JUSTICE DENIED

The New York Times lead editorial today is fraught with irony and misrepresentations. It’s all about the two female judicial nominations by President Bush destined for a Democratic filibuster, Justices Owen and Brown.

The Times starts off by saying how conciliatory the Democrats in the Senate have been to President Bush regarding his judicial nominees:

“Senate Democrats have confirmed almost all of President Bush's judicial nominations, more than 200 of them. But they have balked at a few of the least qualified, most ideologically driven nominees.”

Firstly, I think at least SOME Republicans have been in on the confirmation of the 200 nominees, but I digress. Why the Times had to say “Senate Democrats” is because they are studiously ignoring the fact that it’s the Democrats who have used arcane rules to block an up or down vote. The Times gives the impression that the “ideologically driven nominees” have been voted down.

The first of the “disqualifications” the Times come up with for Justice Owen are high-larious:

“Justice Owen was elected to the Texas Supreme Court with Karl Rove as a campaign consultant, and with donations from Enron and other large corporations. On the court, she has a record of reflexively ruling in favor of corporations, including Enron.”

Not Karl Rove!!!! Enron, too??!! Heavens to Betsy!

Amongst the deranged left, Karl Rove is the new Hitler and Enron the Nazis – any association with them (and Halliburton, of course) makes you unclean. I would love to hear about this “reflexive” ruling in favor of Enron – my guess is that it affects a lot of corporations, not just Enron. Plenty of Judges have made rulings that affect corporations and most of them would affect a gigantic corporation like Enron, much like they affect WalMart and Microsoft, too.

Justice Brown gets some particularly vicious attacks:

“Justice Brown, currently a member of the California Supreme Court, is an extreme right-wing ideologue. She is an outspoken supporter of a radical movement to take constitutional law back to before 1937, when the federal government had little power to prevent discrimination, protect workers from unsafe conditions or prohibit child labor. She has attacked the New Deal, which created Social Security, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution."

I’ll let the “extreme right-wing ideologue” bit pass, but how come we don’t get details of this “radical movement” the Times speaks of? Without the details, I have a hard time taking this charge seriously. And come on – are you telling me the New Deal wasn’t a bit of socialism? Get over yourself.

The final paragraph is a dozy:

“The Republicans are trying to make the fight about process, about whether the Democrats have a right to filibuster judicial nominees. It is a dishonest discussion: Senator Frist does not like to admit that he participated in a filibuster of an appeals court nomination made by President Clinton. But even more important, the discussion of process is crowding out the debate we should be hearing over whether the nominees being fought over would make good federal judges. Justice Owen and Justice Brown have extensive records that point to the inescapable conclusion that they would not.”

Uh, this fight is about process – the process that denies a vote to 100 members of the Senate. For the Times to call on REPUBLICANS for the “debate we should be hearing over whether the nominees being fought over would make good federal judges” is particularly egregious. It’s the Republicans who want the debate and a vote, it’s your precious Democrats who are denying you that.

I hate the Times. They lie like a rug.