Google+

Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Revisionist History



Text  



Senator Debbie Stabenow is now speaking in support of confirmation of the two Michigan nominees, and claimed that she and Senator Carl Levin have both wanted to move forward with these nominees for some time. Yet both would have been confirmed long ago had the Michigan Senators not stood in their way.

RE: Pryor Wins



Text  



Now the Senate is moving on to consideration of David McKeague and Richard Griffin, both nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Collins



Text  



What on earth could be Collins’s rationale for voting for Owen and Brown but not Pryor? I wasn’t aware there was much difference among their originalist approaches.

53-45



Text  



Pryor confirmed! Miracles happen even in the Senate.

More Pryor Votes



Text  



Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska just voted for Pryor.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pryor votes



Text  




Senator Specter voted for Pryor, despite their profound disagreement on Roe, but Senators Collins and Chafee both voted no.

TNR on Raich



Text  



The folks at TNR find the dissenting opinions in Raich quite troubling, and use them to warn about the alleged “constitution in exile” movement.

The fact that O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas remain committed to aggressive judicial oversight of Congress’s power to regulate the economy suggests that conservative judicial activism is not defeated; it still has powerful allies. Which is why the views of Supreme Court nominees about the Constitution in Exile should be a central question in the confirmation battles to come.

In Touch with My Sensitive Feminine Side



Text  



Aren’t Senator Durbin’s pieties, er, crashing into each other just a bit here? According to my history book, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870. The Nineteenth took another half century. That is, to borrow the senators lingo, “person[s] of color” who were men actually had a 50-year head start on more than half of “white Americans.”

I guess the message here is that white men suck, and that’s why we need Section 5. According to Senator Durbin, a white man.

Will there ever be a time when this kind of idiocy is no longer part of our politics?

White Americans Don’t Get It



Text  



From a rush transcript of Durbin:

IT IS THEIR BELIEF, MANY OF THEM, THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RULE ON THESE DECISIONS.n EN OR ITS ISSUE OF VOTING RIGHTS, MR. PRYOR HAS URGED CONGRESS TO TO TAKE STEP IT’S SO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO VOTE. HE URGED CONGRESS TO CONSIDER SERIOUSLY THE REPEAL OF THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACTS. THIS IS A KEY PROVISION ENCOURAGING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN VOTING. IT REQUIRES CERTAIN STATES TO ACHIEVE PREAPPROVAL FOR CHANGING — CHANGING VOTING RIGHT STANDARDS. IT IS CLEARLY A S. RES. TAJ OF AN AMERICAN IN TRANSITION FROM RACIAL DIVISION OF STKHREUPL NATION TO A MORE OPEN EQUAL POLICY. MR. PRYOR RAISE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRY TO MEET THAT STANDARD. I DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS SENTIMENT. HE CALLED SECTION 5 — QUOTE — “AN AFFRONT TO FEDERALISM AND AN EXPENSIVE BURDEN THAT FAR OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS.” I MIGHT SAY TO MR. PRYOR AND TO OTHERS WHO ARE WHITE AMERICANS THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH THIS MEANS, WHAT IT MEANS TO AN INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, PARTICULARLY A PERSON OF COLOR, A MINORITY IN AMERICA. AND SECTION 5 IS THERE TO GUARANTEE IT. AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, MR. PRYOR TESTIFIED THAT IT HAD OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS. I DISAGREE WITH HIS SENTIMENT. THANKFULLY, SO DID THE SUPREME COURT AND MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

Parsing Ginsburg’s Words



Text  



Did Ginsburg propose to abolish Mother’s Day? Or did she merely propose that abolition of Mother’s Day be considered?

Again, here is exactly what Ginsburg proposed–in a section titled “Recommendations”:

Replacing “Mother’s Day” and “Father’s Day” with a “Parents’ Day” should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles.
A couple readers have written to suggest that a careful parsing of her language supports only the latter proposition. I won’t dispute that the language may permit this slightly narrower reading, but, for the following reasons, I don’t think that’s the most natural or sensible reading:

1. Ginsburg’s language is included under a heading titled “Recommendations.” I don’t think that she is calling for legislation to require people to consider abolishing Mother’s Day.

