Bush Is Packing The Federal Courts:
What Can I Do?
By TaleWgnDg
Early-Summer 2003
GET ANGRY! GET INVOLVED! GET ACTIVE!
Hi ircers and other folks,
Feel free to disseminate this stuff anywhere and everywhere (just
delete my email addy, thanks). I say this because I want as many
folks as possible to read this and act. It may appear that I got
carried away in the length of this mailing ... but, geesh, I thought
it best to have almost all of it spill out as the saying goes so
that all could get angry, get involved and get active ... grab a
cup of coffee and here goes:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html
(as visited June 14, 2003)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html
(as visited June 14, 2003)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
(as visited June 14, 2003)
Federal Judicial Appointment Process ... what is it?
"advice and consent" AND "recess of the senate"
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3 "advice
and consent" "recess of the senate"
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but
the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers,
as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law,
or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions
which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
[ TaleWgnDg: Article 2, Section 2 ... in short:
clause 2: (advice and consent judicial appointments) a sitting President
nominates a person to the federal bench and the Senate okays or
tosses out the nominee; or
clause 3: (recess judicial appointments) a sitting President directly
appoints a person to the federal bench during a Senate recess and
that person stays there as an active judge/justice until either
the Senate okays or tosses through "advice and consent."
]
and ...
TaleWgnDg's musings embellished from ...
People for the American Way
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7284
(as visited June 15, 2003)
The Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary ... "states rights"
v. federal law ... impact ...
Despite protestations by some unsophisticated rightwinger voters
who do not understand history, politics and its impact upon the
law, "states rights" is a cry to turn the legal clock
back to the days (late 1800s, early 1900s, and there's indication
of much earlier dates) when federal congress would enact laws that
the U.S. Supreme Court "knee-jerked" overturned. At that
time, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that congress had no constitutional
authority to enact laws prohibiting or telling the states how it
could treat its residents and citizens. Think about that for a moment.
For example, our federal congress was unable to have federal child
labor laws that stuck and become effective universally throughout
the country. Each state had different laws or no relevant laws.
It was a patchwork of state abuse and state inaction, since states
could not effectually enact laws to prohibit corporations from harmful
behavior against its workers. This is "states rights."
The U.S. Supreme Court's legal philosophy was stuck in the mud
fossilizing until the affects of the Industrial Revolution and The
Great Depression hit the nation. The Court then began to acknowledge
our evolving society's impact upon America's workers and children
and women. It wasn't until well within the 20th Century that the
U.S. Supreme Court's majority looked anew at federal child labor
laws and upheld those laws, federal minimum wage laws and upheld
those laws, federal 40-hour work week laws and upheld those laws,
federal work safety laws and upheld those laws, federal workmen's
compensation laws and upheld those laws, federal securities laws
and upheld those laws, federal food safety laws and upheld those
laws, and many other federal laws at that time. And, on into modern
times the U.S. Supreme Court's majority would uphold federal environmental
laws and a strong federal base of other modern laws. All of these
federal laws form a uniform nation of one, not a divided patchwork
quilt of hit and miss "states rights."
The Bush administration and Senate Republicans are moving to return
the nation to the "states rights" era by remaking the
federal judiciary and overturning decades of U.S. Supreme Court
precedents. Bush is "packing the courts" with ideologues.
Bush has pledged to nominate justices and judges in the mold of
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These justices have helped lead
a narrow 5-4 Court majority that has already used "states rights"
rulings to seriously weaken federal civil rights and other protections
by, for example, ruling that Congress cannot authorize disabled
Americans to sue state governments for damages for violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act. But even the current Court's majority
has not gone as far as Scalia and Thomas have pushed them to go.
If Bush makes good on his promise to fill future vacancies with
justices who share Scalia and Thomas's [reactionary] judicial philosophy,
more than 100 key U.S. Supreme Court precedents could be overturned,
not only in the crucial area of civil rights, but also concerning
the environment, reproductive choice, workers' rights, religious
liberty, access to justice, and many other areas.
We have not seen a vacancy at the U.S. Supreme Court in more than
8 years, the longest interval between vacancies since 1823. This
makes one or more Court vacancies and nominations in the next several
years all the more likely, with crucial swing vote Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor widely expected to step down within the next two years.
Filling such vacancies with justices like Scalia and Thomas would
damage civil rights protections and enshrine in law the philosophy
of people like U.S. Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
who have consistently opposed key civil rights principles.
and ...
National Organization of Women (N.O.W.)
