SCOTUS: Help Expose Filibuster Hypocrisy From GOP “Leadership”

There are plenty of questions that need to be asked and answered on legal grounds about Sotomayor before confirmation. She’s well-qualified, well-versed in the law, and more than capable of explaining her rationale on any number of those opinions in open session in the Senate.

And they should be asked, by Senators of both parties, based on her actual words and writing.

But not based on caricatured cardboard cut-outs ginned up for mass marketing consumption of the dittoheads and the wingnutty among us. Senators who peddle dog-whistle filth ought to be shamed out of office. And anyone calling themselves a political leader who trucks in that nonsense ought to be publicly shamed as well.

Of course, that assumes that these people are still capable of feeling shame, and that’s an open question in far too many cases, isn’t it?

The fact that Sotomayor has tawny skin and boobies? It’s been brought, by the bucket load, by GOP "leaders" — pundits, political operatives, smarm purveyors — the last week or so since Sotomayor’s nomination.

And now? Here we are.

“We request that you will lead 40 or more senators to participate in a great debate that highlights all the issues that come to the fore with a Supreme Court nomination,” says the letter, addressed to Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader from Kentucky….

The signatories include a broad swath of the conservative movement, including evangelicals, gun-rights advocates, anti-tax leaders, anti-abortion groups, libertarians and local Republican leaders.

The letter was organized by the Manuel Miranda, a former adviser on judicial issues to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee. Mr. Miranda now runs the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservatives focused on judges. (Text of the letter.) [PDF]

Yes, that’s the same Manuel Miranda who got caught hacking and then pilfering through Democratic judiciary staff computer files. He’s a real piece of work, but don’t think the NYTimes will tell you that — nary a peep about Mr. Miranda’s smarmy bona fides.

Take a look at the signatories on that letter link — it’s a who’s who of GOP political asshattery: Grover Norquist, Miranda, David Keene, Richard Viguerie, it goes on and on. I’m going to list the full signatories below the fold — and I’d love it if folks could pick a signatory and do a bit of research on statements previously made against filibusters for judicial nominees. Extra bonus points if you can find them made about not filibustering SCOTUS nominees. Recall the "up or down vote" constant crusade?

Huge props if you find them coming from someone running a supposedly "non-political" 501(c)(3). Or a serial recipient of wingnut welfare.

Hypocrisy needs more exposure, don’t you think?

PS — The Peanut has her kindergarten graduation this morning. So I’m a bit swamped with momma duties today. Sorry not to be able to hit the ground running with you — but anything you can dig up would be fab. Leave it in the comments below and we’ll continue working on this in the days ahead. Huge thanks, gang — you all are so good at digging, I know we’ll find some pay dirt in any number of places. Thanks again!

Signatories on the GOP Sotomayor Filibuster Push letter:

Manuel A. Miranda, Chairman
Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
David Keene, American Conservative Union
Gary Bauer, American Values
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America
Dr. Virginia Armstrong, Eagle Forum’s Court Watch
Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring
Mark R. Levin. President, Landmark Legal Foundation
Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family
Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America
Rev. Miguel Rivera, National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders
Dr. Carl Herbster, AdvanceUSA
Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality
Willes K. Lee, Hawaii Republican Party. Immediate Past Chairman
Ron Robinson, Young America’s Foundation
Michael P. Farris, Esq., Home School Legal Defense Association
Peter Flaherty, National Legal and Policy Center
Kelly Shackelford. Liberty Legal Institute
Dana Cody, Life Legal Defense Foundation.
Susan Carleson, American Civil Rights Union
Phillip Jauregui, Judicial Action Group,
Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute
Dean John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law
Dean Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Univ. School of Law (Founder, Liberty Counsel)
Prof. Teresa S. Collett. University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minnesota
Prof. Ronald D. Rotunda, Chapman University School of Law
Michelle Gress, J.D., The Westchester Institute for Ethics
L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center
Thomas A. Glessner, JD, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
Denise Singleton, American Federation of Senior Citizens
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
Rev. Rick Scarborough, Vision America
Rev. Louis Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Keith Wiebe, American Association of Christian Schools
Debbie Joslin, Alaska Eagle Forum, Republican National Committeewoman, Alaska
Bruce Ash, Republican National Committeeman, Arizona
Steve Scheffler, Iowa Christian Alliance, Republican National Committeeman, Iowa
W. Ross Little, Jr., Republican National Committeeman, Louisiana
Curly Haugland, Republican National Committeeman, North Dakota
Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum, Republican National Committeewoman, Texas
Kathy Terry, Republican National Committeewoman, Virginia
David Ridenour, The National Center for Public Policy Research
Amy Ridenour, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Jeffrey Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom
William H. Shaker. Rule of Law Committee
William J. Murray, Religious Freedom Coalition
J. C. Willke, MD, International Right to Life Federation
Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute
Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, Human Life International
Dr. Patricia McEwen, Life Coalition International
Austin Ruse, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Jennifer Kimball, Culture of Life Foundation
Eric Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League
John Jansen, Generations for Life
Mark L. Melcher – The Political Forum
Deal W. Hudson. Catholic Advocate
Brian Burch, Fidelis and CatholicVote.org
John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com
Tom Shields, Coalition for Marriage and Family
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
William Greene, Ph.D., RightMarch.com
Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud
Mychal Massie, Project 21
Linda Harvey, Mission America
David Crowe, Restore America
Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
Robert Peters, Morality in Media
C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Dave Bydalek, Family First
Richard Ford, Heritage Alliance
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Tim Echols, Teenpact Leadership
Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute
Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance
Mary Anne Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois
James Dunlap, Citizens for Community Values of Indiana
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Dr. Don Racheter, Iowa Wednesday Group
Dennis K. Baxley, Christian Coalition of Florida
Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation (Kentucky)
Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum
Jason Stern, Louisiana Family Forum Action
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Joseph Ureneck, The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan
Pastor Paul Blair, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Fran Bevan, Pennsylvania Eagle Forum
Harry Levine, Victory NH
Carolee Adams, Eagle Forum of New Jersey
Marie E. Tasy, New Jersey Right to Life
Bill Brooks, North Carolina Family Policy Council Action
Bobbie Patray, Tennessee Eagle Forum
Beverly Roberts, Texas Concerned Women for America
Betty Anderson, Eagle Forum of Montgomery Co., Texas
Daniel J. Cassidy, Editor, Sunlit Uplands, South Carolina
Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com
Jim Sutherland, California
Lester J. Larsen, Colorado
Chris Dickson, Indiana
Don Feder, Feder Associates, Massachussetts
Doug Reaume, Michigan
Didi Lima, Nevada
Ed Holdgate, New Hampshire
Stephen M. De Luca, New Jersey
Candace deRussy, New York
John C. Armor, Esq., North Carolina
Ed Gehringer, North Carolina
Jerry Stevens, South Carolina
Janet M. LaRue, Esq., Jan LaRue Consulting, Texas
Donna Garner, Texas
Larry Cirgnano, Virginia
Kenneth D. Whitehead, former Assistant Secretary of Education, Virginia
Jeffrey Lord, author, The Borking Rebellion
Mark I. Sutherland, author, Judicial Tyranny
Martha Zoller, "The Martha Zoller Show", Georgia News Network
Janet Parshall, Nationally Syndicated Talk show Host

