The New York Times editorial board seems to have had enough with the Justice Department. Just two weeks after declaring President Bush’s nomination of Grace Chung Becker to head up the Civil Rights Division “ill-conceived,” the Times observes that the “cynical politicization of the Justice Department” is as strong as ever under the leadership of Michael Mukasey.
In an editorial in the Sunday edition, the Times takes issue with Attorney General Mukasey’s decision to disband the United States Attorney’s Office on Public Corruption in Los Angeles. Understandably skeptical of US Attorney Thomas O’Brien’s insistence that the “revamping of his office will allow [the] pursuit of more corruption cases,” the piece suggests that the decision to close the office may have had more to do with the “number of sensitive inquiries under way at the high-profile office, including an investigation of Representative Jerry Lewis, the powerful California Republican.”
And in another piece published today, members of the editorial board attack President Bush’s refusal to budge on the controversial nomination of Steven Bradbury to head up the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Senate Democrats are understandably concerned about the possibility that Bradbury, who authored several now infamous “torture memos” for the White House, could be the man charged with the responsibility of determining whether the president and his colleagues are acting legally.
The Justice Department has been ripped apart by the political calculations and hyper-partisanship of the Bush administration. The American public trusted that with the appointment of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, the excesses of Alberto Gonzales’ tenure would be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, as the New York Times explains, “the political specter at Justice” is still haunting the halls of that hallowed department.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Don Siegelman Released from Prison
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was released from prison today after a panel of judges on the 11th Circuit determined that there were “substantial concerns” regarding his prosecution last year for corruption. For some time now, accusations have circulated that his arrest and eventual conviction were politically motivated and may have even been initiated by former White House advisor Karl Rove.
Siegelman will now await the outcome of his appeal from the comfort of his own home, although beyond that, it is not clear exactly how much freedom he will be afforded. The House Judiciary Committee has requested permission to have him travel to Washington, DC, in order to provide testimony for the committee’s investigation into selective prosecution at the Justice Department. Of course, the DOJ isn’t likely to bend over backwards to help investigators pursue allegations that it acted improperly, especially considering Attorney General Michael Mukasey originally refused a request by Committee Chairman John Conyers to temporarily release Siegelman from prison so that he could testify.
To learn more about the controversy surrounding Don Siegelman’s prosecution, check out our previous blog entries, Siegelman Saga Makes Its Way to “60 Minutes” and Scott Horton Discusses Siegelman Controversy on MSNBC.
Siegelman will now await the outcome of his appeal from the comfort of his own home, although beyond that, it is not clear exactly how much freedom he will be afforded. The House Judiciary Committee has requested permission to have him travel to Washington, DC, in order to provide testimony for the committee’s investigation into selective prosecution at the Justice Department. Of course, the DOJ isn’t likely to bend over backwards to help investigators pursue allegations that it acted improperly, especially considering Attorney General Michael Mukasey originally refused a request by Committee Chairman John Conyers to temporarily release Siegelman from prison so that he could testify.
To learn more about the controversy surrounding Don Siegelman’s prosecution, check out our previous blog entries, Siegelman Saga Makes Its Way to “60 Minutes” and Scott Horton Discusses Siegelman Controversy on MSNBC.
Daily Dose
- Ex-Alabama Gov. Siegelman released pending appeal [NYT, AP via WP, TheCarpetbaggerReport]
- AG promises public corruption crackdown [AP via WP]
- Destruction of tapes may have lasting consequences for detainee cases [NYT]
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Daily Dose
- Sen. Feinstein turns up the heat on Mukasey over LA US attorney’s office debacle [TheHill]
- “Human Rights Orgs Oppose Bradbury Nomination” [TPMMuckraker]
- Editorial: Protecting Americans’ habeas rights [LATimes]
- House Judiciary Committee seeks hearing with imprisoned former Alabama governor [TPMMuckraker]
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Justices Consider Fate of US Citizens Held in Iraq
The Bush administration, keen to keep terrorism cases out of American courts, appealed a decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals holding that federal courts do in fact have jurisdiction over American citizens. The administration however, claimed that because these men are being held in Iraq for alleged activities that occurred in Iraq, US courts have no jurisdiction -- even if they involve American citizens held by American forces.