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/circuits.html#4th
(as visited June 13, 2003)
COURTS: Federal Circuits:
"If all of Bush's current nominees are confirmed, conservative
judges will control 11 of the circuits. By 2004, all 13 could have
Republican majorities. "
1st Circuit: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico,
Rhode Island
2nd Circuit: New York, Connecticut, Vermont
3rd Circuit: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Virgin Islands
4th Circuit: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia,
and West Virginia
5th Circuit: Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi
6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee
7th Circuit: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin
8th Circuit: North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska,
Missouri, Arkansas
9th Circuit: California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana,
Idaho, Nevada, Alaska
10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming
11th Circuit: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Federal Circuit: United States
DC Circuit: District of Columbia, US Tax Court
last updated 1/25/02
and ...
TalkLeft: The Power of the Left
http://talkleft.com/archives/002539.html
(as visited June 13, 2003)
Remember that federal judges serve for life. Every rightwing judge
that Bush appoints is likely to stay on the bench for 20 to 30 years.
What will happen to our constitutional liberties? Will they be there
for your children? If you're concerned about this, bookmark People
for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union. Read
their reports on the nominees and write or fax (rather than e-mail)
your Senators when hearings come up. Let them know you oppose any
Bush nominees you find to be extremist and likely to be a judicial
activist. And vote Bush out of office in 2004 -- no matter which
Democrat runs against him. Please help preserve the independence
and integrity of the judiciary for our children.
*TalkLeft was developed by Denver-based criminal defense attorney
Jeralyn Merritt as a companion site to CrimeLynx®, the Internet's
premier criminal law resource.
http://www.talkleft.com/about.html
*Colorado Supreme Court, attorney status page: http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/Search/AttSearch.asp
(as visited June 13, 2003)
MERRITT, JERALYN ELISE status: [active] license # 5288 (6/13/03
inquiry)
950 17TH STREET, STE 1700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone (303) 837-1837
FAX (303) 832-7822
Admission: 05/10/1974
Last Status Update: 12/08/1981
There is no public disciplinary history on file for this attorney
within the state of Colorado.
[TaleWgnDg: as an added note, think how long these judges' and
justices' bad law decisions will remain as law across the land?
think of the lifespan of the sitting judge and justice ... 20? 30?
years on the bench? its a lifetime appointment, hence it depends
how old was the judge and justice when placed on the bench? plus
the additional time his or her bad law decisions take to over-turn
... another 30? 40? 50? years? REMEMBER, WHEN YOU VOTE FOR PRESIDENT,
YOU ALSO VOTE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE LAW OF AMERICA
!]
and ...
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/6038646.htm
(as visited June 13, 2003)
Sunday, June 8, 2003 (a reprint from the NYTimes)
Liberals, conservatives prepare for battle over Supreme Court nominations
By ROBIN TONER and NEIL A. LEWIS The New York Times
The three oldest judges are Republicans. White House officials
say two of them -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 78, and Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, 73 -- would be the most likely to retire, given
the knowledge that a Republican president would pick their replacements.
The oldest is Justice John Paul Stevens, 83.
or the opposite retirement opinion about Rehnquist by Alliance
For Justice ...
"Chief Justice Shows No Sign of Leaving Soon" ... at
...
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=167
(as visited June 19, 2003)
[Chief Justice William H. Renhquist is a "states rights"
"conservative" "reactionary." Associate Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor is a "moderate" "almost conservative-to-reactionary"
and can be a "states rights" vote but also can be a "swing
vote" between the heavily divided court in certain matters.
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens is a well-reasoned "moderate-to-not-quite-liberal."]
and ...
"Vacancies in the Federal Judiciary as of June 12, 2003"
...
http://www.uscourts.gov/vacancies/judgevacancy.htm
(as visited June 15, 2003)
and ...
here (below) is a press release from the National Organization of
Women (N.O.W.) regarding the two Michigan college Affirmation Action
cases decided on June 23, 2003 by the United States Supreme Court;
N.O.W. is using these two cases to demonstrate that one justice
-- one Bush appointed justice --could throw the court back for years
and years ...
http://www.now.org/lists/news-releases/msg00026.html
(visited on June 23, 2003)
"NOW Press Office
202-628-8669 Rebecca Farmer, x 116
202-785-8576 (fax)
Supreme Court Recognizes Benefits of Diversity In Split Decision
Favoring Affirmative Action
June 23, 2003
Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
Forty years ago this month, George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse
door, blocking African-American students from entering the University
of Alabama. George W. Bush made his stand this year at the University
of Michigan, in asking the Supreme Court to abolish all affirmative
action for racial minorities, but five justices said he was wrong.
Their decision will continue ensuring access to higher education
for women and people of color as long as these justices remain on
the Court.
Widespread racial and gender inequality still exist in virtually
every aspect of our society, and higher education is no exception.
