ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Brit Hume recently interviewed law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, to discuss the judicial nominations that the Senate minority has tried to veto by filibuster. Turley is widely regarded as moderate to liberal, so his analysis of the filibustered nominees should carry some extra weight. The first Turley interview from April 13 is here and the second Turley interview from April 15 is here.

Turley says of Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown, Terrence Boyle, and William Pryor that, "ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN I AM, BUT I WOULDN'T CALL THEM EXTREMISTS . . . . YOU CAN STILL BE A VERY GOOD JUDGE AND HOLD VIEWS THAT THEY HOLD." Turley says that the Owen nomination is probably in worse shape than those of Brown, Boyle or Pryor because of statements made by Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general. But, confirmthem has shown that Gonzales has been misinterpreted. If Justice Owen is in the worst shape, then plainly they should all be confirmed.

On Janice Rogers Brown

TURLEY: She's a California judge who has, I think, drawn the ire of some groups because she believes very strongly in property rights. And she may have a slightly libertarian streak. But she's not by any means this threat to the rule of law that people have made her out to be. I'm actually a little bit mystified as to why Brown has attracted so much criticism. . . . She is suspected of having pro-life views and being very conservative on a number of issues, particularly when it comes to property rights, environmental laws, and those types of things. . . .The decisions that she has written, most of her decisions are not controversial. She actually stands out on this list as one of two nominees that has actually thought very, very deeply about the philosophical basis of law. She incorporates it into her decisions. [See what confirmthem says about this nominee and Senator Schumer.]

On William Pryor

TURLEY: Well, I actually know Pryor. Back when we were --- we both clerked on the 5th Circuit for different judges. And back then he was known as sharp as a whip. We weren't close back then, but he was well known even then as being a real bright light. And I think he's gotten a raw deal, quite frankly. He's very conservative, there's no question about it. But I think it was very telling that he believes very strongly that the Ten Commandments can be shown in a monument or in a display. And yet, when there was that confrontation with Chief Justice Moore in Alabama, he carried out his duties. He prosecuted Moore, even though he agreed with Moore. And so with Pryor, I think that he's gotten a uniquely raw deal, because he's proven that even against his own views, he will carry out the law. . . . Pryor I don't think is being credit by the fact that he was tested under fire. He was an attorney general in Alabama who took an incredibly controversial position. . . . He could be breathtakingly conservative, but he's proven that he will yield to the law, as in the case with the Ten Commandments.

On Priscilla Owen

TURLEY: Well, Priscilla Owen, I think, is primarily in trouble because she was criticized in print by Alberto Gonzales, who accused her of judicial activism. They both served on the Texas Supreme Court together, and he went after her in a couple of opinions and actually called her an activist, said she was ignoring the law. And those words have been used as powerful ammunition against her. . . . My view is that she was interpreting things like the parental notification law in a way that was plausible. I don't agree with it. But she's not some wild-eyed extremist. But I think she has the best ground for the Democrats to attack because they have this prior criticism from Gonzales, and she is very, very conservative. There's no question about that. [See what confirmthem says about this nominee and Molly Ivins.]

On Terrence Boyle

TURLEY: Well, Boyle actually has been a judge for a long time. He's been a trial judge. And Boyle's problem is a mix. Some people have accused him of being an ultra-conservative, but his main problem is that he's been reversed a number of times on what's called plain error. That's a very low standard for a judge to make. So when you're reversed on plain error, it tends to mark up your record . . . . But with Boyle, there really is ground for some senators to say "we don't like the cut of this guy's jib, he's just not up to the task". [See what confirmthem previously said about Boyle's reversal rate.]

On Thomas Griffith

TURLEY: Well, Griffith has really been put through the wringer because he is the general counsel of Brigham Young University, and he was accused by the Democrats of a suspension of his bar license for failure to pay dues and practicing without a license. . . . This guy has been grossly mistreated. First of all, thousands of lawyers go into arrears because of their dues. It's not good, but there's a lot of lawyers of multiple jurisdictions, and it happens. . . . There's a difference between venal and mortal sin.. . . [T]he other thing is that he has a perfectly good reason why he did not become a Utah bar member. And five presidents of the Utah Bar supported him in his interpretation. And I think this is the correct move for the committee. But I do think he has been grossly mistreated.

On William Myers

TURLEY: I think the White House is going to have a serious problem getting Myers through. The reason is he's a former Interior Department official. He was also a lobbyist for mining interests. But at Interior he took fairly extreme positions, you know, and very controversial positions . . . . [o]n environmental and Native-American matters. He's also said things that were viewed as sort of over the top and hostile towards environmental issues. . . . I think they probably could get him through on a straight vote, but he really is a third rail candidate in terms of filibusters. [See Sen. Alan Simpson's piece pointing out that Myers has been endorsed by Jimmy Carter's Interior Secretary. Is Myers going to be defeated because he meets but doesn't exceed the environmental standards of the Carter administration?]

On William Haynes

TURLEY: Haynes actually, I think, is probably really the most in danger of not only a successful filibuster but even an up or down negative vote . . . . The reason is that he was general counsel of the Department of Defense, he signed the controversial memo dealing with whether the president could violate federal law, whether torture in some circumstances was allowable. That controversy is still brewing, and there are very significant allegations against him. I think the White House would have been wiser if they had held off a bit. But right now, there are legitimate controversial issues here. . . . [H]is views on the torture memo I think do raise legitimate questions. [See Newsweek article regarding allegations against Haynes. If the allegations are true, then a filibuster won't be needed to stop Haynes.]

On Richard Griffin, Henry Saad, Susan Bieke Neilson, and David McKeague

TURLEY: There are four Michigan judges, and three of them I couldn't get any Democratic staffer to actually give me a reason what the problem was. . . . virtually no, you know, articulated reason against . . . . [McKeague] has been listed as well qualed by the ABA. The only statement made against him is "his temperament," which is in political terms just above bad dental hygiene. It's one of those terms you use when you don't have anything else to oppose someone on. And McKeague is very well respected. And once again, there's no reason for these four Michigan judges to be held, except ... a turf war with the Michigan senators. It has nothing to do with their background. [See what confirmthem says about these nominees and Senator Levin.]