2. In context, it is clear that Ginsburg regards Mother’s Day as inconsistent “with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles.” The very point of her report was to recommend legislative changes to effect this policy.

3. If someone were to write, say, that “Killing Frenchmen should be considered,” I don’t think that the most natural reading of that proposition is that the writer is neutral on it.

That said, those who want to argue that Ginsburg merely proposed considering the abolition of Mother’s Day (as if that’s a much more modest proposal) are welcome to do so–so long, of course, as they strive to maintain the same unnatural standard of punctiliousness in summarizing the views of those with whom they disagree.

The larger point remains unaffected: By any measure, Ginsburg, at the time of her nomination, had expressed extremist views that placed her at the leftist fringe of American society and, as a justice, has continued that course. Yet notwithstanding views that were far more out of the “mainstream” than even the grossest caricatures of the most vilified of President Bush’s nominees, Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court, by a 96-3 vote, a mere six weeks after her nomination. And the Left still pretends that she is in the mainstream.

Irony Alert



Text  



Beldarblog makes a good point about Durbin’s argument that Pryor does not respect judicial precedent.

Pryor and the Hitching Post Case



Text  



Senator Schumer also misrepresented Bill Pryor’s record on the Hitching Post Case. Mobile Register editorialist Quin Hillyer explained on NRO two years ago.

Pryor favors wife beating?



Text  



I heard that bit, too, K-Lo. Schumer said Pryor is “opposed to protecting women from being beaten by their husbands” because he views part of the Violence Against Women Act as beyond Congress’s legitimate power. Here’s some of what CFJ put out on Pryor and VAWA:

Even in light of his enviable record on women’s issues, General Pryor’s shrill detractors have nonetheless distorted the position he took in an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Morrison, where the Court held that the Violence Against Women Act’s (“VAWA”) civil remedy was beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause powers. General Pryor did not argue that the whole Act was unconstitutional, as some special interest groups have claimed. Rather, the central point of Alabama’s argument was that prohibiting violence against women was absolutely necessary – but that doing so historically has fallen within the domain of state and local governments. Alabama simply argued that state and local officials are better equipped than the federal government to solve the civil justice aspects of the problem of violence against women.

The very day the Morrison decision was handed down, General Pryor reiterated Alabama’s commitment to eradicating gender-motivated violence. He noted, “States have led the way in battling domestic abuse and rape. The safety of women – and men – is best protected by encouraging and strengthening state efforts, not by allowing the states to pass the buck to federal bureaucrats and judges.” Indeed, when VAWA initially was proposed, a number of federal judges and their representative organizations opposed the law for the same reason: its tendency to displace traditional state adjudications. In 1991, the United States Judicial Conference objected to VAWA because it feared the legislation would “flood the federal courts with cases better handled in state courts.” The Judicial Conference is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and includes the Chief Judges of thirteen federal appeals courts and a district judge from each of the nation’s twelve geographical federal circuits. Kathryn Coumanis, the Executive Director of Penelope House, knows the truth about General’s Pryor’s record on women’s issues. She had the following to say about him: “The entire Board of Directors of Penelope House Family Violence Center here in Mobile, AL, unanimously asked that I include them in support of this nomination. Attorney General Bill Pryor has been a long time supporter and advocate of Penelope House, and has worked tirelessly to protect women and children from the dangers of domestic violence. . . . When Bill Pryor raises his voice in support of our mission, it enables us to reach every member of our community. . . . Bill Pryor will bring to the Federal Bench the qualities that all Americans cherish. He is loyal to his State and his Country, is a man of princip[le] and integrity, is highly intelligent, and most of all is a man who has immense compassion and respect for his fellow human beings.”

Would It Be Wrong to Point Out



Text  



That many of us say “Please, God, no more Souter” type prayers?

Gee Whiz



Text  



No wonder some people hate Bush so much. He nominates (and recess appoints) a man who is cool with women being beaten (re: his problems with the Violence Against Women Act). That’s the sound of the quality debate from Charlie Schumer on the floor right now.