 
34 Responses to "SCOTUS: Help Expose Filibuster Hypocrisy From GOP “Leadership”"
oldgold | Tuesday June 2, 2009 02:35 pm 1

Christy,
The National Coalition To End Filibusters sent a letter to 14 Senators on June 30, 2005 in connection wth the nomination of Henry Saad to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The full letter is here: http://www.cwfa.org/images/con…..letter.pdf

A key paragraph is here:

We commend Leader Frist and the Republican leadership for the recent extraordinary
allocation of Senate time to judicial nominations and for standing up for principle, and
not just for party, in readying to end judicial filibusters. You took the road of statesmen.

Most remarkable is that Miguel Miranda signed this June 30, 2005 letter and seems to be listed as the contact person at the foot of the letter, as follows:

For inquiry or response contact mmiranda@att.net

By my rough count, 47 people signed both letters.


cbl2 | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:12 pm 2
In response to oldgold @ 1

showoff !! *g*

excellent find !!

fyi – Miranda was just on Tweety’s show (along with Lafferty) and Tweety failed to mention Miranda’s, um, work

and btw Christy, that list is a veritable codex of wingnut welfare – where do I sign ?!?!?


alank | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:15 pm 3

I don’t understand the attraction of watching knuckle-draggers spinning their wheels.


ART45 | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:19 pm 4

Sotomayer is good, bad, or otherwise.

I think otherwise. So, I shrug.

But why the support for her here? Because she’s Obama’s nominee?

I take that with a grain of salt.

Sotomayer rises or falls based on her judicial opinions. On these, I give her a B.


cbl2 | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:19 pm 5

Before Miranda’s Third Branch Conference rebranded itself, it was the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters – replete with nuclear option

linky


readerOfTeaLeaves | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:22 pm 6
In response to cbl2 @ 2

Yeah, how fast can I stick my hand in that stream of ill-got gains called Wingnut Welfare…?

Oldgold, brilliant catch ;-)

Can I just say that I’m sick of having the news, the Congress, and this nation bullied by cheap shots?

Anyone who puffs up one statement in about 17 years is a weenie of the first order.

However, as this plays out, it really confirms my hunch that some very powerful interests don’t give a rat’s ass about many things in US life (after all, when you’ve got a nice hideout in the Alps, do you really give a shit about Missouri…?).

But they do care about corporate laws, access, and influence.
They’re probably perfectly happy to let the ‘pro-choice crowd’ dig into every imagined scab, wound, and orifice of anyone nominated by Obama.

But when all is said and done, this is irresponsible.
It’s a very big deal: the SCOTUS.
I get that.
But at the same time, how much time and energy are these people going to suck into this topic while global warming, foreign policy, finance, and heaven only knows what else spins totally out of control.

This is why some of us just walked away from trying to work within government structures; it’s all gridlock. Nothing gets accomplished; everyone calls everybody else a tramp, scum, or ‘immoral’, and the world sinks further into madness.