The University of Michigan policies have created opportunities,
helped to overcome past discrimination, and opened avenues for learning
and cultural exchange that benefit students of all races. At issue
in Gratz v. Bollinger * and Grutter v. Bollinger ** were affirmative
action policies at the University of Michigan and the University
of Michigan Law School, respectively, each of which considered race
as one of many factors in determining admission. The "point
system" in Gratz was rejected, but the Grutter decision upheld
the law school's effort to ensure a critical mass of racial minorities.
The narrow margin in the Grutter case underscores the importance
of protecting the Supreme Court--and the entire federal judiciary--from
Bush's attempt to stack the courts for decades with lifetime appointments
of religious and political extremists. The 5 to 4 split in Grutter
is a brutal reminder of the Court's delicate balance and what is
at stake with the next resignation from the Court. If such a vacancy
is filled by a justice in the mold of ultraconservative Justices
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, civil rights and women's rights
would be set back for decades. NOW's Save the Court mobilization
will press Senators to confirm justices who will uphold civil rights
laws rather than using the Court to advance conservative social
policy."
* undergrad AffirmativeAction: GRATZ V. BOLLINGER, __ U.S. __ (#02-516,
June 23, 2003), reversed in part and remanded ... http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html
syllabus, opinions, dissents (last visited June 23, 2003)
** law school AffirmativeAction: GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER, __ U.S.
__ (#02-241, June 23, 2003), 288 F.3d 732, affirmed ... http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html
syllabus, opinions, dissents (last visited June 23, 2003) and
and ...
Alliance for Justice is a national coalition of public-interest
organizations.
11 Dupont Circle, NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20036
telephone: 202.822.6070
FAX: 202.822.6068
e-mail: alliance@afj.org
url: http://www.afj.org/
This site seems to have a comprehensive list of federal judiciary
nominees complete w/ commentary.
Their website is a mother-lode of information and their FAQs are
at ... http://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/about/frequently.html
... and their Judicial Selection Project is at ... http://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/about/index.html
... check out the information of judicial nominees at ... http://www.independentjudiciary.com/
... Why Judicial Nominations Are So Important ... at http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/release.cfm?ReleaseID=73
(all as visited June 19, 2003)
and ...
who is Miguel Estrada "the Hispanic nominee?"
"[Miguel Estrada's] academic and professional credentials
place him among elite lawyers in this country, but do not by themselves
qualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. He
lacks the kind of written record the Senate typically has before
it, and his views on many controversial issues have not been revealed....Mr.
Estrada is described by people who have worked with him as a conservative
ideologue who is unable or unwilling to distinguish his personal
views from what the law requires."
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=2
(as visited on June 19, 2003)
and ...
who
is James Leon Holmes, Arkansas?
An op-ed article that overviews James Leon Holmes, attorney, one
of Bush's nominees to a federal trial court in Arkansas. While reading
about Holmes does it cause you to hold your nose? Can you believe
this stuff? Would you want him to be the federal trial judge hearing
your case? Your daughter's case?
(visited on June 18, 2003)
here's more about Attorney James Leon Holmes from a St. Petersburg
[FL] Times op-ed article dated May 30, 2003:
"Holmes, a former president of Arkansas Right to Life, is
a man whose view of the world is so dated and backward that he shouldn't
be put in charge of a classroom, much less a federal district courtroom....
Holmes' twisted notions of women's equality are out of step with
constitutional law and modern thinking. He shouldn't be given a
chance to impose his rigid moralism for the rest of his life from
the bench."
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/30/Opinion/A_terrible_court_choi.shtml
(visited June 18, 2003)
a bio ... at ... http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=39
(as visited June 19, 2003)
and ...
who is William H. Pryor, Jr. ...
"I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members
of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the
life of millions of unborn children," Pryor commenting about
Roe v. Wade (1973).... Pryor says he agrees with Justice Scalia
that "the Constitution says nothing about a right to abortion.'"
Pryor has urged Congress to consider getting rid of a key provision
of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African-Americans.
While testifying before a Congressional Committee, Pryor urged the
Committee to "consider seriously
the repeal or amendment
of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which [he labeled an] affront
to federalism ["states rights"] and an expansive burden
that has far outlived its usefulness."
In 1995, as a Deputy Attorney General of Alabama, Pryor and then-Attorney
General of Alabama Jeff Sessions joined an amicus brief in support
of the state of Colorado's defense of a voter initiative that prohibited
local governments from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians
from discrimination (Romer v. Evans). Explaining why his office
felt compelled to join the brief, Pryor stated: "The attorney
general of Alabama felt strongly that we don't need to be finding
new rights in our Constitution [because] we've done enough of that
in recent years."