Dick Durbin, Too



Text  



Thinks that Pryor has just been lying low. It’s been “one year” under “close scrutiny,” a “probationary period.” It doesn’t count. And his record in Alabama as attorney general don’t mean nothing to Durbin and co either.


There Go Those White Christians Again



Text  



On the Senate floor just now, Dick Durbin ran off some of the usual Left talking points on Bill Pryor and the Voting Rights Act (see Sean Rushton on here). Durbin said that Pryor could not appreciate the value of the right to vote because he is a white man.

Spare Me



Text  



Dick Durbin is going on the Senate floor right now about how Republicans are wrong to say that any questions about public issues (like one’s opposition to abortion that fits with his religious beliefs). Dems are asking legitimate questions, is his contention. Would those legitimate questions include those Russ Feingold asked about his family vacation plans?

Randy Barnett’s Article Today



Text  



Kudos to Randy Barnett for today’s NRO piece. However, two minor areas of disagreement. I don’t see liberal distress with Stevens’s position; I see the opposite. And I don’t see the cause of medical cannabis receiving any lift here. Indeed, perhaps Kennedy and others in the majority were motivated to reach a bad constitutional result because of their discomfort with the product, as illogical as that may be in this case. But this is a definite and significant setback. Nonetheless, Randy’s advocacy was outstanding.

Ginsburg vs. Mother’s Day: Easily Forgettable



Text  



One detail of Al Franken’s mistaken assertion that Ruth Bader Ginsburg never proposed the abolition of Mother’s Day merits further attention. After listening to an audiotape of Franken’s remarks on his Air America show, I am revising the unofficial transcript to make clear that Franken was quoting Brookings Institution scholar Thomas Mann in his grand conclusion:

I think it’s an urban myth from conservatives. We got this from Thomas E. Mann, a Brookings Institute Senior Fellow on Government Studies. . . . He told us, “I now have it on the highest and closest authority that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has never, in any setting, proposed doing anything with Mother’s Day.”
So who is this “highest and closest authority” that Franken and Mann rely on? The only plausible alternatives are Ginsburg herself or her husband (after consulting with Ginsburg). Either way, it seems clear that Franken was signaling to his Air America listeners (both of them) that Ginsburg herself was the ultimate source of his (mis)information.

Let’s assume that Franken was not deceiving his audience on this point. Let’s assume, in other words, that Ginsburg was his ultimate source. So what?

I don’t doubt that Ginsburg could honestly have believed that she never proposed to abolish Mother’s Day. Indeed, it is just this possibility that I find so disturbingly revealing.

If, after all, you have dedicated your career to the ideological fiction that men and women are, except for trivial differences in plumbing, absolutely identical (rather than, say, of equal dignity and wonderfully complementary in nature). . .

If you have such disdain for the Founders that you purge their words of imagined gender bias and entrench your own policy preferences into constitutional law in place of the real Constitution. . .

If you regard the traditions of the American people as benighted. . .

If you pretend that abortion and even the utter barbarity of partial-birth abortion are constitutional rights (see Stenberg v. Carhart) and that the Constitution requires that taxpayers fund them (see Ginsburg’s chapter on the 1976 Term of the Supreme Court in a book titled Constitutional Government in America). . .

If you believe that it is bigotry not to elevate homosexual relations to the status of traditional marriage (see Lawrence v. Texas). . .

If you think that the Constitution can plausibly be read to prohibit laws against polygamy and prostitution. . .

If you oppose the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts for perpetuating stereotyped sex roles. . .

If you are so removed from reality that you see co-ed prisons as necessary “to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society”. . .

If you recommend that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape should be reduced to twelve. . .

If you believe that it is your job as a justice to supplant the political process and dictate for all Americans which interests are part of some New Age “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” (see Lawrence v. Texas). . .

And if you won’t abide by the same rules (see 5th paragraph here) that you so eagerly impose on everyday Americans. . .

Then it’s hardly surprising that your comparatively modest proposal of abolishing Mother’s Day wouldn’t be memorable to you.

But it is shameful that Democratic senators and the liberal media have the gall to portray Ginsburg as a “moderate” and as in the “mainstream” while they attack President Bush’s outstanding nominees whose records and values are, by any measure, far more in line with those of the American people.

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review