These people need to figure out what it means to sometimes suck it up and ‘take the high road’.


peterboy | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:25 pm 7

alito–princeton and harvard law. not actually summa cum laude….did some time on the bench, but while at Princeton was part of a club that attacked the school for evolving and admitting women, and increasing minority enrollment.

sotomayor–princeton and yale law. summa cum laude. did 17 years on the bench. was part of a group at princeton that attacked the school for not admitting enough women and minorities.

Princeton hates her so much that it made her a TRUSTEE!

what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


dosido | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:27 pm 8

I notice one of the groups is named “Restore America”. That sounds a little, I don’t know, “America sucks today”. Hmmm. don’t they love their country? /s

Anyway, my definition of an “activist judge” is, wait for it, the ever scampy and rambunctious Judge Scalia! If a judge is going to just throw out twenty year old laws that protect people when they are arrested, hey! anything goes! read all about it at hugh’s diary: http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5579


readerOfTeaLeaves | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:28 pm 9

Anyone who puffs up one statement in about 17 years is a weenie of the first order.

All the fuss and fluster over Sodomayor’s one statement about whether or not ‘the courts’ make law is such bullshit!

Anyone who’s ever been on a council and had someone sue the city over an ordinance or a law knows that ‘on appeal’ it’s the j-u-d-g-e who decides what, in the end, the law actually ‘means’.

So by hammering Sodomayor on this one statement, what thoroughly disgusts me about this ‘filibuster!’ nonsense is that they signal every single person in this nation that you can’t be candid, you can’t be forthright, you can’t say what you think — if you do, at some future time, the Wingnut Welfare brigade will be fully funded to take your one statement over a period of 17 years and try and make it appear that you are either power hungry, or unreasonable — simply for stating publicly what anyone with half a brain and one year on a city council knows quite well!

What they’re really saying is: “We’ll smear anyone who’s honest! We’ll smear anyone who tells the truth!”

What. A. Mess.


dosido | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:29 pm 10
In response to ART45 @ 4

Agreed.


peterboy | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:30 pm 11

Sotomayor Law Clerks send letter to Senators:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2009

Attached, please find a letter that was sent this morning to Senators Reid, McConnell, Leahy, and Sessions from law clerks of Judge Sonia Sotomayor expressing their full support for her elevation to the Supreme Court.

##

June 1, 2009

The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader
United States Senate
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
335 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, Chairman Leahy, and Ranking Member Sessions:

As former law clerks to the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, we write this letter to offer our enthusiastic and wholehearted support for President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Our group includes federal prosecutors and other government lawyers; private law firm partners and in-house corporate counsel; and legal academics and public interest lawyers. Although our professional experiences are diverse, we are united in our strong belief that Judge Sotomayor is a brilliant and first-rate judge who is an ideal selection for our nation’s highest court.

Judge Sotomayor’s professional qualifications are indisputably stellar. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Supreme Court Justice in a century. Judge Sotomayor’s three-decade career as a big-city prosecutor, corporate litigator, federal trial judge, and federal appellate judge has equipped her with a wide range of experience in nearly every area of law and uniquely qualifies her for this position.

As former law clerks to Judge Sotomayor, each of us can attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic, and commitment to the rule of law. Working for Judge Sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. We each had the privilege of working closely with her as she confronted, and resolved, incredibly complex and intellectually demanding legal challenges. Judge Sotomayor approaches each case with an open mind and arrives at her decision only after carefully considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules of law. She brings to each case not only her formidable intellect, but also her practical judgment, honed from years of real-world law practice and experience solving difficult problems as a federal district court and appellate judge. Numerous commentators have remarked upon Judge Sotomayor’s wealth of judicial experience. This experience is clear whenever she takes the bench. Judge Sotomayor is thoughtful, engaged, and well-prepared during oral argument, showing an extraordinary grasp of the factual details and legal nuances of her cases. She is a judge who is tough and fair, yet highly respectful of her colleagues in the judiciary (including those with whom she sometimes disagrees) and the litigants appearing before her. Nor does she ever lose sight of the real-world impact of her decisions. Our view of Judge Sotomayor mirrors her reputation among her colleagues on the bench and among members of the bar who have practiced before her, who widely respect her intellectual dynamism, collegiality, and balanced, fair jurisprudence.

Judge Sotomayor’s compelling life story has by now been widely reported. For those of us who know her well, she is truly an inspiration, and we know that she will serve as a superb role model for countless young people. While never forgetting her beginnings, Judge Sotomayor has achieved so much in the best American tradition – through extraordinary talent and tireless hard work. Whether prosecuting felonies as a district attorney, litigating complex commercial disputes as a law firm partner, or sitting as a trial or appellate judge, she has always shown a commitment to understanding the concerns of individuals from all walks of life, and to ensuring that all Americans have access to justice.

Judge Sotomayor’s personal dynamism is also legendary. She teaches at New York’s top law schools, participates in charitable and community events, and maintains legions of friendships. She is a wonderful colleague admired by her fellow judges, and is a committed mentor to her clerks. As former law clerks, we feel especially privileged to be part of her extended “family.” Judge Sotomayor has officiated at our weddings, celebrated the births of our children, and has cheered us on to achieve personal and professional success.