Arguments yesterday centered around two main questions – whether US citizenship automatically affords someone who is being detained by US forces access to US courts and whether the two men are actually being held by American forces or, as the Bush administration contends, by “Coalition forces.”
The lawyer representing Omar and Munaf argued that the security forces holding his clients are an extension of the American military and as such the American government. Therefore, US courts should have every right to consider the habeas petitions of the two men. But Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, arguing the administration’s position, claimed that the men are being held for violations of Iraqi law by a multi-national force whose authority extends from the United Nations. As such, the government contended that the United States has no authority in the matter.
Alliance for Justice has consistently argued for the restoration of habeas corpus. The Bush administration has used the “War on Terror” to hold accused “combatants” indefinitely and in many cases without filing formal charges. The judiciary has a responsibility to review these practices and ensure that the administration does not operate outside of its constitutional authority. We sincerely hope that the Court upholds one of the bedrock principles of our legal system and allows American citizens held by American forces the ability to have their habeas petitions reviewed by an American court.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Supreme Court Doesn't Sleep
While Congress is still in recess, the Supreme Court is certainly keeping busy. After hearing arguments last week in the highly publicized gun case, District of Columbia v. Heller and overturning a Louisiana death penalty conviction, the Court today released two major decisions and granted cert in several new cases.
The two decisions handed down today were in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel and Medellin v. Texas. Hall addresses arbitration issues (for more, see here). And in Medellin, the majority wrote that international treaties do not supersede a state’s judicial authority. The decision concludes that Texas can ignore U.S. treaty obligations, a decision by the International Court of Justice, and a directive by President Bush in its pursuit of the death penalty for Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national.
The irony of the conservative majority's opinion in this case lies in its uncharacteristically narrow view of executive power. In language that may come back to haunt them in future cases, the conservative justices rejected the idea that the president’s memo instructing states to abide by international law could “establish binding rules of decision that preempt contrary state law.”
Not all of the Court’s decisions however, come in the form of written opinions. On Monday, the Court refused to accept a case concerning the ability of employers to decrease health-care benefits for former employees once they turn 65. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) brought the challenge in response to a recent federal regulation which stated that “the ‘coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare’ is exempt from the anti-age-bias law.” By refusing to hear AARP’s challenge of this regulation, the Supreme Court, in practical terms at least, upheld its practice.
The Court also announced on Monday that it would not accept a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) by a group hoping to release a film criticizing Hillary Clinton. The group, Citizens United, wanted to promote its film called “Hillary: The Movie” despite BCRA’s rules that prohibit corporations and unions from financing ads critical of candidates prior to an election. The refusal by the justices to hear this case was seen as a bit of a surprise to court-watchers who perceive recent Bush appointees – particularly, Chief Justice Roberts – as hostile to campaign finance reform.
The justices also announced this week that they will hear cases to determine whether police need a warrant before entering a house following an informant, whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required Alabama’s governor to seek approval from the Justice Department before appointing a Republican county commissioner to represent a largely African-American district and whether states can ban convicted criminals from possessing firearms. All this, while also hearing arguments concerning whether US citizens detained abroad can challenge their detention in US Courts.
With less than three months left in the 2007-2008 term, it seems that our third branch of government is getting its second wind…
The two decisions handed down today were in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel and Medellin v. Texas. Hall addresses arbitration issues (for more, see here). And in Medellin, the majority wrote that international treaties do not supersede a state’s judicial authority. The decision concludes that Texas can ignore U.S. treaty obligations, a decision by the International Court of Justice, and a directive by President Bush in its pursuit of the death penalty for Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national.
