ConfirmThem

By Marshall Manson Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Mr. Bopp, who is a distinguished First Amendment attorney and Supreme Court litigator, distributed a release yesterday criticizing Senator Schumer's speech before the American Constitution Society. Read every word:

James Madison Center for Free Speech Says that Senator Schumer Seriously Distorted Supreme Court Case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White in calling on Judge Roberts to Answer Questions

In a speech hosted by the liberal group the American Constitution Society, New York Senator Charles Schumer said, in calling for Judge Roberts to answer questions next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"Second, in addition to Judge Roberts' own precedence, they also overlook a very real legal precedent which came in 2002, nine years after Judge Ginsburg testified. This is the only thing the Court has said on it, fortunately it was said by Justice Scalia. The case of Minnesota Republican Party versus White. In White, the Supreme Court to which Judge Roberts aspires made clear when judicial candidates state their view on issues and decided cases their impartiality is not undermined. Listen to Justice Scalia in 2002 quoting Justice Rehnquist in 1972. "Proof that a justice's mind at the time he joined the court is in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification not lack of bias.""

James Madison Center General Counsel, James Bopp, Jr., who argued and won the White case, is one of the national's leading experts on judicial speech and the First Amendment. On the Schumer statement, Mr. Bopp says, "Senator Schumer ignores two key elements in the Supreme Court's analysis. First, while a judicial candidate has a First Amendment right under White to announce their views on disputed legal and political issues, it would be wrong and unethical for a judicial nominee to pledge or promise certain results in particular cases. Unfortunately, several Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee have threatened to vote against Judge Roberts if he does not promise to uphold various dubious Supreme Court precedents, such as Roe v. Wade."

Indeed, Senator Biden recognized that difference at the beginning of Judge Ginsburg's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when he said that "the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her. There is a real difference . . . between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee's independence and impartiality, and question on judicial methods and philosophy."

Mr. Bopp continued: "Second, Senator Schumer ignores the role that recusal plays here. The American Bar Association has currently taken the position that a judge is ethically required to recuse and disqualify himself if 'the judge, while a judge or a candidate for judicial office, has made a public statement that commits, or appears to commit the judge with respect to an issue in the proceeding or the controversy in the proceeding.' While I disagree with this approach, a prudent judicial nominee must consider whether the ABA may be right and his future recusal would be demanded, if he goes beyond statements about his general judicial philosophy. This is particularly true since Justice Kennedy, the crucial fifth vote in White, endorsed the idea that a state 'may adopt recusal standards more rigorous that due process requires.'"

James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.