Judge Sotomayor is an extraordinary judge and an extraordinary woman. Her combination of intellect, integrity, and vast experience will make her an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. We unconditionally support her nomination and urge you to confirm her as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Adam Abensohn
Adam Abensohn
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1996-97, 1998-99

/s/ Alison Nodvin Barkoff
Alison Nodvin Barkoff
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2000-01

/s/ Julie H. Becker
Julie H. Becker
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1999-2000

/s/ Edward J.W. Blatnik
Edward J. W. Blatnik
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2000-01

/s/ Hannah Y.S. Chanoine
Hannah Shay Chanoine
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2004-05

/s/ Kevin E. Collins
Kevin E. Collins
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2002-03

/s/ Melissa Lynn Elstein
Melissa Lynn Elstein
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1998-99

/s/ Tracy M. Flynn
Tracy M. Flynn
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1994-95

/s/ Kimberly A. Gahan
Kimberly A. Gahan
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2007-08

/s/ Jessica Hertz
Jessica Hertz
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2007-08

/s/ Robin Kar
Robin Kar
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1998-99

/s/ Curtis A. Kin
Curtis A. Kin
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1999-2000

/s/ Andrew B. Ayers
Andrew B. Ayers
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2005-06

/s/ David A. Battat
David A. Battat
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1994-95

/s/ Molly Biklen
Molly Biklen
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2005-06

/s/ Charu A. Chandrasekhar
Charu A. Chandrasekhar
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2004-05

s/ Matthew Colangelo
Matthew Colangelo
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2002-03

/s/ Glenn C. Edwards
Glenn C. Edwards
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1997-98, 2001-02

/s/ Joseph Evall
Joseph Evall
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1992-93

/s/ Cary Franklin
Cary Franklin
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2005-06

/s/ Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2000-01

/s/ Kathy J. Holub
Kathy J. Holub
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1995-96

/s/ Mike Kavey
Mike Kavey
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2004-05

/s/ Timothy Lambert
Timothy Lambert
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2000-01

/s/ James R. Levine
James R. Levine
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2001-02

/s/ Julia Tarver Mason
Julia Tarver Mason
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1996-97

/s/ Sarah S. Normand
Sarah S. Normand
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1998-99

/s/ Xavier Romeu-Matta
Xavier Romeu-Matta
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1992-93

/s/ Melissa Murray
Melissa Murray
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2003-04

/s/ David S. Rubenstein
David S. Rubenstein
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2007-08

/s/ Alan E. Schoenfeld
Alan E. Schoenfeld
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2006-07

/s/ Danielle Feldman Tarantolo
Danielle Feldman Tarantolo
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2006-07

/s/ Jeannette Vargas
Jeannette Vargas
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2001-02

/s/ Natalie R. Williams
Natalie R. Williams
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1993-94

/s/ Lisa Zornberg
Lisa Zornberg
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1997-98

/s/ Jack A. Levy
Jack A. Levy
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1999-2000

/s/ Amy Carper Mena
Amy Carper Mena
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2003-04

/s/ Jenny Rivera
Jenny Rivera
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 1993-94

/s/ David Moskowitz
David Moskowitz
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2007-08

/s/ Claude Platton
Claude Platton
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2006-07

s/ Rose Saxe
Rose Saxe
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2002-03

/s/ Robert Spoo
Robert Spoo
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2003-04

/s/ Travis J. Tu
Travis J. Tu
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2003-04

/s/ Brent Wible
Brent Wible
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2005-06

/s/ Kyle C. Wong
Kyle C. Wong
Clerk for Judge Sotomayor, 2006-07

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_…..aw-Clerks/


allan | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:31 pm 12

A modest proposal:
In the interest of bipartisan comity, a Democratic senator should
file ethics charges against Lindsey Graham and John Kyl for submitting
a fabricated transcript of a Senate debate to SCOTUS back in 2006.
It won’t go anywhere of course, but will highlight the morals and ethics of the other side.


tejanarusa | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:48 pm 13
In response to peterboy @ 11

I hope these former clerks sent a copy of their letter to Jefffrey Rosen./s

And gee, she is so racist and so favors members of her own ethnic group over all others…that I can find all of two probable “Hispanic” surnames in that list of her clerks.

I cannot believe they will really try to filibuster her nomination. Even some Repubs, like Michael Medved and (hunh – I could swear I heard another, but name escapes me) are saying this stupid verbal attacking on madeup grounds is just hurting Republicans.


sysprog | Tuesday June 2, 2009 03:53 pm 14

I sorted the signatories on the April 4, 2005 letter by last name:

http://www.freedomworks.org/pu…..ers-letter

April 4, 2005
Dear Senators:
As the representatives of millions of American voices, we write to ask you to end the judicial filibusters at the earliest possible moment and well before a Supreme Court vacancy should occur.
[…]
Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum
Julaine K. Appling, The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin
Dr. Virginia Armstrong, Eagle Forums Court Watch
Jim Backlin, Christian Coalition of America
Jeff Ballabon, Center for Jewish Values
Inga Barks, Radio Host (Southern CA)
James E. Barrett, Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Gary L. Bauer, American Values
Jennifer Bingham, Susan B. Anthony List
David Blackwood, Maryland Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Dr. Craig Blaising, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
Gregory K. Blankenship, Illinois Policy Institute
Kevin W. Blier, Center for American Cultural Renewal
Charles Bolen, Past Chairman, West Virginia Young Republicans
Clint Bolick, Esq. (Arizona)
James Bopp, Jr., James Madison Center for Free Speech
L. Brent Bozell III, Conservative Victory Committee
Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society, Pro-life Law Center (Chicago)
Bill Brooks, North Carolina Family Policy Council
Ann Browning, California Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Phil Burress, Citizens for Community Values
Dr. S. Dale Burroughs, Biblical Heritage Institute
Bishop Keith Butler
David Bydalek, Family First (Nebraska)
Paul Caprio, Family-PAC Federal
Keith Carlson, Orange County (CA) Republican Lawyers Association
Robert B. Carlson, American Civil Rights Union
Samuel B. Casey, Christian Legal Society
Dr. Gary Cass, Center for Reclaiming America
Mark Chadwick, Southern Arizona Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Larry Cirignano, CatholicVote.org
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries
Ken Connor, Center for a Just Society
Mark Coyle, former Communications Director, WV Republican Party
Stephen M. Crampton, AFA Center for Law & Policy
James D. Daly, Focus on the Family
Kay R. Daly, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Don A. Daughtery, Wisconsin Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Maclin Davis, Tennessee Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Lisa DePasquale, Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute
Len Deo, New Jersey Family Policy Council
Chris Dickson, “The Dickson/Chappell Report”, (Midwest)
Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family
Dr. William A. Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Kevin P. Doran, Radio Talk Show host (New York)
Michael N. Duff, United Families Idaho
Dr. Barrett Duke, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship Ministries
Dr. John C. Eastman, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Dr. James Efaw, Colorado Association of Christian Schools
Brian T. Egan, New York Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Kenneth Endean, Maine Association of Christian Schools
Kurt Entsminger, Care Net
Mary T Erickson, Illinois Citizens for Life
Irwin Essenfeld, Renew Illinois Foundation
Brian Farrar, Syndicated talk show host, Michigan Talk Radio Network
Sadie Fields, Christian Coalition of Georgia
Brad Fleming, Maryland Association of Christian Educators
Richard Ford, Heritage Alliance
Clarke D. Forsythe, Esq. AULs Project on Law and Bioethics
Mark E. Foster, Oregon Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
James J. Fotis, Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Dom Giordano, 1210 AM Radio (Philadelphia)
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Thomas Glessner, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
Lee Goodman, Virginia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
C. Boyden Gray, Committee for Justice
William Greene, RightMarch.com
Dr. Joe Haas, North Carolina Christian School Association
Mary Anne Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois
Dorcas K. Harbert, GOP County Chair, Monongalia County, Morgantown, WV
Michael S. Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
Dr. Carl Herbster, AdvanceUSA
Michael Howden, Stronger Families
Chuck Hurley, Iowa Family Policy Center
Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Antioch Bible Church, Redmond, WA
Craig Hymowitz, Philadelphia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Roy Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Charles W. Jarvis, USA Next (United Seniors Association)
Michael L. Jestes, Oklahoma Family Policy Council
Dr. Ed Johnson, Minnesota Association of Christian Schools
Russell Johnson, American Restoration Project (Pastor, Fairfield Christian Church, OH)
David A. Keene, American Conservative Union
Warren Kelley, National Center for Freedom & Renewal
Oliver N.E. Kellman, Jr., National Faith Based Coalition
Dr. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries
Matt Kibbe, Freedom Works
West Virginia Senator Larry Kimble (R-WV)
Dr. Steven J. Kidder, New York State Family Policy Council, Inc.
Dave “Doc” Kirby, Radio Host (Alabama)
Jefferson Knight, Florida Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Dr. Ronald Konopaski, United For Life- San Francisco
Peter LaBarbera, Illinois Family Institute
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Grant M. Lally, Irish American Republicans
Richard Land, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
William F. Large, Alaska Republican Party
Dr. Steve Lemke, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Mark R. Levin, author of Men in Black
Hiram Lewis, Esq., West Virginia GOP
Manuel Lujan, Jr., Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute
Julie Lynde, Cornerstone Institute of Idaho
Connie Mackey, Family Research Council
Denise Mackura, Ohio Right to Life
James L. Martin, 60 Plus Association
Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network
Nancie Marzulla, Defenders of Property Rights
Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute
Bill May, Catholics for the Common Good
Jeffrey Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom
Brian McCabe, Progress for America
Brian McCarthy, Irish-American Republicans
Dr. Patricia McEwen, Life Coalition International
Vicki McKenna, Radio Host, News/Talk 1310 WIBA (Wisconsin)
Adam McManus, Radio Host of “Take A Stand” (Texas)
Rhet Miles, Chairman of the Benton County, Arkansas, Republican Committee
Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum
Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Joe Bob Mizzell, Alabama Baptist Christian Life Commission
Marta Montelongo, Radio Host (Central CA)
Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute
Len Munsil, The Center for Arizona Policy
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
Phyllis Berry Myers, New Black Leadership Coalition
Penny Nance, Kids First Coalition
C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation of Kentucky
Duane Parde, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
Tim Parish, Rocky Mountain Association of Christian Schools.
Janet Parshall, nationally syndicated Radio and TV host
Pastor Rod Parsley, Center for Moral Clarity
Dr. Paige Patterson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Tom Prichard, Minnesota Family Council
Cameron Quinn, Virginia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Robert E. Regier, South Dakota Family Policy Council
Ron Robinson, Young Americas Foundation
Lisa E. Roche, Esq, Maine Right to Life Committee
Kelly M. Rosati, JD, Hawaii Family Forum
Ray Ruddy, Gerard Health Foundation
Austin Ruse, Culture of Life Foundation
Peter A. Samuelson, Americans United for Life
Rick Scarborough, Vision America
Alan E. Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice
William B. Sellers, Alabama Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Paul D. Seyferth, Kansas Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Kelly Shackelford, Liberty Legal Institute
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition
Thomas A. Shields, Coalition for Marriage and Family
Craig Shirley, author, “Reagans Revolution; The Untold Story of the Campaign that Started it All.”
Ron Shuping, The Inspiration Television Networks
Mike Siegel, Radio host and author of Power Talk: The Influence of Talk Radio
Thomas Smith, America 21 (Tennessee)
Mike Snyder, The Wilberforce Forum
Mick Staton, Former Congressman (R-WV)
Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel
John Stemberger, Florida Family Action, Inc
Douglas P. Stiegler, Family Protection Lobby – Maryland
Frank B. Strickland, Georgia Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Mark Sutherland, Joyce Meyer Ministries
Lanier Swann, Concerned Women for America
Carol A. Taber, FamilySecurityMatters.com (former publisher, Working Woman and Working Mother magazines).
Karen Testerman, Cornerstone Policy Research
Harvey Tettlebaum, Republican National Lawyers Association
Forest Thigpen, Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Rev. Rusty Thomas, Eijah Ministries
William M. Todd, Ohio Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Rev. Keith Tucci, Life Coalition International
Leslee Unruh, Abstinence Clearinghouse
Michael Valerio, Vision America
Corey R. Weber, California Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
Thomas E. Wheeler, Indiana Republican National Lawyers Association Chapter
Dr. Keith Wiebe, American Association of Christian Schools
Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association
Alvin Williams, Black Americas PAC (BAMPAC)
Victor K. Williams, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America School of Law
Rev. Reece Yandle, South Carolina Association of Christian Schools
Martha Zoller, Radio Talk Show Host and Political Analyst (Georgia)