The irony of the conservative majority's opinion in this case lies in its uncharacteristically narrow view of executive power. In language that may come back to haunt them in future cases, the conservative justices rejected the idea that the president’s memo instructing states to abide by international law could “establish binding rules of decision that preempt contrary state law.”
Not all of the Court’s decisions however, come in the form of written opinions. On Monday, the Court refused to accept a case concerning the ability of employers to decrease health-care benefits for former employees once they turn 65. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) brought the challenge in response to a recent federal regulation which stated that “the ‘coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare’ is exempt from the anti-age-bias law.” By refusing to hear AARP’s challenge of this regulation, the Supreme Court, in practical terms at least, upheld its practice.
The Court also announced on Monday that it would not accept a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) by a group hoping to release a film criticizing Hillary Clinton. The group, Citizens United, wanted to promote its film called “Hillary: The Movie” despite BCRA’s rules that prohibit corporations and unions from financing ads critical of candidates prior to an election. The refusal by the justices to hear this case was seen as a bit of a surprise to court-watchers who perceive recent Bush appointees – particularly, Chief Justice Roberts – as hostile to campaign finance reform.
The justices also announced this week that they will hear cases to determine whether police need a warrant before entering a house following an informant, whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required Alabama’s governor to seek approval from the Justice Department before appointing a Republican county commissioner to represent a largely African-American district and whether states can ban convicted criminals from possessing firearms. All this, while also hearing arguments concerning whether US citizens detained abroad can challenge their detention in US Courts.
With less than three months left in the 2007-2008 term, it seems that our third branch of government is getting its second wind…
Daily Dose
- High court to hear key habeas case today [AP via WP]
- Sen. Whitehouse proposes bill to combat vote caging [Politico]
- "Judge Sets Schedule for House Contempt Suit" [TPMMuckraker]
Monday, March 24, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Congress May Be Resting, But We Aren't
Even though Congress is currently out on recess, we are still working hard to restore balance to our nation's courts. We are continuing to monitor President Bush's pending judicial nominees, as well as our efforts to educate the public on what will be Bush's most lasting legacy - a more conservative federal bench. Alliance for Justice recently hosted a lecture series event on this topic featuring CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Video from this event is posted below.
A prime example of Bush's courtpacking efforts can been found in what he has managed to do to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that handles cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. With the exception of one seat, President Bush has filled every vacancy on that circuit with conservative judges. In his attempt to fill the final remaining seat, Bush has put forward another controversial nominee, Catherina Haynes. To read more about the status of this extremely important court, read AFJ's Packing the Fifth Circuit.
Even though Congress does not return to Washington until April, it's more important than ever to educate your friends, neighbors, and colleagues about the status of our judiciary so that we can all prepare for the battles that lie ahead. We need to be prepared to fight President Bush's attempts to push through his remaining ultra-conservative nominees when Congress returns.
A prime example of Bush's courtpacking efforts can been found in what he has managed to do to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that handles cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. With the exception of one seat, President Bush has filled every vacancy on that circuit with conservative judges. In his attempt to fill the final remaining seat, Bush has put forward another controversial nominee, Catherina Haynes. To read more about the status of this extremely important court, read AFJ's Packing the Fifth Circuit.
Even though Congress does not return to Washington until April, it's more important than ever to educate your friends, neighbors, and colleagues about the status of our judiciary so that we can all prepare for the battles that lie ahead. We need to be prepared to fight President Bush's attempts to push through his remaining ultra-conservative nominees when Congress returns.
Daily Dose
- Reactions to the D.C. gun ban case [WP, Slate]
- Editorial: Judging Guns [WP]
- African Americans improperly kept off jury, Supreme Court rules [WP]
- Rep. Harman initially discouraged NYTimes from running wiretapping story [TPMMuckraker]
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Supreme Court Hears Long Awaited Gun Case
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments surrounding a challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The widely anticipated case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is considered by many to be not only the most important case of the current Supreme Court term, but also the most important 2nd Amendment case in the Court's history. Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter examined the arguments from both sides in an article published yesterday afternoon.
To read Linda Greenhouse's entire article in the New York Times, click here.
The argument was lively and intense, running 22 minutes over its allotted hour and 15 minutes. Despite “starting afresh,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it, on a subject the court had not addressed since 1939, the justices appeared at least as well informed as the lawyers on minute details of English and American legal history.While advocates on both sides of the issue eagerly anticipated yesterday's court-room battle, both sides will now have to wait for several months, most likely until June, before a decision is released.
The relevance of that history, on which both sides have their distinguished experts, remains to be seen. There was also a good deal of linguistic dissection of the Second Amendment’s text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
To read Linda Greenhouse's entire article in the New York Times, click here.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
USA Today Examines Bush Legacy
USA Today published an article this morning examining what will likely be President Bush's most enduring and successful (at least from his perspective) legacy: packing the federal courts with judges and justices who will carry out a conservative agenda from the bench. The article points out that while Bush may not get quite as many judges appointed as Reagan or even Clinton, in many ways the impact of his selection program will be much more far-reaching, making particular note of President Bush's selection of conservative Supreme Court Justices and the length of time that they will serve. Of course, we have to point out that Alliance for Justice's very own Nan Aron is quoted in the article. She notes that "He [Bush] made significant strides in cementing the modern court-packing legacy begun by Ronald Reagan."
To read the entire article in USA Today, click here. Also, to learn more about President Bush’s court packing agenda check out our website at http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/independent-courts-fair-judges.html.
To read the entire article in USA Today, click here. Also, to learn more about President Bush’s court packing agenda check out our website at http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/independent-courts-fair-judges.html.
Daily Dose
- House holds secret session on spy bill [WP, GlennGreenwald]
- “Loyalty” and lies: new information on the US attorney firings [NYT]
- House passes FISA bill without retroactive immunity for telecoms [WP, TPMMuckraker, CNN, GlennGreenwald]
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Daily Dose
- House to vote on spy bill despite veto threat [LATimes, TPMMuckraker]
- Sticking to their guns: House Judiciary Committee files civil suit against Miers, Bolten [NYT, Politico]
- AG Mukasey to argue terror case before High Court [AP via WP]
- Let’s make a deal?: Sen. Reid discusses nominations with White House [TheHill]
- Pentagon finds close to 50 tapes of “enhanced interrogations” [NYT]
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Von Spakovsky Not Too Keen on Voter Protections
On Monday, Hans von Spakovsky, President Bush’s controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission, released a case study for the Heritage Foundation that examines the legal arguments surrounding Indiana’s harsh voter-identification law.
We have to admit that publishing a document calling for harsher ballot restrictions when his position on that particular issue is precisely what has held up his confirmation in the Senate for so long is a bit cheeky. But pushing our appreciation of irony aside, we also must point out that the arguments he makes in this article, specifically regarding the current Supreme Court case challenging the legality of the Indiana voter-ID law, raise serious questions about his judgment.
Mr. von Spakovsky argues that the potential for disenfranchisement by the Indiana voter-ID law is vastly overstated and asserts that instances of voter-impersonation are both well documented and pose a serious threat to the sanctity of our elections. Not to impugn his analysis, but there must be more efficient ways of rigging an election than sending individuals from one polling place to another to cast one fraudulent ballot at a time. Is this really the most serious threat facing the legitimacy of our democracy? Call us crazy, but we think that the government should have irrefutable evidence of significant fraud before it starts limiting the ability of citizens to cast their ballot – especially when those limitations have a disproportionate effect on certain communities.
While there may not be much proof that in-person voter fraud is particularly problematic, there is plenty of evidence that the Indiana law severely limits the ability of minority and disabled citizens to exercise their constitutional right to participate in elections. Even Congresswoman Julia Carson, the former representative from Indianapolis, was turned away from the polls in 2006 because the congressional ID card that she presented at the poll did not contain her photo. Apparently Indiana’s law doesn’t just restrict the ability of minorities and the disabled to vote, but members of Congress as well! Now, if Mr. von Spakovsky had an explanation for that, we’d love to hear it.
