By Kenneth J. Theisen, 11/16/06
In a “slap in the face” move to Democrats, President Bush on November 15, 2006 renominated six conservative judges to the federal appellate bench. All had been previously blocked from receiving a Senate floor vote by the minority Democrats in the Senate due to their extremist views. It is highly unlikely that the lame duck Congress will act on any of these nominations before it adjourns, so Bush is obviously sending a clear message to Democrats in Congress and to his base that he will not be deterred from trying to shape the federal judiciary in a more fascist direction.
And even though they will not receive a Senate floor vote in the
next month, Bush can renominate them again in January. Federal
judicial appointments have been a priority during the Bush regime.
Bush nominated John Roberts and Sam Alito and got them on the Supreme
Court to the delight of most reactionaries. On the lower federal court
level, Bush has also managed to put most of his people on the bench
with only minor opposition from the Senate Democrats.
And the Bush White House spokesperson did not sound conciliatory to
the Democrats in the Senate when she stated, “We are hopeful that the
days of judicial obstruction are behind us. We are hopeful that
President Bush’s nominees will receive a fair up or down vote.” This
is an open challenge to the Senate Democrats and belies any words
uttered by Bush about bi-partisanship after the election. For Bush it
appears that as long as the Democrats give him what he wants, he will
consider that bi-partisanship. Anything else is “obstructionism.”
The shape of the federal judicial bench is critical to the Bush
regime. Federal judges will rule on much of the regime’s program.
Everything from the right to abortion, outlawing gay marriages, the
ruining of the environment, anti-immigrant legislation, to the Military
Commissions Act which allows torture and deprives defendants of their
legal rights will come before the courts. The Bush regime wants its
fellow fascists on the bench to rule in its favor.
In theory the judicial branch of government is part of the checks
and balances to keep any single branch of government from abusing its
authority. The federal courts have traditionally reviewed the actions
of the legislative and executive branches and have ruled on the
constitutionality of laws and executive order and actions. The courts
are like referees in a game. But the Bush regime is trying to rig the
game by selecting members of its own team to be the referee. It wants
to remove any semblance of an independent judiciary.
Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O”Connor, who was
nominated by Ronald Reagan, recognizes the dangers inherent in this.
In a speech she gave on March 9, 2006, she criticized Republicans who
were attacking the courts for supposedly being too liberal. She
stated, “We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm
the judiciary” It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls
into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these
beginnings.” She said that threats to the judiciary, “pose a direct
threat to our constitutional freedom.” She then told the audience, “I
want you to tune your ears to these attacks … You have an obligation
to speak up”Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial
independence – people do.”
The right-wing has been extremely critical of the judiciary. In
April 2005 Bush loyalist and Senator John Cornyn made particularly
outrageous remarks soon after a judge was shot dead in an Atlanta
courtroom and after the family of a federal judge in Illinois was
murdered. He said, “I don’t know if there is a cause and effect
connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse
violence in this country … And I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions,
where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to
the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some
people engage in violence.”
In the most recent elections, there were several attempts to
intimidate judges by the right-wing. South Dakota voted on an
amendment stating that judges in the state can be sued or removed if
citizens disliked how they sentenced a criminal, resolved a business
dispute or settled a divorce. Montana had an initiative on the ballot
to allow the recall of judges over any “dissatisfaction.” In Oregon, a
Constitutional amendment would have required Supreme Court and appeals
court judges to be elected by geographic district, to reflect the
values of conservative rural communities.
Many people who voted for the Democrats in the recent elections
hoped that Bush would be forced to become more “moderate” after his
party suffered defeat. But the renomination of these judges indicates
that Bush is still Bush, and he has every intention of continuing to
implement his fascistic program.