As Alabama's attorney general, Pryor filed an amicus brief in the
Lawrence v. Texas case, which has yet to be decided and is pending
before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Texas's sodomy law. Two
states joined Alabama's amicus brief in support of sodomy laws.
Nine states with such laws on their books did not file briefs to
defend their laws. Pryor's brief likens homosexuality to incest,
necrophilia *, pedophilia, prostitution and adultery. He fails to
recognize homosexual individuals as people worthy of the same constitutional
rights and protections that other Americans take for granted.
Pryor had no state duty and nothing in law that forced Pryor as
Deputy Attorney General and as Attorney General of Alabama to file
amicus briefs in either the Colorado case of Romer v. Evans or the
Texas case of Lawrence v. Texas. These are voluntary acts in which
Pryor (as a state officer) demonstrated his personal views and his
inability to remove ideology from matters of law.
Pryor has also defended a state judge's sponsorship of Christian
prayers before jury assemblies.
* necrophilia: (1) Obsessive fascination with death and corpses,
and (2) Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with corpses. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=necrophilia&db=*
(visited June 23, 2003)
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=46
(visited June 19, 2003)
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7865
(visited June 19, 2003)
excerpts from 6/11/03 Senate
hearing re Pryor ... at ...
(visited June 19, 2003)
http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2003/030610alabama.asp
(visited June 23, 2003)
and ...
who is Judge Terrence W. Boyle, North Carolina?
Judge Terrence W. Boyle is a federal trial court judge in the federal
district court system of Eastern District of North Carolina which
is within the federal 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit is the most conservative
federal Circuit in the entire country. His present position is entitled:
Chief Judge of the District, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Fourth Circuit.
Boyle was appointed to the federal trial court bench by then-President
Reagan in 1984; and became Chief Judge of the District in 1997.
Boyle was previously nominated (for one-step up) to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (by then-President George Herbert
Walker Bush) in 1991, and rejected. President George W. Bush has
nominated Terrence W. Boyle to the same seat as did his father --
to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Boyle's nomination is still
in process.
Terrence W. Boyle was born on December 22, 1945 in Passaic, New
Jersey. He holds a bachelor of arts degree from Brown University
and a juris doctor degree from American University.
(USDistrictCourt, EasternDistrictNorthCarolina does not publish
FREE online trial court opinions)
a bio and overview re Judge Boyle including some of his opined
cases w/ cites at ... http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=11
(visited June 19,2003)
and ...
National Organization of Women (N.O.W.)
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/boyle.html
(as visited June 13, 2003)
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge, 4th Circuit Federal District Court,
Eastern North Carolina District
short bio, short list of federal district court opinions, and comments
including ...
"Former aide to Senator Jesse Helms, who holds a honorary
Doctor of Law degree from Bob Jones University."
and ...
National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) ...
http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/pdfs/boyle_facts.pdf
... (as visited June 15, 2003)
The Right to Privacy -
Judge [Terrence] Boyle describes the right to privacy as "narrowly
circumscribed" and limited to "matters relating to marriage,
procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing
and education."
[TaleWgnDg: that's a list of "right to privacy" U.S.
Supreme Court cases (since the early 1900s) concerning those subjects
as Judge Terrence W. Boyle has enumerated above ... note that Judge
Boyle omits abortion rights cases from 1973 to present (a woman's
right to privacy of autonomy/her body) ... do you recall Judge Robert
Bork's nomination testimony regarding same? sound familiar? Judge
Robert Bork was rejected as an ideologue ... note, too, that medical
stem cell research is a direct spin-off of the abortion debate ...
think, too ... if the "right to privacy" can be picked
over as has done Judge Terrence Boyle above, then why not further
pick apart "right to privacy" in other non-abortion areas
too? what's to stop this ideologue?]
and ...
TaleWgnDg's musings on a new (June 16, 2003) U.S. Supreme Court
(USSC) case* ...
Q: May a North Carolina right-to-life non-profit advocacy corporation
(North Carolina Right To Life, Incorporated) give monies directly
to federal political candidates u/ The Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b?
A: no, held the United States Supreme Court on June 16, 2003.*
Q: Who was the North Carolina federal trial court judge that ruled
in FAVOR of North Carolina Right To Life, Inc. that the USSC over-turned
on June 16, 2003?
A: Terrence W. Boyle, federal trial court judge authored the trial
court majority opinion. Then on appeal, the most "conservative"
federal Circuit Court of Appeals -- the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
-- agreed with federal trial court Judge Boyle. However, on June
16, 2003 the USSC over-turned both lower federal courts -- the federal
trial court and the federal appeals court.
Think about this for a moment. Ask why? Why would the North Carolina
Right to Life, Incorporated want to contribute their money directly
to federal politicians, and not funnel monies through a Political
Action Committee (PAC)? That, despite a vast body of laws since
1907 which has barred corporation direct contributions to federal
political campaigns.