While the FEC doesn’t directly hear cases that deal with voting rights, the message that Mr. von Spakovsky’s nomination sends is certainly a deliberate one. The Bush administration has repeatedly nominated people for high-level positions who are hostile to voters’ rights – first to the judiciary, then to the Justice Department and now to the Federal Election Commission. The Senate should have the courage to stand up and say, "Enough is enough."
We have to admit that publishing a document calling for harsher ballot restrictions when his position on that particular issue is precisely what has held up his confirmation in the Senate for so long is a bit cheeky. But pushing our appreciation of irony aside, we also must point out that the arguments he makes in this article, specifically regarding the current Supreme Court case challenging the legality of the Indiana voter-ID law, raise serious questions about his judgment.
Mr. von Spakovsky argues that the potential for disenfranchisement by the Indiana voter-ID law is vastly overstated and asserts that instances of voter-impersonation are both well documented and pose a serious threat to the sanctity of our elections. Not to impugn his analysis, but there must be more efficient ways of rigging an election than sending individuals from one polling place to another to cast one fraudulent ballot at a time. Is this really the most serious threat facing the legitimacy of our democracy? Call us crazy, but we think that the government should have irrefutable evidence of significant fraud before it starts limiting the ability of citizens to cast their ballot – especially when those limitations have a disproportionate effect on certain communities.
While there may not be much proof that in-person voter fraud is particularly problematic, there is plenty of evidence that the Indiana law severely limits the ability of minority and disabled citizens to exercise their constitutional right to participate in elections. Even Congresswoman Julia Carson, the former representative from Indianapolis, was turned away from the polls in 2006 because the congressional ID card that she presented at the poll did not contain her photo. Apparently Indiana’s law doesn’t just restrict the ability of minorities and the disabled to vote, but members of Congress as well! Now, if Mr. von Spakovsky had an explanation for that, we’d love to hear it.
While the FEC doesn’t directly hear cases that deal with voting rights, the message that Mr. von Spakovsky’s nomination sends is certainly a deliberate one. The Bush administration has repeatedly nominated people for high-level positions who are hostile to voters’ rights – first to the judiciary, then to the Justice Department and now to the Federal Election Commission. The Senate should have the courage to stand up and say, "Enough is enough."
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Becker for Justice Post
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the nomination of Grace Chung Becker to head up the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Ms. Becker is the latest in a string of Bush nominees with relatively slim records who seem to be recommended more by a strong commitment to a conservative agenda than by meaningful qualifications.
Ms. Becker certainly doesn’t have much experience when it comes to the issues facing the Civil Rights division. Before joining the Justice Department in 2005, Becker had no prior experience in civil rights enforcement and her previous public statements indicate a disturbing lack of understanding regarding the critical problems facing this particular office. There are also serious questions about her impartiality. Her close affiliation to the Republican National Lawyers Association raises questions about her ability to remain independent when dealing with cases of voter disenfranchisement and redistricting – issues that are often referred to the Civil Rights Division. Considering the intense nature of the upcoming election, this matter deserves a full examination.
Over the past seven years, the Bush administration has pushed a hyper-partisan agenda that has splintered the Justice Department to such an extent that many career attorneys have resigned. The scope of the efforts to politicize the department were finally exposed last July when the firing of seven US attorneys, reportedly for partisan reasons, made headlines. This scandal, which resulted in the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, focused national attention on the dire situation facing this once esteemed institution.
Before confirming anyone to a top spot at the Department of Justice, the Senate must ensure that those nominated will not simply serve to further the president’s agenda but will instead work to protect the rule of law in this country.
To learn more about the politicization of the Justice Department, check out Alliance for Justice’s fact sheet here.
