of your site and worked entirely from your context. Sorry I caused a little sidetrack there.

And portraying her dissent in Aguilar as merely an issue of prior restraint on speech is a misstatement of her opinion. The other dissenting judges certain had an issue with the injunction, but her opinion went well beyond that. Her opinion that, because of the First Amendment, there could be no actionable hostile work environment claim based on only verbal conduct is patently contrary to the Supreme Court’s findings in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm’n and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.

But that’s just not true – that’s not what her opinion was. She specifically said that “There is a middleground: employees can sue and recover damages. It is hard to imagine any employer would continue to tolerate discriminatory speech in the workplace after shouldering the cost of litigation and a damage award, and, if it did, it would run the risk of paying a second award, including hefty punitive damages and attorney fees. I think that remedy is sufficient to deter any ‘unwanted racial discrimination.’” What she did opine in the course of dissenting against prior restraint was that the mere expression of repugnant opinions of which a potential claimant was not aware could not be cause of action under a “hostile workplace” action. I can imagine a set of facts which might demonstrate that she was in error, but given the facts at hand (more specifically, her assertion that there were not sufficient facts for the court to make the determination it did) her opinion was certainly reasonable as I read it.

To Hi-Voltage, which I missed. I’ve read the opinion, which can be found with a search here (unfortunately, the direct link seems to be dynamic). I found the opinion to be slightly overbroad for my personal tastes but well within the norm of interpretation of law. I find the interpretation that the opinion opposes all affirmative action to be specious, at best. It does seem to come down pretty firmly against quota based-affirmative action, as it should – it violates the plain letter of the law, the avowed intention of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution as amended following the Civil War. Read the opinion yourself and respond with your actual personally-informed opinion, please. To be frank, I find more value in the opinions of the people on this board than I do from activist sites (of any color). If I wanted to argue with the site I’d send them an angry email or something.

Good God. There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world for your seemed assertion that the Senators are witholding their consent because they hate free speech. It’s because they hate AMERICA. God, don’t you get any of the memos?

Actually, no, that’s not my assertion. I’m specifically and loudly asserting that it is not my belief that the Democratic Senators think that. Your cite thinks that. Perhaps you do; I can’t say. But to be crystal clear I do not believe the Senators believe that, which is why I said that the site you cited (hee! I’m such an 8-year-old for liking that so much) didn’t demonstrate why the Senators might be feeling the way they do.

[elucidator]

Is she brilliant, Manny? Is the light of her reasoned jurisprudence so bright, so clarifying, that we simply must have the advantage of her wisdom? What does she bring that is so desperately needed? Does she bring balance, in comparison to the wildly liberal activist judges that Bush proposed, and the Senate accepted?

Is she too conservative? Sure, from my perspective. Someone who opines that the New Deal was a triumph of socialism in America, yeah, I think thats a bit past what I would be willing to call “moderately conservative”. YMMV. Point of fact, I’m pretty sure it does. Real sure.

“The New Deal … inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document.”

[John Stewart] Whaaaaaaa…?[/JS]

So my dear old unionist grandaddy, with whom I walked more than one picket line, he was a firebreathing revolutionary? I saw him wobbly on more than one occasion, but still… And I’m real, real sure he didn’t have an underground collectivist mentality, unless that covers digging up worms for bait.

[Shodan]

@Hamlet

I was responding to Shodan’s post that it was merely a matter of not liking certain judges that led to the possible filibuster rather than an actual problem with their judicial philosophy, rulings, or temperament.

It’s the same thing. The “actual problem” with these judges is that Democrats and other liberals don’t like their politics.

They dress it up a lot, but that’s what it boils down to.

Regards,
Shodan

[Plan_B]

Has anyone mentioneed the racial overtones yet? Democrats are scared that if Janice Brown is nominated if will be a tipping point for black support for Republicans. An extended floor fight would be even worse. Imagine lots of TV coverage of Dems bashing her and Reps supporting her. It’s probably just what Frist and W want.

I called Schumer’s office and spoke to one of his aides who was working on these appointments. I asked what the problem was with these nominees and he told me they’re too extreme. I asked for specifics and he absolutely refused to give me any.