One reason is a significant loophole in the North Carolina Right
to Life, Incorporated corporation model. In the corporation model
certain donations may be secretive that are not given for the express
purpose of political activity. As opposed to a PAC where the name
of each contributor and the amount is available by public disclosure
laws, and to the Federal Election Commission.
A further rub: how may "given for the express purpose of political
activity" be enforced in this corporation model context? Can
you run a train through that one too? North Carolina Right to Life,
Incorporated (corporation model) may co-mingle its corporate funds;
as opposed to the segregated campaign funds as required by law regarding
PAC monies.
One more loophole is that a PAC has limitations on each contribution
-- up to $5,000.00. Whereas, the corporation model may have certain
unlimited contributions whether secretive or not. How do you spell
A - B - U - S - E?
Ponder that, and more ... Terrence W. Boyle has demonstrated his
ideology in abortion rights. Boyle sits presently on a federal trial
court in North Carolina and ruled law erroneously in favor of North
Carolina Right to Life, Inc. regarding a federal 1971 campaign law
and federal laws since 1907!! Judge Boyle's trial court decision
was upheld by America's most "conservative" federal appeals
court in the nation, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The United
States Supreme Court over-turned both lower federal courts. Bush
has nominated federal trial court Judge Terrence W. Boyle to this
federal court of appeals, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Where's
your outrage? Bush is packing the federal district courts, the federal
appeals courts, and has every intention as he's stated many times
to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with ideologues who cannot rule past
their own personal ideologies. WHERE'S YOUR OUTRAGE?
7-2 majority, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia
dissented.*
The majority opinion authored by Associate Justice David Souter
held, in part: "Since 1907, federal law has barred corporations
from contributing directly to candidates for federal office. We
hold that applying the prohibition to nonprofit advocacy corporations
is consistent with the First Amendment." *
* Federal Election Commission, Petitioner v. Christine Beaumont
et al. [North Carolina Right To Life, Incorporated], ___ U.S. ___
(#02-403, June 16, 2003), 278 F.3d 261 (4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
North Carolina, September 13, 2002), reversed, 137 F. Supp. 2d 648
(Eastern District North Carolina, January 25, 2000).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-403.ZO.html
(as visited June 16, 2003) syllabus, opinion, concurrence, dissent
hyperlinks
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-403.pdf
(as visited June 18, 2003) transcript of oral argument March 25,
2003
and ...
http://www.nela.org/news/judicialnominations.htm
(as visited June 14, 2003)
http://capwiz.com/nela/home/
(as visited June 14, 2003)
National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA)
[a national professional lawyers association of lawyers who defend
employees rights in the workplace ... cases ... ]
"strongly opposes Judge Boyle['s]" appointment to the
4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
and ...
http://www.million4roe.com/fedcourts/nominee.asp
(as visited June 13, 2003)
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge, 4th Circuit Federal District Court,
Eastern District North Carolina short bio, short list of federal
district court opinions, including ...
Ruled against African Americans in two voting rights act cases;
his opinions were overruled. Cannon v. North Carolina State Board
of Education, 917 F.Supp. 387 (E.D.N.C. 1996), reversed 959 F.Supp.
289 (E.D.N.C. 1997) and 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31794 (4th Cir. 1997);
and, Cromartie v. Hunt, 133 F. Supp. 407 (E.D.N.C. 2000), reversed
No. 991864 (U.S. April 18, 2001).
Ruled against an agreement between the United States Department
of Justice and the State of North Carolina that would have settled
the United States' claim that North Carolina discriminated against
women in the hiring of prison guards. This decision was overruled.
United States v. North
Carolina, 917 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D.N.C. 1996), reversed, 180 F. 3d
574 (4th Cir. 1999).
and ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/lexicon.html
(as visited June 14, 2003)
here's an overview of some "legalese" in Cornell Law
School's lexicon ... have fun!
and ...
TaleWgnDg's musings embellished from ...
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/5537817.htm
(as visited June 13, 2003)
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/boyle.html
(as visited June 13, 2003)
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
(as visited June 14, 2003)
What are Senate "blue slips" in the federal bench appointment
process? a kind of "veto?"
Federal district court judge Terrence W. Boyle (from North Carolina)
has been offered a step up to the federal appeals court bench in
the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by now-retired Senator Jesse Helms
(Republican, North Carolina). Several times had Helms pushed for
Boyle. Before being appointed to the federal district court bench,
which Boyle now occupies, by the first Bush president, Judge Boyle
was a former aide to Senator Jesse Helms. Judge Boyle holds an honorary
Doctor of Law degree from Bob Jones University. Judge Boyle is a
strongly backed nominee by this present Bush and his White House
for that federal appeals court position. Senator Elizabeth Dole
(Republican, North Carolina) was elected to take ex-Senator Jesse
Helms seat in the Senate and Dole presently occupies that Senate
seat.