Ms. Becker certainly doesn’t have much experience when it comes to the issues facing the Civil Rights division. Before joining the Justice Department in 2005, Becker had no prior experience in civil rights enforcement and her previous public statements indicate a disturbing lack of understanding regarding the critical problems facing this particular office. There are also serious questions about her impartiality. Her close affiliation to the Republican National Lawyers Association raises questions about her ability to remain independent when dealing with cases of voter disenfranchisement and redistricting – issues that are often referred to the Civil Rights Division. Considering the intense nature of the upcoming election, this matter deserves a full examination.
Over the past seven years, the Bush administration has pushed a hyper-partisan agenda that has splintered the Justice Department to such an extent that many career attorneys have resigned. The scope of the efforts to politicize the department were finally exposed last July when the firing of seven US attorneys, reportedly for partisan reasons, made headlines. This scandal, which resulted in the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, focused national attention on the dire situation facing this once esteemed institution.
Before confirming anyone to a top spot at the Department of Justice, the Senate must ensure that those nominated will not simply serve to further the president’s agenda but will instead work to protect the rule of law in this country.
To learn more about the politicization of the Justice Department, check out Alliance for Justice’s fact sheet here.
Friday, March 7, 2008
FISA Debate Rages On!
Yesterday, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) considered returning surveillance legislation to the Senate without retroactive immunity provisions for telecom companies that cooperated in the government’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program, another whistleblower came forward with evidence that the federal government indiscriminately intercepted millions of calls from a major wireless phone provider.
Resisting pressure to resolve the surveillance debate as quickly as possible, Congressional Democrats continued to call on the president and telecom companies to cooperate with their investigation into the unlawful program. Yesterday, three chairmen of the House Commerce Committee sent a letter to their colleagues presenting evidence that “a major wireless carrier allowed a third party, known as the ‘Quantico Circuit,’ access to all data communications in its network.” Wait a minute. Isn't FBI headquarters in Quantico??
Meanwhile, Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh.) expressed frustration that the FISA debate may not be resolved by the time Congress recesses next week. Continuing the long tradition of using fear to push through legislation, Rep. Boehner said Friday that “Al Qaeda is not going on Spring Break next week.” I’m sure the residents of Daytona Beach are thrilled to hear that!
In a statement released today, Rep. Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) claimed that “the only thing…keeping intelligence officials from having every tool they need to monitor and disrupt terrorists is the Democratic House leadership, which has repeatedly delayed action and is now poised to go on a second vacation without revising the law.” Of course, something tells us that the situation is not so cut and dry.
This administration and its allies have routinely accused Congressional Democrats of obstruction based on their refusal to advance controversial judicial nominees, their calls for accountability in domestic surveillance programs, and their demands for adherence to international standards in interrogation procedures. We see it a bit differently. Seems to us, Congress is finally exercising its constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities by refusing to rubberstamp President Bush’s broad attempts to expand executive power.
Resisting pressure to resolve the surveillance debate as quickly as possible, Congressional Democrats continued to call on the president and telecom companies to cooperate with their investigation into the unlawful program. Yesterday, three chairmen of the House Commerce Committee sent a letter to their colleagues presenting evidence that “a major wireless carrier allowed a third party, known as the ‘Quantico Circuit,’ access to all data communications in its network.” Wait a minute. Isn't FBI headquarters in Quantico??
Meanwhile, Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh.) expressed frustration that the FISA debate may not be resolved by the time Congress recesses next week. Continuing the long tradition of using fear to push through legislation, Rep. Boehner said Friday that “Al Qaeda is not going on Spring Break next week.” I’m sure the residents of Daytona Beach are thrilled to hear that!
In a statement released today, Rep. Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) claimed that “the only thing…keeping intelligence officials from having every tool they need to monitor and disrupt terrorists is the Democratic House leadership, which has repeatedly delayed action and is now poised to go on a second vacation without revising the law.” Of course, something tells us that the situation is not so cut and dry.
