Impact of Bush-Nominated Appeals Court Judges
October 6, 2006 10:13 PM   Subscribe

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears. "Federal appeals court judges nominated by President Bush are threatening and undermining Americans’ rights and liberties, and working to reduce congressional authority to protect those rights and liberties, according to a legal analysis (PDF) published today by People For the American Way Foundation." [Via Talkleft.]
posted by homunculus (20 comments total)
 
In other news: Signing Statement Allows Cronyism to Thrive at FEMA
posted by homunculus at 10:20 PM on October 6, 2006


this is fine by me. The people made their choice in 2000 & especially 2004, now we get to live with it.

I used to be up in arms about the judges thing, then I realized that their decisions really have no effect on me, and some of the major ones ... Kelo, Gonzales, etc the liberal judges voted the wrong way anways. Long live the Federalist Society, hopefully they got some of their peeps in this latest batch of boobs appointed to the bench.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:22 PM on October 6, 2006


Actually bush rammed through two judges a month or so ago and the dems didn't do shit.
posted by delmoi at 10:34 PM on October 6, 2006


Because the purpose of this look at President Bush’s appellate judges was to determine whether and to what extent those judges are having an impact on these significant areas of the law, we focused our review on cases in which the court’s decision was divided, making the role of individual judges potentially decisive. Because some of these judges have been on the federal courts for a relatively short period of time, because most appellate decisions are unanimous, and because cases are assigned randomly... the data used in this report are actually not indicative of anything.
posted by three blind mice at 11:03 PM on October 6, 2006


Heywood Mogroot writes "I realized that their decisions really have no effect on me..."

Ok, Pastor Niemöller.
posted by orthogonality at 11:14 PM on October 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


So long as you didn't do anything wrong, you'll be fine, citizen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:20 PM on October 6, 2006


I finally got a form letter back from Hillary Clinton, assuring me that she's "serious" about my rights. Whoopee.

Even better: The other dems I've written too haven't bothered.
posted by ®@ at 11:26 PM on October 6, 2006


Hmmm. Could this be partisan drivel?

Leaving the legal merits aside (there's no way I'm going to analyze all, or even a sampling, of the substance of these poinions), let's see if any judges appointed by Democratic presidents joined or wrote these opinions, shall we?

Here's a sampling:

Lutkewitte v. Gonzales (D.C. Cir. 2006). Per curiam opinion authored by either Tatel (Clinton appointee) or Edwards (Carter appointee). Concurring opinion by Brown (Bush II appointee).

Wright v. Rolette County (8th Cir. 2005). Opinion authored by Melloy (Bush II appointee) joined by Heaney (Johnson appointee). Concurring opinion by Bye (Clinton appointee).

Johnson v. Governor of Florida (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Majority opinion authored by Kravitch (Carter appointee), joined by Pryor (Bush II appointee), Tjoflat (Ford appointee), Anderson (Carter appointee), Birch (Bush I appointee), Dubina (Bush I appointee), Black (Bush I appointee), Carnes (Bush I appointee), and Hull (Clinton appointee). Partial concurrence and dissent by Wilson (Clinton appointee). Dissent by Barkett (Clinton appointee).

Yeah. These judges can't possibly be deciding these cases on the merits. Absolutely ideologically driven.
posted by saslett at 11:55 PM on October 6, 2006


Interesting, saslett. Is that a random sampling or is it cherrypicked to support your point? I'm not suggesting either one, just curious.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:01 AM on October 7, 2006


The republicans hate our freedoms.
posted by longsleeves at 12:42 AM on October 7, 2006


Given that Bush tried to appoint his nanny as a supreme court judge, I can only imagine the shit he's thrown at the appeals courts.
posted by mek at 2:38 AM on October 7, 2006 [1 favorite]


Judicial activism is nothing new. It comes from both the right and the left. I personally witnessed a power-tripping judge harass some political protestors in a way that was shameful: sentenced them to community service, then after they served it, decided she didn't like the idealogical affiliations of the charitable group they worked with, so clapped them into jail anyway. The judge should have recused herself for prejudice.
posted by markhu at 4:51 AM on October 7, 2006


> the purpose of this look at President Bush’s appellate judges was to determine whether and
> to what extent those judges are having an impact on these significant areas of the law,

Well, we certainly hope so. That was the idea, after all. But I don't trust this. Any judge that isn't well over to the left of Earl Warren is going to look reactionary to these folks. I fear the true impact isn't going to be nearly enough to change things significantly.
posted by jfuller at 5:28 AM on October 7, 2006


Interesting, saslett. Is that a random sampling or is it cherrypicked to support your point? I'm not suggesting either one, just curious.

Those aren't cherry-picked. Virtually every panel of judges deciding the opinions listed in the linked article contained judges appointed by Presidents of opposing parties, and in some cases, the offending opinion was actually written by a judge appointed by a Democrat with the Bush-appointed judge merely joining the opinion. Indeed, the article acknowledges this: "... Bush-nominated appellate judges wrote or joined opinions that ..." (emphasis added). For a better analysis of this kind of thing, try The Reagan Revolution in the Network of Law, linked from here.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:21 AM on October 7, 2006


Well, we're now firmly into King George territory here according to this article, so judges, do what you want with us, we're just poor, dumb farm animals available for your sadistic pleasure. . .
posted by mk1gti at 9:49 AM on October 7, 2006


The republicans hate our freedoms.

The main concept behind building a class system is toadyism; getting people to identify symbolically with success. Rather than conservative ideas needing to function as a working concept, they only need to function as a symbol. Rather than real freedom and prosperity, they only need us to believe we are free and prosperous (this token prosperity really pays off when they preach anti-taxation). I assume that any ruling from a conservative judge would value our freedom, justice, and equality as tokens only. If a judge assumes them as real, they are considered an activist.
posted by Brian B. at 11:05 AM on October 7, 2006


It's strange that the study includes both majority votes and dissents. If the purpose is to isolate cases where the judge's opinion was outcome-determinative, dissents by definition do not qualify.

Also, the study cites instances where Bush appointees are actually on opposite sides of a decision, which cuts against the thesis.
posted by brain_drain at 12:37 PM on October 7, 2006


> which cuts against the thesis.

The findings were pre-determined, of course. Everybody knows we're doomed to oligarchy and fascism. That isn't in question, and there's nothing that counts as contrary evidence, so it's ok to throw in any old thing that squeezes out another drop of that delicious, addictive outrage.
posted by jfuller at 5:55 AM on October 8, 2006


It is easy to know when to use a semicolon; a full sentence follows the punctuation mark.

The main concept behind building a class system is toadyism: getting people to identify vicariously with success.

Following the rules will set you free!
posted by longsleeves at 8:53 PM on October 8, 2006


Money trails lead to Bush judges
posted by homunculus at 8:47 PM on October 30, 2006


« Older What do you mean I can't pay my rent with this?   |   Hotel Bed Jumping Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments