From the
NYTimes:
A conservative advocacy group began broadcasting commercials Monday supporting two of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees, and drew an immediate rebuttal from liberal opponents. The conservative group, Progress for America, said it planned to spend $3.3 million on advertisements backing the president's nominees and Republican efforts to get them confirmed in the Senate. For now, the campaign, on both radio and television, will center on commercials praising Priscilla R. Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, whose appeals-court nominations have been blocked by Democrats but who have both been newly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"If you think judges should be fair and well qualified, look at these women," a commercial begins, before extolling their legal careers and up-by-the-bootstraps personal stories.
Seeking to influence the votes of senators who may prove pivotal, Progress for America said it was broadcasting the advertisements in six states: Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island. The group said it would begin broadcasting advertisements nationally next week, when the Senate returns from a recess.
In a rebuttal to the new advertising campaign, the liberal People for the American Way, as part of a $5 million drive it had previously undertaken, introduced its own commercial criticizing the two nominees as extreme and the Republicans as power-hungry.
"Up by the boot straps"? Hmm, wonder why those Right Wing ads don't talk about this:
Justice [Janice Rogers] Brown's disdain for government runs so deep that she urges "conservative" judges to
invalidate legislation that expands the role of government, saying that it "inevitably transform[s]... a democracy ... into a kleptocracy." Following her own "pro-activist" advice, Justice Brown - always in dissent - uses constitutional provisions or defies the legislature's intent to restrict or invalidate laws she doesn't like, such as California's anti-discrimination statute (which she condemns as protecting only "narrow" personal interests), hotel development fees intended to preserve San Francisco's affordable housing supply, rent control ordinances, statutory fees for manufacturers that put lead-based products into the stream of commerce, and a false advertising law applied to companies making false claims about their workplace practices to boost sales. Justice Brown's colleagues on the court have repeatedly remarked on her disrespect for such legislative policy judgments, criticizing her, in different cases, for "imposing ... [a] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state"; asserting "such an activist role for the courts"; "quarrel[ing]... not with our holding in this case, but with this court's previous decision ... and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself"; and "permit[ting] a court ... to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure.
Judge Priscilla Owen - who may be the judicial nominee that Senate conservatives use to trigger the nuclear option - is widely opposed because of her judicial activism. Upon her nomination, several Texas papers weighed in. Here are some excerpts:
Austin-American Statesman, 4/29/03: "[O]wen is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse."
The Houston Chronicle, 5/12/03: "Owen's judicial record shows less interest in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda...a justice who has shown a clear preference for ruling to achieve a particular result rather than impartially interpreting the law. Anyone willing to look objectively at Owen's record would be hard-pressed to deny that."
San Antonio Express, 7/21/02: "Once competency is established, the most important qualification for a judge is commitment to following the law as it is written - regardless of personal philosophy. Justice Priscilla Owen is clearly competent, but her record demonstrates a results-oriented streak that belies supporters' claims that she strictly follows the law...The Senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate's majority party. It also should not engage in petty personal attacks. But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge... When a nominee has demonstrated a propensity to spin the law to fit philosophical beliefs, it is the Senate's right - and duty - to reject that nominee.