 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
TommyPain
Member
|
Posted: Fri May 20th, 2005 02:27 am |
|
http://www.dailykos.com
In the attention that we are rightly giving to the fact that Bill Frist is going to violate the rules of the Senate in an attempt to force through a handful of judges too controversial to otherwise be confirmed, we shouldn't forget the particular judges that, through their re-nominations once rejected, started this controversy. In this case, Judge Priscilla Owen.
From the Republicans, we helpfully learn that she likes puppies. From the Center for American Progress, we learn:
Indeed, in critiquing her nomination, The Houston Chronicle took issue not with her being "too conservative" but with the fact that "she too often contorts rulings to conform to her particular conservative outlook." As the San Antonio Express stated, "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.... But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge."
THE CORPORATE CONNECTION: There has been a good deal of coverage of Owen's anti-choice stance but her pro-business leanings may be as disturbing. In 2003, the Austin-American Statesman declared that Owen could "usually be counted upon in any important case that pitted an individual or group of individuals against business interests to side with business." Furthermore, she had a questionably ethical tendency to take "campaign contributions from law firms and corporations ... and then, without recusing herself, [rule] in their favor when their cases came before her." Owen's rulings are considered so business-friendly and tainted that a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association once quipped, "In my more cynical moments, I suggest that, just as sports stadiums are now named after corporations, judicial seats are soon to follow. In that vein, I believe that Justice Owen could well fill the Exxon/Mobil or Wal-Mart seat on the Fifth Circuit."
THE ENRON AND HALLIBURTON CASES: Two notable past corporate-friendly cases ruled on by Owen involve very publicly known corporations - Halliburton and Enron - both of which had donated to Owen's judicial campaign. In the case of Sanchez v. Halliburton, a Halliburton field worker "won a $2.6 million verdict after the jury found that a company supervisor had framed him to test positive for cocaine." After an appeals court ruling overturned the verdict, Sanchez tried to bring the case to the Texas Supreme Court. In the months during which the case was before the Court, Halliburton made its only campaign donations to Texas Supreme Court justices that year, giving thousands of dollars to three justices: Priscilla Owen, Nathan Hect, and Alberto Gonzales. Result: the court declined to hear the case and the ruling overturning Sanchez's case stood. In Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School District, Owen "authored the opinion for a unanimous court [decision] that ... saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district."
So naturally, you can see why the winsome curriculum vitae of this particular judge requires violating Senate rules that have, until George W. Bush came along, stood since the early days of the American nation.
Despite the sillier Republican rhetoric, The Democrats aren't objecting to judges at random. Over two hundred Bush nominees have been approved without incident. These particular few judges were turned down because they were either deemed unqualified or of deeply questionable judicial ethics.
(Also, as an aside -- I'm damn tired of writing the word Halliburton. I'm also tired of being presented with nominees whose primary qualifications for the job they seek seem to be a personal connection to the Bush family or the corporations affiliated with them.)
This absurd anti-filibuster, we-must-break-the-rules, Democrats-are-like-Hitler argument really has reached the heights of stupidity. The seat Bush seeks Owen to fill is only open at all because Senate Republicans blocked both of President Clinton's nominations for the same position without ever allowing them a hearing, much less a vote.
|
Current time is 10:54 am | |
|
|
|
|