The other present senator from North Carolina, Senator John Edwards
(Democrat, North Carolina) who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee
and is a presidential candidate, has not returned his "blue
slip" as a home-state U.S. Senator regarding Judge Boyle's
nomination to the federal appeals court.
During Clinton's presidency, the Republicans used the "blue
slip" to block countless nominations. But now that the Republicans
control the White House and the Senate, Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican,
Utah) Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is shamelessly
ignoring the "blue slip rule" and has given Bush carte
blanche on federal court judges.
Despite the minority party Democrats demanding that Senator Hatch
treat "blue slips" today exactly as he treated them during
the Clinton years, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (Republican,
Utah) has abandoned a tradition that required both home-state U.S.
senators to OK a judicial nominee. This is the so-called "blue
slip" tradition that many say has allowed senators to effectively
veto judicial nominees from their home state.
California Supreme Court Carolyn Kulh was "blue slipped"
in opposition by Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat, California) for
a few years. However, recently Chairman Hatch went forward with
the vote anyway; and Kulh was affirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee
on a straight party line vote. Kulh will go before the full Senate
floor for further vote consideration.* Will the Democrats effectuate
a filibuster on the floor to stop Kulh? That's another matter, back
to the "blue slips."
The "blue slip" tradition is named for the blue slip
a senator doesn't return or marks negatively when opposing a nomination.
The tactic has stalled several North Carolina nominations to the
federal bench in recent years. Even though North Carolina is the
largest state in the U.S. 4th Circuit, no North Carolinians sit
on its bench. Helms vetoed North Carolina judges nominated by President
Clinton, and Senator Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) has blocked
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of Edenton, North Carolina.
U.S. Senator John Edwards (an attorney in North Carolina and a
presidential candidate for 2004) has charged that Judge Boyle "has
inaccurately interpreted the law in a way that undercuts basic civil
rights protections."
Senator Edwards said the White House should make good on a promise
to him to nominate Allyson Duncan, a black Republican woman who
was a judge of the North Carolina (state) Court of Appeals. Duncan
would be a "consensus North Carolina appointment" and
one, Edwards said, who both he and Senator Elizabeth Dole (Republican,
North Carolina) supported. Dole's office has declined to say whether
she would support Duncan, of Raleigh, or Boyle or the blue slip
tradition.
The White House, meanwhile, stuck with Judge Boyle. "The "blue
slip" is not a veto but a device to ensure adequate consultation,"
said spokesperson Jeanie Mamo. "And we consulted extensively
with Senator Edwards." [These rightwingers love misconstruing
stuff. Did you "listen" closely? Shall we chuckle now?
or get further pissed?]
* http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/release.cfm?ReleaseID=77
(visited June 19, 2003)
and ...
TaleWgnDg's further musings ...
What's this about filibuster * ? and what on earth is cloture **?
A minority party in the Senate is at several disadvantages. The
obvious disadvantage is not a majority of votes available in the
Senate to gets things done as that party deems necessary.
Lesser known disadvantages are that the minority party does not
chair any Senate committees. Thus, it does not hold the committee
gavel to have this or that issue heard, and this or that president's
nominee to get a hearing or not in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Only the majority party has the power to decide if a president's
nominee will get before the Senate Judiciary Committee, thereby
afford that nominee the opportunity of a committee hearing, and
to commence a committee vote for that nominee to ascertain whether
that nominee goes before the full Senate floor for a further vote.
These are some of the many advantages of the majority party, presently
the Republicans.
What happens if the majority party colludes with the president
to pack the federal judiciary benches including the U.S. Supreme
Court bench? Understand the enormous stakes that are at issue!
What then may the minority party do to combat this? Some minority
Democratic Party members in the Senate Judiciary Committee have
commenced filibusters* against certain president's nominee ideologues
as the majority Republican Party has brought their names forward.
As such, these filibustered nominees are stuck where they are, and
do not go forward. Why? A filibuster, including the ending of a
filibuster, called clouture** , is predetermined by the Senate Rules.
Ask why have reports surfaced that Senator Trent Lott (Republican,
Mississippi), Chairman Senate Rules Committee, and U.S. Senator
Frist (Republican, Tennessee), Senate Majority Leader, are attempting
to not only pack the federal judiciary bench and further collude
with Bush, but have met and have held a Senate Rules Committee hearing
to "inquire" about the constitutionality of changing the
Senate rules of filibuster and/or cloture mid-stream in a Senate
session or at the beginning of the next Senate session?