TheLurkingMod | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:00 pm 15

sysprog | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:00 pm 16

Wednesday, June 3, 2009, NYTimes:

http://nytimes.com/2009/06/03/…..judge.html“We don’t have enough Republicans to filibuster even if we wanted to, which I don’t think we do,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Judiciary Committee.


RevBev | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:09 pm 17
In response to ART45 @ 4

If you have not noticed that there is quite a bit of “light”/distance between many folks on this site and Pres. Obama, maybe you have not been paying attention….or just don’t want to get it.


dosido | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:15 pm 18

chuck colson? really? wow.


sysprog | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:23 pm 19

Manuel Miranda is nobody.

Mark Levin is the author of the #1 “nonfiction” book in the USA.

Here’s this week’s NYTimes Sunday Book Review list of hardcover nonfiction best sellers.

http://nytimes.com/2009/06/07/…..ction.html

# 1 LIBERTY AND TYRANNY, by Mark R. Levin. (Threshold Editions, $25.) A conservative manifesto from a talk-show host and president of Landmark Legal Foundation.

Mark Levin’s official bio, at his radio show’s web site:

http://marklevinshow.com/article.asp?id=1261987

[…] Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. […]

On Friday, January 27, 2006, Mark Levin said:

http://marklevinfan.com/?p=823

“Yet the very act of a filibuster against a judicial nominee is in my view unconstitutional. This is how liberals talk. This is how they behave. They say one thing and they mean another. They speak out of one side of their mouth as well as the other.”

- – Mark Levin, January 27, 2006


Teddy Partridge | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:44 pm 20

If Amy Ridenour and Peter LaBarbera are for it, I’m against it.

Just on general principle. I don’t need to know anything else: their names suffice.

(Great pic, Christy! Elephants in the rear-view, right where they belong.)


Oilfieldguy | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:47 pm 21

There is a name I am not finding, but I cannot recall what her name is. Very active political operative with her fingerprints on virtually every filthy deed from the Republican party. Has been the subject of many posts here at fdl, was the trainer of Monica Goodling for oppo research at the RNC.


newtonusr | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:50 pm 22
In response to Oilfieldguy @ 21

Barbara Comstock?


Oilfieldguy | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:51 pm 23

Yup.


Oilfieldguy | Tuesday June 2, 2009 04:52 pm 24

Guess she was busy.


tejanarusa | Tuesday June 2, 2009 05:03 pm 25

Well, I checked one group the “Susan B. Anthony List”, represented by Jennifer -it seems to be a mock-Emily’s List with the single-issue of opposing abortion.

