NY Times: Representing Unsavory Non-Liberal Clients Disqualifies Judicial Nominees
By AndrewHyman Posted in Circuit Courts — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The New York Times has a diatribe an editorial today urging that several judicial nominations be abandoned. The Times focuses mainly on the nomination of Michael Wallace for the Fifth Circuit. Says the Times:
"He argued in favor of letting Bob Jones University, which discriminated on the basis of race, keep its tax-exempt status....When the A.B.A. interviewed 69 lawyers and judges who knew him, it heard repeatedly that he was hostile to poor people and minorities."
Apparently, the Times believes that unsavory clients are not entitled to legal representation anymore, and attorneys who provide it are guilty by association. Unless, of course, the client is someone seeking to expand the rights of criminals and terrorists. Shall we now accuse John Adams of insensitivity to the cause of American Independence, due to his representation of the British at the Boston Massacre? And while we’re at it, let’s disqualify Ninth Circuit nominee William Myers due to his representation of grazing and mining companies.
The New York Times conveniently ignores the question of whether Bob Jones University had a legitimate legal argument for tax exempt status. Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in the Bob Jones case (dissenting) as follows:
The Court points out that there is a strong national policy in this country against racial discrimination. To the extent that the Court states that Congress in furtherance of this policy could deny tax-exempt status to educational institutions that promote racial discrimination, I readily agree. But, unlike the Court, I am convinced that Congress simply has failed to take this action and, as this Court has said over and over again, regardless of our view on the propriety of Congress’ failure to legislate we are not constitutionally empowered to act for it.
The Times is seeking to disqualify Wallace based upon a credible legal position that was later endorsed by the Chief Justice. Fortunately, Bob Jones University has since dropped the discriminatory policies in question, related to inter-racial dating. Perhaps one day the Times will drop its discriminatory policy against attorneys who advance valid, non-liberal legal claims.
The New York Times plays another race card against Wallace too: an ABA report attacking Wallace as being hostile to minorities. The Wall Street Journal has called that report an "ABA Hit Job." Senator Specter has urged the Senate to reject the ABA report. Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos noted that the ABA official in charge of the Wallace research was on the Board of Trustees of "plaintiffs' counsel in the very Voting Rights Act case that [is] ... Exhibit A in support of her contention that Wallace is not committed to equal justice under law." But of course, the New York Times doesn’t deem that last fact "fit to print."
Adams
by AndrewHyman
I didn't mean to suggest that Myers and Wallace are equally qualified, any more than I meant to suggest Wallace and Adams are equally qualified. But the point is the same for all three: lawyers making valid claims on behalf of their clients shouldn't be smeared for the sins of their clients. The New York Times is really descending into the gutter here.
Clients
by John Constantine
I don't think representing Bob Jones University disqualifies one from being nominated to the bench. BJU is a pretty odious outfit. I remember seeing an interview with Bob Jones III on Larry King in which he put forward what he considered the Biblical justification for a ban on inter-racial dating. Strange guy. However, even strange people are entitled to hire lawyers (it's even in the Constitution for when you're charged with something) and I do not automatically ascribe the client's views to the lawyer.
And I'm sure no one around here will fault a Democratic nominee for having worked for the ACLU.
The NYT is disturbed that Senator Specter wants the charges against Wallace to be substantiated, too. The ABA wants secrecy in that regard, "trust us, it's necessary in order to obtain forthright input." But the ABA sure has been vocal about and against the "secrecy" implicit in presidential signing statements, NSA terrorist surveillance, etc.
Nobody should be surprised that the NYT is carrying water for the ABA.
Diatribe
by John Constantine
Oh what the heck, call it a diatribe.
After all, it is an editorial page, so it's supposed to be presenting an opinion, not a neutral report of facts and context. It's when this kind of thing is on the front page that they run into problems.
Hopefully, the White House will renominate Wallace, and Specter will use his nomination to expose the evaluation process of the ABA. Without such a critical analysis of the ABA's rating system, the ABA will continue trying to blind America about the qualifications of judges. They will tell us liberal judges are "Well Qualified" and conservative judges are "Not Qualified" with no reference to academics or credentials.
Wallace nomination return
by Outsider
8/15/06 1:49 p.m. EDT
I agree that Wallace (along with Boyle) has become a crucial nomination which must be confirmed if the GOP is to retain any credibility on judicial nominations. If the ABA and their Dem. allies get away with perpetrating this atrocity through continued Senate GOP appeasement, the judicial war is as good as lost.
As a practical matter, however, the return of the Wallace nomination has made confirmation during the remainder of the regular session in September virtually impossible. Wallace can't be renominated until the Senate reconvenes (September 5th at the earliest). Given notice requirements, a hearing cannot be held until the 11th or 12th at the earliest. Then the Dems. can delay a Committee vote for at least 2 weeks (the 24th or 25th at the earliest). That leaves a grand total of 2-3 days to confirm Wallace before adjournment. Ain't gonna happen.
I have little doubt that Senate Dem. tacticians had all this in mind when they and the ABA successfully buffaloed Specter into not holding a hearing for Wallace as scheduled in July. As strategists, the Senate Dems vs. Frist & Co. is like chess players against checker players: no contest.
By the way, note my time stamp at the top. As conservatives, we should be capable of initiative and self reliance, as long as we're accurate.
Wallace renomination
by MarkN
8/15/06 5:37 p.m. EDT
One possibility is to extend the session one more week. With 8 days left Wallace could get a confirmation vote. One should add that along with Boyle, Randy Smith should be renominated to the 9th circuit. I believe the Haynes nomination is stuck in a Virginia, NC, and SC struggle on how many native sons or daughters sit on the 4th circuit and Sen. Graham's stupidity. The club for growth just defeated a liberal/moderate republican in a Michigan primary. Watch out Sen. Graham, conservatives are learning to play the primary game.
I think that these are different beasts and frankly, I wouldn't sully Wallace with Myers -- even if it is guilt by association by smearing.
Wallace is a top candidate who as you mentioned has made the horrible mistake of ruling against the head of the ABA review board.
Myers has other issues. However, I suspect we'll see a Myers for Randy Smith trade.