Looking to leave your mark in America? If so, forget about becoming a legislator.
Lawmakers are increasingly becoming high-profile budget makers. And don’t shoot for the presidency. The chances are slim, the scrutiny is unbearable, and the living conditions are way over the top.
If you’re looking for power, become a judge.
Newsweek Columnist Jonathan Alter recognized the power of the courts in July 2000, when he called the naming of future Supreme Court justices “the real stakes” in the 2000 presidential election. “The next president, with as many as three or four Supreme Court appointments, will touch every American life,” Alter wrote.
Such power can be intoxicating, especially to politicians. So nobody should be surprised by this Sept. 5 report from the Deseret News, just three months after Democrats gained control of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “[Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah] said a hearing that Democrats called Tuesday about changes that they seek appears ‘to be part of a partisan strategy to?[inject] partisanship into the judiciary.'”
Sen. Hatch is correct. Democrats are attempting to control the judiciary?especially the approval of new federal judges?in a number of ways. Given the modern penchant for furthering agendas through litigation rather than legislation, the efforts of these Democrats should raise a red flag for anybody who wants an impartial judiciary.
Hatch’s comments referred to the actions of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. The Deseret News reports, “Sen. Schumer said the Senate should be able to consider the ideology of nominees [to the federal courts]?and reject them if their views are ‘out of the mainstream.'”
In other words, if the political views of potential judges do not coincide with those of Democratic legislators?who supposedly are best qualified to judge what ideas are “in the mainstream”?the judges will not be confirmed.
“The hallmark of a good jurist is one who does not allow personal opinion to affect objective legal decision making,” Sen. Hatch said. “The Senate’s responsibility does not include establishing an ideological litmus test to gauge a candidate’s fitness based on his or her position on controversial issues.”
Sen. Schumer believes considering a candidate’s ideology will help “ensure that courts remain balanced and moderate.” Again, Sen. Schumer’s paternalistic pride assumes that he and his colleagues fully understand balance and moderation.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is also trying to change the confirmation of federal judges in dangerous ways.
FRC reports: “While attention was diverted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Sen. Leahy unilaterally changed the Senate confirmation rules. Despite heated Republican objections, Sen. Leahy ordered sensitive personal information previously limited to confidential FBI background checks included on the Judiciary Committee questionnaire nominees are required to answer.”
In addition, Sen. Leahy wants to force judicial nominees to disclose any political contributions they have made.
In both cases, this once confidential information will be offered to Senators who never needed it to confirm any of the 377 judges approved during the Clinton administration. This information?which will hardly improve Senators’ ability to assess a judge’s professional capability?will undoubtedly leak to the press, embarrassing the nominees.
Sens. Leahy and Schumer are trying to select judges based on their ideology. They apparently have no confidence that judges can or will act objectively, without giving in to their political preferences.
Oddly enough, Democrats believe their liberal counterparts at the American Bar Association can act objectively, despite marked political ideologies.
For nearly 50 years, the ABA has evaluated every U.S. president’s nominees for the federal bench, giving each candidate it assesses a rating of “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.” According to FRC, the ABA considers its evaluations “objective,” and bases its ratings on a candidate’s “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.”
In March, President Bush ended this “preferential treatment” of the ABA when he advised the group that it would not be given a “quasi official role,” while it held public views on controversial issues.
Martha W. Barnett, head of the ABA, responded by saying, “We cannot think of any constructive purpose this serves.”
Surely Barnett is an intelligent woman. Perhaps a review of the ABA’s stance on political issues might help her understand why President Bush doubted its supposed objectivity.
The FRC notes that the group advocates “abortion on demand, affirmative action, needle giveaway programs, homosexual adoption, medical marijuana and gun control,” while it opposes “the death penalty, a flag desecration amendment and the right of the Boy Scouts?to exclude homosexual leaders.”
Sen. Leahy and friends feel they cannot trust nominees to one of hundreds of judicial posts across the country to be objective judges. However, they do feel the organization that recommends or rejects these individuals?which has a very defined political agenda?can do so objectively.
This unquestioning trust of the ABA, yet patent mistrust of conservative judicial nominees, makes Sen. Leahy’s motives for evaluating candidates’ politics seem questionable.
In more simple terms, he can’t be trusted.
Mike welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to [email protected].