Among the posts on their home page was a piece on the “radicalism” of Dawn Johnsen, and of course, a “statement” on the death of George Tiller by an “unidentified gunman.”
“This week as we gather for our annual June Tea event, themed Love Lets Live, we will lift up George Tiller’s loved ones in prayer.”
Words fail.


sysprog | Tuesday June 2, 2009 05:03 pm 26

Comstock is running for office.

http://www.va11gop.org/campaign/hd34.php


TJ11 | Tuesday June 2, 2009 05:59 pm 27

The Republicans don’t want a filibuster – they want a “Great Debate” on the issue of Sotomayor’s fitness for the job.

How would a Great Debate be complete without full and complete coverage of the entire Republican case supporting the Party’s conclusion that she is racist, and all the juicy evidence to support that (member of La Raza, likes Puerto Rican food, etc.)

In fact, I think that such a Great Debate on these important issues, stretched out for an extended time, with television “cut aways from regular programming” to check on the status of the Great Debate, and the important arguments would be highly informative and educational for American voters.

I personally believe that the result of this Great Debate would be a staggering decline in Hispanic support for the Republican party as far as the eye can see. What’s not to like?

The only problem is forcing Senator Reid to actually allow the Republicans to destroy their party by making them actually debate, instead of backing off at the slightest threat of the filibuster and giving in to whatever the Republican “bullies” want him to do.


regulararmyfool | Tuesday June 2, 2009 06:45 pm 28

Sotomayor may be jesus’s sister. She may be 6 feet 11 inches tall. She may be as yellow as gold. Makes not one litttle bit of difference to me . She belongs to a cult known as the catholic church. There are already five too many of her cult on the supreme court. I would prefer Sirhan Sirhan as the next justice. Catholic in no way means democratic. It does not mean kindness to strangers. It in no way follows the new testament. It is a male dominated cult that fawns on the rich, hates the poor, is probigbigbusiness, antiunion and loathes women except as breeding stock and favors the ownership of women and children by males. It ostensibly favors children while having one of the highest recorded rates of child abuse in the world. All but a few of the cult leaders are sexually warped ranging from asexual to serial rapists. The chief cultist lives in a palace surrounded by the richest art objects in the world. His followers typically have less income than any other religion and more deviance in dogma than most religions. The cult opposes freedom of study, freedom of reading and claims occult powers of changing cheap crackers and bad wine into the body of the original cult leader in a cult belief in cannibalism. Matched only by thugee worship in India in evil practices.

Yep, just what I want on the supreme court 6 people who will decide based on a religion that even southern crackers look down on.

Yes, but she’s a woman. So what? How many votes have been decided by one more woman on the court, two, three? Drop the nomination and the waste of energy until you get an american who is actually democratically inclined. Sotomayor can get along just fine at her present level. She should never have been nominated. Until all five of the current catholics are retired, there is absolutely no reason to nominate anyone for a position on the court.

From the history of the court so far in this century, the average american would be much better off if the court could not assemble a quorum. No one but a total idiot would allow another of these cultists on the court.


bemar | Tuesday June 2, 2009 10:34 pm 29

John Eastman said at a hearing on May 6, 2003 (linked here: http://www.fed-soc.org/publica…..detail.asp):

Let me first note that I’m not opposed to the filibuster, per se, either as a matter of policy or constitutional law. I think the Senate, within certain structural limits is authorized to enact procedural mechanisms such as the filibuster pursuant to its power to adopt rules for its own proceedings. And I think that by encouraging extensive debate, the filibuster has in no small measure contributed to this body’s reputation as history’s greatest deliberative body.

But I think it extremely important to distinguish between the use of the filibuster to enhance debate and the abuse of the filibuster to thwart the will of the people as expressed through the majority of their elected representatives.

The use of the filibuster for dilatory purposes is particularly troubling in the context of the judicial confirmation process, for it thwarts not just the majority in the Senate and the people that elected that majority as any filibuster of ordinary legislation does, but it intrudes upon the president’s power to nominate judges and ultimately threatens the independence of the judiciary itself.

. . .

Contrary to the testimony of Senator Schumer earlier and the comments like Senator Kennedy, [the Advice and Consent Clause?] is not designed to [provide?] a co-equal role in the confirmation process to this body.

The primary role, as Joseph Storey (ph) himself acknowledged in his constitutional treaties (ph), was given to the president with a limited check in this body to make sure that the president did not abuse that power. Ultimately it becomes clear that one of the few ways that we have to control the unelected judiciary, which was designed specifically to be counter-majoritarian, is over time, through the use of the president elected by the citizenry of this country to appoint judges who agree with the political views of the country.

I really doubt we’ll hear him emphasize the last part any time soon.

More fun from the full testimony, at the internet archive here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200…..timony.pdf

Heading 1, p.3 reads:

The Constitutional Structure of the Appointment Process Envisions a More Limited Role for the Senate than is Currently Claimed, and None for a Minority Faction of the Senate.

Then we have, “The advice and consent role envisioned by the Constitution’s text is one conferred on the Senate as a body, acting pursuant to the ordinary principal of majority rule.” (p. 11). “Whether the filibuster is an unconstitutional restriction on a majority of the Senate in ordinary legislation has been much debated, but its use in the judicial confirmation process is particularly troubling.” (p. 12).

