judges

FEDERALIST society – SCREEN bush Judges instead of American Bar Assn for over 100 years – property rights absolutists

The differences are suggested by the decisions in the Federal First Circuit which reviews all environmental regs. 2 Repubs and 1 Dem on a 3 judge panel find 80% to 85% of rules unconstitutional. 2 Dems and 1 Repub on a panel find 15% to 20% unconstitutional. The difference is because of different views of the primacy of property versus community interest

Bush41 selected David Suter – considered fine moderate justice. Bush43 – representing religious right – was part of the group that saw to firing John Sununu who had vouched for Suter.

When Bill Clinton had a Supreme Court nomination to make he went to the Republican head of the Judiciary committee -Orin Hatch- and asked for suggestions. “Richard Bryer?” “Cool”.

Republicans blocked 40 of Clintons judges. Many were blacks for the 4^th circuit which has the highest % Afr-Am in USA. Jessee Helms blocked all. Frist helped filibuster according to senate record and Repub senator Smith of NH. Now Frist claims blocking judges with majority support is “UNPRECEDENTED.”

Another Bush43 favorite is Elizabeth Owens – who has said there are no due-process (14^th amendment) issues if a death penalty case lawyer sleeps a lot. In Illinois – with an entirely different judicial culture than Texas – ½ of the death row cases were bogus when investigated by law students from my Alma Mater – Northwestern. Most defendants can’t hire energetic college students to investigate their cases. Guess what chance over-exuberant politically ambitious prosecutors have with Edith Jones looking over their shoulders. Even attorney general Alberto Gonzales (“torture is OK if Bush43 sez so”) sez Jones is out of the mainstream (he reviewed her appeals)

Most Bush43 judge-nominees are way over average in overturned decisions.

The Senate is scheduled tomorrow to hold a hearing on the nomination of "anti-environmental activist" William G. Myers III to a seat on the 9th Circuit of the federal judiciary. Conservatives are calling efforts to block this nomination "obstructionist." In reality, Myers is an unqualified choice with a long record of hostility toward environmental protections. Myers has drawn opposition from nearly every corner; last year his nomination was blocked after 180 different groups – civil rights, labor, Native American and virtually every environmental organization across the board – came out against his appointment. Here's a look at the Myers activist record:

THE HOSTILE ACTIVIST: Myers has made numerous public statements regarding his philosophy on the federal government's role in protecting the environment. He also attacked the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which set aside land for two national parks and protected millions of acres of wilderness, as "an example of legislative hubris." In 1996, he also charged that federal management of public lands was comparable with "'the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes' on American colonists." He has said there's "no constitutional basis" to protect wetlands. He also railed that "environmentalists are mountain biking to the courthouse as never before, bent on stopping human activity whenever it may promote health, safety and welfare." The cases he was talking about "involved logging on national forests, racial discrimination in the placement of waste treatment plants and protection of irrigation canals from toxic chemicals." For much, much more on Myers's anti-environmental activism, read this report from People for the American Way.

A GOLD MINE FOR CORPORATE INTERESTS: While at the Department of the Interior, Myers drafted a ruling in an attempt to change regulations to allow a foreign-owned gold mine to be established on Indian land in California. The proposed Glamis Imperial Mine Project would be a "1,600-acre open-pit gold mine located in the environmentally sensitive and culturally significant California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and infringing on parts of the Quechan Indian Nation's sacred ancestral lands." The devastation to the land would be enormous, but according to estimates, "the mine would produce only one ounce of gold for every 280 tons of rock disturbed." Also, federal regulations prohibit any activity on the protected CDCA which could cause "undue impairment." Myers twisted that, arguing that the term "undue impairment" was meaningless, too vague to enforce; thus, he said, the mine was allowed. His opinion was later shot down by a federal judge who ruled it twisted the "clear mandate" of federal law to prevent the degradation of land.

LAND GIVEAWAYS: In June 2003, as the chief lawyer for the Interior Department, Myers prodded two congressmen from Northern California to introduce a bill "that would have given away $1 million worth of public land near this city north of Sacramento to a private firm." In 2000, Yuba River Properties was caught mining public land. The company claimed it owned the land; Myers eagerly championed the company's claim. Without bothering to consult officials in the Department of the Interior, he sent two California congressmen a memo saying the Interior Department would support legislation to officially give the land to the company for free. The deal finally fell apart when it came to light that Yuba River had never paid taxes on the land it claimed to own and, in fact, Interior agents in the California office were able to produce "readily available documents" proving the land was indeed owned by the government. As Timothy Carroll, an official in the California office, said in an e-mail to a coworker, "Turns out Solicitor William G. Myers III suggested this solution to [the congressmen]. Would have been nice if he had asked us first."

THE ROBBINS CASE: Myers has also been the subject of a two-year investigation for turning a blind eye to the actions of a well-connected Wyoming rancher named Frank Robbins. While Myers was solicitor at the Department of the Interior, Robbins enjoyed "virtually carte blanche authority to violate federal grazing laws." A federal report found the deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, Myers's associate solicitor and another unnamed lawyer in his solicitor's office "failed to act impartially and gave preferential treatment to Mr. Robbins in negotiating and crafting" a settlement in grazing rights violations on federal land.

QUESTIONABLE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS: Myers is a strange choice for a top federal judgeship position. He's never been on the bench, and the American Bar Association's judicial screening committee wasn't bowled over by his legal record. Not a single person on the 15-member panel rated him "well qualified." More than a third actually rated him as "not qualified," the lowest possible rating. As California's San Jose Mercury put it, "Myers's record on the environment is weak; his other legal experience is not broad enough to compensate. Environmentally conscious Republicans should join Democrats in opposing him."

FOREVER LOBBYIST: Before his position in President Bush's Department of the Interior, Myers was a long-time lobbyist for "ranching, mining and timber interests." He spent years fighting to "impede Clinton administration efforts to preserve endangered species, safeguard wilderness and protect public lands from overgrazing." While in the administration, his ties to the industry remained strong. According to analysis, Myers repeatedly met with industry lobbyists while at the Interior Department. He sat down with representatives from grazing, mining and other industries at least 32 times while solicitor. In that same time, he met with one single environmentalist.

Terrence Boyle, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, is also a troubling choice. He has an extraordinarily high reversal rate for a district court judge. Many of the decisions that have been criticized by higher courts wrongly rejected claims involving civil rights, sex discrimination and disability rights. Mr. Boyle's record is particularly troubling because the court reversing him, the Fourth Circuit, is perhaps the most hostile to civil rights in the federal appellate system, and even it has regularly found his rulings objectionable.

Thomas Griffith, who has been nominated to the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has the unfortunate distinction of having practiced law in two jurisdictions without the required licenses. While practicing law in Washington, D.C., he failed to renew his license for three years. Mr. Griffith blamed his law firm's staff for that omission, but the responsibility was his. When he later practiced law in Utah as general counsel at Brigham Young University, he never bothered to get a Utah license.