Asked in Debate 2, the President replied "I'm not tellin," which some might say is really all one needs to know about his fitness for elective office. Anyhow, Bush seems to be inviting us to figure out the answer for ourselves, so let's give it a whirl on behalf of a confused nation.
Bush made oblique reference to wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade in his much discussed Dred Scott statement. Also, Bush's endorsement of 'strict constructionism' should remind us that he once stated that Scalia and Thomas are his favorite Supreme Court justices. (In those circles, 'strict' is a synonym for 'expedient'.) But what about Bush's record of major judicial appointments thus far? That ought to be the best guide for what will follow if Bush wins election.
The website courtinginfluence.net has just set forth its analysis of the Bush nominees, and made available lots of raw information about them; its all pretty damning, as expected. Here are some salient numbers (this research was done by astraea, who gets a big tip of the hat): Of the 59 nominees whom the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) studied, a whopping 28 had no prior judicial experience before their nomination to the federal bench; 25 nominees contributed money to Bush; 21 have Big Energy ties; 7 are former lobbyists; 28 are members of the Federalist Society; and 28 worked on Bush/GOP campaigns. This is the kind of information that ought to get out to voters before they go to the polls. I don't have time to explore all the information that the website provides on each of these 59 nominees, but kossacks might be able to divide the work up and then highlight the worst horror stories in the bunch. To get a taste of how unsavory the Bush nominees are, you might start by looking at the background info provided about William Myers, Michael Chertoff, William Haynes, and Jay Bybee. Also, take a gander at their page called 'Judicial rewards for war on terror?'. In the extended entry, there are excerpts from the summary report posted on October 12 at the CIR website. Apologies if anybody has already posted a diary on this subject.
"Center for Investigative Reporting Makes Judges' Financial Data Public
President George W. Bush's nominees to some of the most influential positions on the federal bench during his first term are notable for their close ties to corporate interests, especially the energy and mining industries, according to a new investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting. Many of the nominees have been appointed to judgeships holding central jurisdiction over litigation affecting these industries.
CIR is making its research available to other journalists and the public via this website marking the first time that the financial disclosure statements and Senate confirmation questionnaires of federal judicial nominees have been made freely and easily accessible to the public. CIR's investigation focuses on the Bush administration's 59 judicial nominees to federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which hears major property rights claims and land disputes.
The investigation reveals that more than a third of President Bush's nominees to the federal district courts - 21 of 59 nominations since 2001 - have a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries. Twenty of the 21 have been nominated to the Appellate Courts in the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and District of Columbia circuits where those same industries frequently battle over cases with huge financial interests at stake. These five circuit courts are at the forefront of establishing judicial precedent on matters involving conflicts over natural resources. The placement of the nominees suggests an administration strategy of nominating corporate friendly judges in circuits where they will make the greatest impact. In many cases, these same corporations and industries are also major campaign contributors to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.
Among the findings: (snip)
* Four nominees have worked as registered lobbyists for the energy and mining industries, promoting the legislative agendas of companies such as Enron, Peabody Coal and Andalex Resources. Seventeen others have litigated on behalf of energy industry clients - including Kennecott Energy and other coal and oil companies - while working for corporate law firms.
* 9th Circuit Court nominee William Myers worked as a lobbyist in Washington on behalf of the nation's three largest coal companies during the late 1990's and through the 2000 election campaign. Those three companies - Peabody, Kennecott and Arch - frequently fight their legal battles in the 9th Circuit, which covers nine western states and is one of the key courts to hear natural resources disputes involving energy and mining companies. As reported by CIR, Peabody Coal had two cases pending before the 9th Circuit when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Myers' nomination in April, 2004. A Democratic filibuster has thus far blocked Myers' confirmation, but President Bush has continued to express his support for Myers and the possibility of a recess appointment remains. (snip)
* Twenty-five of the nominees contributed at least $1,000 to Bush's election campaign in 2000. (snip)
Legal scholars have told CIR that the nominations suggest a concerted effort to seed courts with individuals pre-disposed toward the corporate interests within their jurisdictional domain, raising the potential for the appearance, at the very least, of conflict of interest.
(snip)
Others observe a growing trend toward the nomination of judges with prior industry connections. "It's quite new and striking to have this many people with these particular backgrounds, and is quite a contrast to President Clinton's nominees," says Jay Feinman, a professor at Rutgers University School of Law, whose book, Un-Making Law, on efforts to roll back consumer protection in the courts, was published in Fall 2004. "Increasingly you will have federal courts with a pro-industry and anti-government perspective."
Elliot Slotnick, a political science professor at Ohio State University who has closely studied the judicial nomination process, says that the data suggests there may be even closer industry ties to judges today than there were during the 1920's, an era notorious for the influence wielded by railroad and insurance companies over the composition of the federal courts."