This administration and its allies have routinely accused Congressional Democrats of obstruction based on their refusal to advance controversial judicial nominees, their calls for accountability in domestic surveillance programs, and their demands for adherence to international standards in interrogation procedures. We see it a bit differently. Seems to us, Congress is finally exercising its constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities by refusing to rubberstamp President Bush’s broad attempts to expand executive power.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
GOP Rhetoric on Judges Continues to Heat Up
Senate Republicans this week have stepped up their attempts to intimidate Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) into scheduling votes for President Bush’s pending judicial nominees. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee initiated discussions Tuesday with conservative allies, suggesting that Republicans might go so far as “shutting down the Senate” if they don’t get their way.
Apparently conservative strategists are hoping they can use the issue of judges to energize their base – particularly ultra-radicals who were put off by Sen. John McCain’s (R-Az.) participation in the so-called “Gang of 14.” Sen. McCain himself, eager to prove his conservative credentials has even responded to Specter’s proposition by stating that he is “willing to assist in any way he can to move forward the confirmation of the president’s judicial nominees.”
So far however, Senators Leahy and Reid, with the support of Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) seem to be holding strong in their convictions. According to The Hill, Sen. Leahy fired back at Sen. Specter’s allegations of foul play, pointing out that “Republican complaints ‘ring hollow’…the Senate has moved to approve an ‘overwhelming majority’ of Bush’s nominees – confirming more than 86 percent of those nominees, compared to the less than 75 percent of Clinton nominees approved by the GOP-controlled Senate.”
Let’s hope that Senate leadership continues to resist pressure from movement conservatives looking to score cheap political points. The fact is, Bush has consistently put up right - wing ideologues for positions on the federal bench and Senate Democrats should stand up for a fair judiciary and continue to resist further attempts to pack our courts. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) claimed that “if [Democrats] really want to play the political game on judges, Republicans will win.” Sounds like Bush and his allies are the ones looking to play games with the courts.
Apparently conservative strategists are hoping they can use the issue of judges to energize their base – particularly ultra-radicals who were put off by Sen. John McCain’s (R-Az.) participation in the so-called “Gang of 14.” Sen. McCain himself, eager to prove his conservative credentials has even responded to Specter’s proposition by stating that he is “willing to assist in any way he can to move forward the confirmation of the president’s judicial nominees.”
So far however, Senators Leahy and Reid, with the support of Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) seem to be holding strong in their convictions. According to The Hill, Sen. Leahy fired back at Sen. Specter’s allegations of foul play, pointing out that “Republican complaints ‘ring hollow’…the Senate has moved to approve an ‘overwhelming majority’ of Bush’s nominees – confirming more than 86 percent of those nominees, compared to the less than 75 percent of Clinton nominees approved by the GOP-controlled Senate.”
Let’s hope that Senate leadership continues to resist pressure from movement conservatives looking to score cheap political points. The fact is, Bush has consistently put up right - wing ideologues for positions on the federal bench and Senate Democrats should stand up for a fair judiciary and continue to resist further attempts to pack our courts. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) claimed that “if [Democrats] really want to play the political game on judges, Republicans will win.” Sounds like Bush and his allies are the ones looking to play games with the courts.
FCC to Probe Mysterious "60 Minutes" Blackout
According to the Associated Press and Reuters, the Federal Communications Commission is moving forward with an investigation into a curiously timed blackout during a "60 Minutes" segment on the criminal prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The Federal Communications Commission is investigating why an Alabama television station went dark during a Feb. 24 broadcast of a "60 Minutes" installment.For more background on this controversy, read our post from last Thursday, "Scott Horton Discusses Siegelman Controversy on MSNBC".
The blackout occurred on WHNT-TV in Huntsville, Ala., during a segment on imprisoned former Gov. Don Siegelman that suggested he was the victim of a Republican conspiracy. The station blamed the outage on equipment failure.