Why this attempt at getting constitutional legal scholars of their
choosing documented on the Senate record ... whether its constitutional
to change Senate Rules mid-stream in a Senate session? at the beginning
of a Senate session? and whether to dump filibuster and cloture
in the Senate Rules whether mid-stream or not? Why this obvious
c.y.a. process? Why now? WHAT?!! ***
"[Senate Majority Leader] Frist's plan would require 60 votes
to break a filibuster over a nomination on the first try, but on
subsequent votes the number would gradually be reduced to 57, 54,
and finally 51. Filibusters of [Senate] legislation would still
require 60 votes to halt." ***
"[Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee,] Lott told reporters
that his [Senate Rules Committee] would probably vote on Frist's
plan this month. Even short of votes [in Committee], bringing it
to the Senate floor 'could be the vehicle for an action that would
be determinative,' he said." ***
Dump the Senate filibuster?!! Dump the cloture Senate rules?!!
****
"The Senate hasn't been reformed in many, many years,"
said Lott [...] " I'm looking for work, so I'm looking at the
rules. We'll either have some reform, or we'll have some fun. "
*****
How do you spell O-U-T-R-A-G-E ?!! Have I grabbed your attention,
yet? *****
* "filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay
Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length,
by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying
or obstructive actions." [note that the majority party may
be authoring this Senate website]
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm
(as visited June 14, 2003)
** "cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote
to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter,
and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule
XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to
30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full
Senate, normally 60 votes." [note that the majority party may
be authoring this Senate website]
[simply put, a "cloture" vote of 60 stops a filibuster.
period.]
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm
(as visited June 14, 2003)
*** "GOP, Democrats Clash Over Filibuster Rule" By Alan
Fram, AP writer, Thursday June 5, 2003 11:19 PM, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2756026,00.html
(visited at June 16, 2003)
**** It takes a super-majority of 67 votes to approve changing the
Senate rules, and it seems almost impossible that enough Democrats
would vote with the Republicans to come anywhere close to that number.
So what's going on? Republicans are pandering to their dumb radical
rightwing constituencies once again! for votes next election! for
campaign funding! for demonizing minority Democrats who try to keep
ideologues from the federal bench! stuff like this reads terrifically
swell in campaign literature, that is, if there's dumb in the equation.
plus it gets these Senators free air-time on C-Span ... smile, straighten
that tie ... free news media coverage too ... see me doing a swell
job as your Senator!
***** "Not surprisingly, Pickering has found a friend in Mississippi
Republican Senator Trent Lott, who [] hopes to push the Pickering
nomination through, wants to have a hearing to change the filibuster
rules for judicial nominees in the Senate. Ana Radelat of Mississippi's
Clarion-Ledger points out that Lott, as the new head of the Senate
Rules committee, is quite enthusiastic: ' The Senate hasn't been
reformed in many, many years,' said Lott [...] ' I'm looking for
work, so I'm looking at the rules. We'll either have some reform,
or we'll have some fun.' "
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dbriefing/2003/22/we_423_04.html
(visited June 16, 2003)
and ...
GET ANGRY! GET INVOLVED! GET ACTIVE!
SUGGESTED LETTER
In order of impact: from #1 having the most impact,
on down to the least impact #4 ...
(1) a signed (real name) letter with your (real) residential
address has the most weigh,
(2) a signed (real name) FAX letter with your (real) residential
address ...
(3) a telephone call leaving your (real) name and (real) residential
address ...
(short message, be concise)
(4) an email letter with your (real) name and (real) residential
address ...
Its been suggested that the most effective letter to a Senator
is a short, concise and to the point writing ... no more than two,
maybe three short paragraphs ... so, here goes:
TaleWgnDg's SUGGESTED LETTER or FAX or email
to each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
(see below for Senate addresses, phones, emails)
********************
TO: Senator HotAir
From: Your Name Here
Date: Today
SUBJECT: FEDERAL JUDICIARY NOMINEES
Why are the Republicans attempting to pack
the federal courts with ideologues? Why have the Republicans tossed
out the traditional "blue slips?" And, now the Republicans
want to eliminate filibusters from the Senate Judiciary Committee
too? When does "advice and consent" kick-in, after the
majority party steam-rolls the minority party? Does the majority
party of today want these extreme tactics to come back and bite
them when they are the minority party? This is not the government
of which I am proud!
As a voter, I am going to be heard this coming
election! I want well-balanced federal courts, not extremists, not
fanatics, not radicals, and certainly not federal jurists who wish
to place their own personal ideology into our federal laws!
/s/ my real name
and my real address
*********************
and ...