As I note above, Eastman doesn’t think that the filibuster for judicial nominees is unconstitutional as such (but see below). “A filibuster rule designed to encourage necessary debate is certainly within the scope of this constitutional provision, but a filibuster designed not to encourage debate but to thwart the will of the majority long after the debate has run its course runs afoul of other constitutional norms, such as the requirement for majority rule in the absence of a specific constitutional provision to the contrary.” (p. 13). But he also argues that the President’s power to appoint judges is a check on the judiciary, and that the President has a constitutionally greater role because the president is accountable in ways that Senators are not (14-15). (Not clear how that is an argument from original constitutional design given the electoral college, but never mind).

Eastman supports modifying the cloture rule to make sure that debate is limited, not unlimited. (”A third alternative would be to amend Senate Rule XXII to allow for a limited use of the filibuster to guarantee a reasonable time for debate without ultimately giving to a minority faction a veto power over a Senate majority.” (p. 17)). One question for him would be whether the filibuster of judicial nominees is justified absent such a change in the rules, i.e. when the minority is using an essentially limitless power but pays lip service to the idea of debate without acceding to demands for institutional constraints on the power. If Democrats did that, it’s pretty clear where Eastman would stand, I think.

He closes with the following: “In sum, there is good reason that the filibuster has only rarely been used in the context of judicial confirmations, and never before against a circuit court judge. The use of the filibuster thwarts the will of the majority, and is therefore not only undemocratic but very likely unconstitutional.” (p. 21).

So perhaps he wants to have it both ways.


bemar | Tuesday June 2, 2009 10:39 pm 30

sorry, my bad html ate perhaps the best part of Eastman’s prepared testimony:

“The Constitutional Structure of the Appointment Process Envisions a
More Limited Role for the Senate than is Currently Claimed, and None
for a Minority Faction of the Senate.” Heading I, p. 3.

Yes, “none,” i.e., the Constitution gives the minority faction (the Republican party) no role in the appointment process. Pretty stunning, when stated that way.


bemar | Tuesday June 2, 2009 10:50 pm 31

Michael P. Farris in 2005:

https://www.hslda.org/courtreport/V20N1/V20N101.asp

The easiest change would be to eliminate the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. If judges were approved by a simple majority vote—not the 60 votes currently required—it would be a victory for self-government in every aspect of the decision.

We need to urge this permanent change. We should not worry about what happens when the liberals are in control of the Senate. Republican Senators almost always vote to confirm Democrat-nominated judges anyway. The principles of self-government and majority rule should be the same in good times and in bad.

If the Senate refuses to do this, more radical measures must be considered.

The “more radical measures” include term limits and election of judges.


bemar | Tuesday June 2, 2009 10:51 pm 32
In response to bemar @ 31

2004, sorry.


bemar | Tuesday June 2, 2009 10:56 pm 33

This is fun. Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute, May 2005:

If the Framers of the Constitution had thought it prudent to require a two-thirds or three-fifths vote, they would have included that requirement. But they intentionally did not. In fact, it was argued that even giving the Senate an “advise and consent” role would make the President a minion of the Senate and thus subordinate the office of the Presidency to the legislative branch.

A careful reading of the deliberations of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention make it clear that the argument that we now need 60 votes to confirm a federal judge is a blatant misrepresentation of the Framers’ intentions. It is another example of how liberals work to bypass the Constitution and impose their agenda on the rest of the nation, usually against the will of the majority. This is the very thing that the Framers wanted to avoid by taking the appointment power away from the Senate.

What does this mean in the context of the debate over changing the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster of the President’s judicial appointees? It means that the rules of the Senate, which are written and adopted by the Senate and not the people, should be made subservient to the Constitution and the people.

The rules of the Senate are not sacrosanct and they are not above or even equal to the Constitution. Despite what the liberals say, the Framers gave us a Constitution that is a contract between the people and their government. And in that contract the power to appoint judges resides with the President and that power is not to be diminished by a minority of liberal obstructionists senators.

http://www.alabamapolicy.org/g…..id_art=145


bemar | Tuesday June 2, 2009 11:48 pm 34

Last comment from me here: it’s pretty clear that the people who signed this letter want to use the filibuster to block a nominee that they don’t like (in ways that they criticized the Dems for doing under Bush), but they’re also trying to frame their use of the filibuster as “traditional,” even though they shot that argument to pieces in 2003 – 2005.

But the real kicker is: why is a filibuster necessary to have debate, as opposed to an ordinary agreement between majority and minority leader to have extended floor debate? The reason: the latter doesn’t threaten to (a) shut the Senate down and take away an unpredictable amount of extremely valuable floor time, and (b) it won’t get the same kind of public attention (there is no bad publicity, after all).

Folks who propose the use of the filibuster to draw out debate on nominees should have to answer why they pitched all their anti-filibuster arguments overboard, when, on the face of it, simple floor debate would suffice to highlight the issues they want to highlight.

Perhaps they’d say that without the threat of filibuster, they won’t get enough floor debate. But if using the filibuster to kill nominees is bad, how can it be good to threaten to use the filibuster to kill nominees in order to extend debate?

Remember: Eastman said that the minority “faction” has literally no constitutional role in nominations, and the central Advice and Consent check on the judiciary is not the Senate but presidential appointments responding to popular will. I don’t understand how he squares that view with his support of the filibuster to draw out debate by threatening to kill the nominee.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close