Jurists Picked

LA Times reported California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and a Texas judge were named Friday as the federal judicial nominees who will be considered by the Senate next week, a move expected to trigger a long-awaited showdown with Democrats.

The Texas Judge was Priscilla R Owen, from the Texas Supreme Court. The writer obviously knows that, because the next sentence provides that data. So why does the lead show California Supreme Court and not Texas Supreme Court?

The announcement Friday by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) propels Brown and Priscilla R. Owen, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, to center stage of a political brawl that has gripped the Senate for weeks — over use of the filibuster against a president's picks for federal judgeships. The tactic, a procedural move allowing unlimited debate, is the weapon of the weak in the Senate.

But the Dems are not debating the nominees; they are just threatening to do so, and demanding a cloture vote to end a debate which has never taken place.

Ending a filibuster requires 60 votes in the 100-seat chamber; winning confirmation requires a simple majority of 51. Democrats relied on the filibuster threat to block President Bush's nomination of Brown, Owen and eight others to federal appellate courts during his first term, saying the nominees were too conservative. Earlier this year, Bush resubmitted seven of the nominees, including Brown and Owen.

Stevenson said Frist would then initiate a floor debate on Owen and Brown. The majority leader picked those two judges, he said, because they were "accomplished women with compelling life stories who have had distinguished careers and received very high recommendations from their peers and from the [very liberal] American Bar Assn." He also noted they had been elected to their positions by voters in their states. Stevenson said that at some point, Frist would call up the nomination of one of the two, a move he said would then "initiate the discussion of the rules." He declined to say which nominee Frist would seek a vote on first. In ads that have run in targeted states and nationally on cable television, both opponents and proponents of the filibuster rule have focused on Brown and Owen and on their records. Brown is nominated to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Owen is nominated to serve on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans.

Brown has been compared by some to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Like Thomas, she is an African American who grew up poor in the segregated South of the 1950s. Also like Thomas, she emerged as a conservative critic of affirmative action and government benefit programs in the 1980s. She has been praised by conservatives and slammed by liberals for some of her speeches. Speaking at Pepperdine University in 1999, Brown disputed the doctrine of separation of church and state. She also questioned whether the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, applied to the states. Owen, who received the highest score among her group when she took the Texas bar exam, has been characterized by her critics as an ultraconservative who bends her decisions to fit her political views, such as her opposition to abortion rights. Critics have attacked her decisions for routinely favoring law firms, corporations and insurance companies in disputes with consumers. Owen's supporters say she is a distinguished jurist who interprets the law narrowly and has impeccable intellectual credentials.

Dr. Steven Taylor: blogged Interesting, and perhaps odd, choices by Frist, as these are perhaps the two most controversial nominees. My guess is that Frist has lost Collins and Snowe for sure. In regards to Murkowski, I am betting Stevens can influence her to go with Frist and Spectre owes the White House for helping him in the primary. On a gut reaction I say Sununu goes with Frist, as does Warner. Dewine I don’t know enough about. Hagel is an interesting case, insofar as he seems to be looking to run for the GOP nomination in 2008–as such I am not sure he can afford to break this deal, although my bet is that he would prefer to vote against. Not included here is McCain, whom I thought was oppossed.

McQ blogged Of course the Democrats want to keep the filibuster as a viable method of blocking future Supreme Court nominees, consequently they have to do a bit of tip-toeing here. Do they allow these nominees, who's nominations they've obstructed for years, to slip on by (and hope they don't have the votes in the full Senate) in order to preserve the filibuster or do they take a stand on Owens and Brown? The Republicans, of course, would love to see their nominees confirmed. On the other hand, they'd also love to see the filibuster for judicial nominees done away with. The risk they take is accomplishing neither if they don't have the votes to change the Senate rules concerning judicial filibusters.

Steve M. blogged OK, kids: Do you know how many female judicial appointees have been confirmed in the Bush years? 41. African-Americans? 15.

And how many of those were for the Appeals Court?

(That's out of a total of 208 confirmed; 10 nominees have been filibustered and 4 have had their nominations withdrawn -- 2 white men, 1 white woman, and 1 black man. No Bush judicial nominee has been defeated in the full Senate.) I'm just pointing this out because when Bill Frist brings the nominations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the Senate floor, every right-winger in America will say in unison that the Democrats' opposition to these extremists is a sign that Democats hate women and (in the case of Judge Brown) blacks.

Only if they are conservatives.

Want to see the details? go herehttp://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/judicial_selection_resources/selection_database/index.html, scroll down, insert the selection criteria, and do your own count.