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee members, Democrats (minority party)
and Republicans (majority party) :
http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
(as visited June 13, 2003)
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 108th U.S. Senate (2002-2003)
(first hearings for president's nominees to all federal judges/justices)
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS (minority party) :
Senator Patrick J. Leahy (Democrat, Vermont), RANKING DEMOCRATIC
MEMBER
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-4242
FAX:
e-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
url: www.leahy.senate.gov
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Democrat, MASSACHUSETTS)
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-4543
FAX:
e-mail: senator@kennedy.senate.gov
url: www.kennedy.senate.gov
Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Democrat, DELAWARE)
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-5042
FAX:
e-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
url: www.biden.senate.gov
Senator Herbert Kohl (Democrat, WISCONSIN)
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-5653
FAX:
e-mail: senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov
url: www.kohl.senate.gov
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, CALIFORNIA)
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-3841
FAX:
e-mail: (web form) www.feinstein.senate.gov/email.htm
url: www.feinstein.senate.gov
Senator Russell D. Feingold (Democrat, WISCONSIN)
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-5323
FAX:
e-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
url: www.feingold.senate.gov
Senator Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NEW YORK)
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-6542
FAX:
e-mail: (web form)
www.schumer.senate.gov/webform.html
url: www.schumer.senate.gov
Senator Richard J. Durbin (Democrat, ILLINOIS)
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-2152
FAX:
e-mail: dick@durbin.senate.gov
url: www.durbin.senate.gov
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, NORTH CAROLINA) (2004 presidential
candidate)
225 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-3154
FAX:
e-mail: (web form): www.edwards.senate.gov/contact.html
url: www.edwards.senate.gov
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS (majority party) :
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (Republican, UTAH), CHAIRMAN
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-5251
FAX:
e-mail: (web form) www.senate.gov/~hatch/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact
url: www.hatch.senate.gov
Senator Charles E. Grassley (Republican, IOWA)
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-3744
FAX:
e-mail: (web form): www.grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
url: www.grassley.senate.gov
Senator Arlen Specter (Republican, PENNSYLVANIA)
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-4254
FAX:
e-mail: arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov
url: www.specter.senate.gov
Senator Jon Kyl (Republican, ARIZONA)
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4521
Fax: 202-224-2207
email:info@kyl.senate.gov
url: www.senate.gov/~kyl/
Senator Mike DeWine (Republican, OHIO)
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-2315
FAX:
e-mail: (web form):
www.dewine.senate.gov
url: www.dewine.senate.gov
Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, ALABAMA )
335 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-4124
FAX:
e-mail: senator@sessions.senate.gov
url: www.sessions.senate.gov
Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican, SOUTH CAROLINA)
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-5972
FAX:
e-mail: (web form): www.lgraham.senate.gov/email/email.htm
url: www.lgraham.senate.gov
Senator Larry Craig (Republican, IDAHO)
520 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-2752
FAX:
e-mail: (web form): www.craig.senate.gov/webform.html
url: www.craig.senate.gov
Senator Saxby Chambliss (Republican, GEORGIA)
416 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-3521
FAX:
e-mail: saxby_chambliss@chambliss.senate.gov
url: www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/chambliss.htm
Senator John Cornyn (Republican, TEXAS)
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
telephone: (202) 224-2934
FAX:
e-mail: (web form): www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
url: www.cornyn.senate.gov
and ...
if you want to send that (above) SUGGESTED LETTER or another letter
to other Senators (other than those on the Senate Judiciary Committee
(above)), then see the below Senate url for address contact information
...
========================================
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
(as visited 6/13/03)
108th U.S. Senators, names, DC address, DC telephone, email addy
========================================
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.html
(as visited June 13, 2003)
108th U.S. House, names w/ congressional districts and hyperlinks
to each website
========================================
McCain's address is here b/c its more complete than available on
the above urls ...
Senator John McCain (Republican)
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone # (202) 224-2235
Fax # (202) 228-2862
TDD # (202) 224-7132
email (webform): http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home
url: http://mccain.senate.gov/
========================================
That's it! Are you still awake? Hopefully you were able to swim
through this plethora of information without drowning. Thanks for
your attention ... and please remember:
GET ANGRY ! GET INVOLVED ! GET ACTIVE !
- TaleWgnDg
P.S. I do not endorse the content of the url pages that I've herein
posted. Nor do I mean to construe it as an endorsement. Instead,
the urls are for references only.
***********************************************
Do you want this GWBush nominee seated as a federal judge: James
Leon Holmes drew audible gasps when he notoriously stated, "conceptions
from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall
in Miami." (can we say, I-D-E-O-L-O-G-U-E, kids?)
***********************************************
|