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday that the agency had received "some 20-odd complaints" regarding the broadcast and had told staff to send a letter asking for an explanation of the incident. A "letter of inquiry" is routine when reviewing complaints against a station and is the first step in an investigation of a broadcast licensee.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Senate Judiciary Committee Can't Seem to Play Nice
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on Friday, crying "no fair!" and complaining that so far, the Senate confirmed fewer Bush nominees than were approved during Clinton's final year (when Republicans had control). Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Specter said, "[T]here must be confirmations or at least up-or-down votes on 9 additional circuit court and 23 district court judges to equal President Clinton’s record."
What Specter forgets to mention however, is that Bush has not even nominated as many judges as there are seats to be filled. The president and his allies in the Senate like to point a collective finger at Democrats and claim that it is because of their "obstructionism" that vacancies exist in the federal judiciary. In reality, Bush has only put forward 10 nominees for 14 circuit court vacancies. Anyone can see that Bush cares less about filling vacancies than he does about advancing his agenda through the judges that he appoints. The circumstances this year are not even comparable to what they were at the end of Clinton's final term.
President Clinton routinely consulted with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) regarding his nominees and consistently put up consensus candidates to fill circuit seats. President Bush on the other hand, has repeatedly refused to consult with even home-state senators on his nominees and in several cases has put forward candidates who faced widespread opposition even from Republican senators (see E. Duncan Getchell). As Leahy put it in his response to Specter's complaints, “If the White House and the Senate Republicans were serious about filling vacancies and not just seeking to score partisan political points, the president would not make nominations opposed by home state senators of both parties.”
Let's hope Leahy continues to hold his position and doesn't let the White House and its allies to score "partisan political points." Judges should be confirmed to the federal bench on the basis of their qualifications and judicial philosophy, not as a result of conservative scare-tactics.
What Specter forgets to mention however, is that Bush has not even nominated as many judges as there are seats to be filled. The president and his allies in the Senate like to point a collective finger at Democrats and claim that it is because of their "obstructionism" that vacancies exist in the federal judiciary. In reality, Bush has only put forward 10 nominees for 14 circuit court vacancies. Anyone can see that Bush cares less about filling vacancies than he does about advancing his agenda through the judges that he appoints. The circumstances this year are not even comparable to what they were at the end of Clinton's final term.
President Clinton routinely consulted with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) regarding his nominees and consistently put up consensus candidates to fill circuit seats. President Bush on the other hand, has repeatedly refused to consult with even home-state senators on his nominees and in several cases has put forward candidates who faced widespread opposition even from Republican senators (see E. Duncan Getchell). As Leahy put it in his response to Specter's complaints, “If the White House and the Senate Republicans were serious about filling vacancies and not just seeking to score partisan political points, the president would not make nominations opposed by home state senators of both parties.”
Let's hope Leahy continues to hold his position and doesn't let the White House and its allies to score "partisan political points." Judges should be confirmed to the federal bench on the basis of their qualifications and judicial philosophy, not as a result of conservative scare-tactics.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Who's Court Is It?
Alliance for Justice has fought for 29 years to maintain a fair and independent judiciary, but our mission has not been simply to vet those candidates nominated to the federal bench. AFJ has also consistently believed that every American should have access to our justice system and that anyone who has been victimized by government or corporate policy should have recourse in the courts. Unfortunately, over the past several decades, concerted efforts by the Right have succeeded in limiting the scope of judicial review in American's lives.
On Friday, long-time AFJ supporter and partner in several of our campaigns, Herman Schwartz wrote an article for the Washington Independent discussing just how far these limits to judicial authority have advanced.
On Friday, long-time AFJ supporter and partner in several of our campaigns, Herman Schwartz wrote an article for the Washington Independent discussing just how far these limits to judicial authority have advanced.
Though most public attention has focused on the social issues, these cases come before federal judges only occasionally, and have not been the primary target of conservative and right-wing judges. A more frequently pursued goal—and one that rarely receives attention—is shutting the court house door to those wrongly injured by public officials and others.To read the entire article, click here. To learn more about Alliance for Justice's fight for equal access to justice, check out our website here: http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/preserving-access-courts.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)