Novak: Katrina Will Avenge Southwick?

Last week, the Senate voted to confirm controversial appeals-court nominee Leslie Southwick, whose disturbing record led civil rights groups such as PFAW and the NAACP to oppose him. Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu was among the majority of Democratic senators to vote against Southwick, and conservative columnist Robert Novak claims that this proves her “reliance” on black voters—“even though” many black voters have not returned since Hurricane Katrina and the stalled rebuilding of New Orleans.

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, the only incumbent Democrat considered vulnerable in 2008, showed this week she continues to rely on African-American voters even though well over 100,000 of them left her state in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Landrieu not only voted Wednesday against confirming former Mississippi Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Southwick as a U.S. Appeals Court judge but also opposed bringing his nomination to a floor vote. Civil rights groups lobbied against Southwick's confirmation. He was confirmed, 59 to 38.

Landrieu and other Louisiana Democrats long have counted on a 100,000-vote margin or more out of Orleans Parish (New Orleans). But because of the heavy black emigration, its total vote was around 75,000 last Saturday and was carried by Republican U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal in his election as governor.

PFAW

Playing the Racist Card, Again

It seems as if Gary Marx has managed to pull himself away from his $8,000-a-month position with Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to pen an action alert in his capacity as Executive Director of the Judicial Confirmation Network to urge supporters to contact their senators and demand a vote on the nomination of Leslie Southwick:

The Liberal Left led by Senator Ted Kennedy, Minority Leader Harry Reid, and People for the American Way will stop at nothing in order to keep common sense constitutionalist judges like Leslie Southwick off the bench. Ultimately, their unprecedented judicial filibusters are a backdoor political sabotage to manipulate the Senate rules. Their goal is to create a radical new precedent where for the first time in history a future Supreme Court nominee like Justice Roberts or Alito will be forced to receive 60 votes for confirmation rather than a simple and fair majority vote.

The vote on whether to filibuster Judge Southwick is likely to occur this week ... possibly as early as Wednesday. This is our last chance to make our voice heard. The time to call your Senators' offices is today!

Marx then encourages activists to take the time to read an op-ed penned by his partner at the JCN, Wendy Long - who, like Marx, serves on Romney’s National Faith and Values Steering Committee – in which she trots out the Right’s standard claim that those who raise concerns about Southwick’s judicial record and philosophy are really just calling Southwick a racist:

Just when you thought "white male in the South" didn't equal "presumptive racist," a disgusting spectacle with that familiar theme is unfolding in the United States Senate.

[Senator Richard] Durbin is doing essentially what [Duke Prosecutor Mike] Nifong and [Al] Sharpton did: attacking someone else as a racist in order to advance his own political agenda. Never mind the facts, never mind the law, just play the race card against a white man in the south and you know you have a good chance to bring him down.

It seems that whenever anyone dares to oppose any of President Bush’s judicial nominees, the Right sees some nefarious ulterior motive at work – and that is how they manage to convince themselves that opposition to Southwick stems not from concerns about his record but from some sort of deep-seeded hatred of Southern white males … the same way they said opposition to Miguel Estrada was really due to anti-Latino prejudice … and opposition to Priscilla Owen was the result of flagrant anti-woman bias … and opposition to William Pryor was actually due to anti-Catholic bigotry … and opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was in actuality rooted in racism.    

PFAW

Shoes v. Strict Constructionism

A new video from Concerned Women for America confirms what we've suspected all along: the one issue more pressing to women in this country than the need for new shoes is the confirmation of strict constructionist judges:

PFAW

Specter Threatens All Out War Over Southwick

From the Clarion-Ledger: Moderate GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, who has joined dozens of conservative groups in a fight to win confirmation of a Mississippi judge, said Thursday he's willing to slow work in the Senate if Leslie Southwick is not given a confirmation vote. "If there's a filibuster on Leslie Southwick, it will be open warfare."

PFAW

Spitting in the Face of the Facts

It appears as if the Senate Republicans and their right-wing allies are gearing up for a battle over judges, primarily over the nomination of Leslie Southwick to a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A few weeks ago, Sen. Arlen Specter met with representatives of more than a dozen right-wing organizations -Including Concerned Women of America, the Family Research Council, and the Judicial Confirmation Network -  to complain that he was “fed up” with the Democrats’ supposed failure to confirm enough judges and to urge these groups to get involved in pressing for more confirmations.

And that is just what they have done. 

Today, the Committee for Justice and nearly 60 other right-wing groups released a letter [PDF] they sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasting Democrats for making it “it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent in good faith.” 

The letter claims that failure to confirm Bush’s judges is at least partially responsible for Congress’ low approval rating and warns that the issue will play a role in upcoming elections.  

It then proceeds to make a series of strikingly hypocritical claims: 

The American people are equally unsympathetic to the claim that certain nominees cannot get a hearing because of the Judiciary Committee’s arcane “blue slip” policy. That policy is rightfully perceived as serving senators rather than the public. Because the policy exists entirely at the discretion of the committee chairman, blame for the resulting delays cannot credibly be laid outside the committee.

President Bush fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating the outstanding men and women who await action in the Judiciary Committee. We respectfully request that you allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent, by ensuring that each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner. If you cannot support a particular nominee, vote him or her out of committee without a positive recommendation, or vote against confirmation. But please do not deny the nominee a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.

Of course, back when President Clinton was in office, the “blue slip” policy was used routinely by Republicans to block his nominees but was unilaterally changed when Republicans took control of the Senate under President Bush in order to prevent Democrats from doing the same to Bush.  Now that Democrats are back in control of the Senate, these groups seem to think that the “blue slip” policy switch orchestrated by Sen. Orrin Hatch should still be in place in order to benefit President Bush’s nominees. 

As for the claim that Democrats must ensure that “each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee” … well, let’s just say that is not how Republicans operated under President Clinton either.

Then, just for good measure, Concerned Women for America, despite having signed on to the above-mentioned letter, issued its own press release defending Southwick by accusing those who oppose his confirmation of “spitting on the reputation” of Iraqi War vets.     

"Judge Southwick is a brave, considerate, intelligent American hero -- just the type of person that we need on the federal bench," stated Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America.  "Yet liberal special interest groups have unfairly smeared a good man -- a war veteran -- for doing his constitutional duty of upholding the law and serving in the war.

"Some Democrat senators have followed their lead, in effect spitting on the reputation of this honorable judge and Iraq war veteran.  Is this what other Iraq War veterans will face when they return home?  Will their sacrifice, courage and honor be besmirched by people who put their interests above the welfare of our country?"

Normally when it comes to judges, the Right just tends to accuse its opponents of being sexist, racist, or otherwise bigoted – so accusations that they are also hostile to our troops is a new, though not surprising, development.  

PFAW

60 Right-Wing Groups Demand Action on Judges

The Committee for Justice, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and others come together to write [PDF] to the Senate, telling them to start confirming Bush's judges and ensure "that each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner." Of course, this standard was nowhere to be seen during the Clinton administration.

PFAW

Right Confused as Specter Backtracks

Sen. Specter denies reports he complained to right-wing groups that Democrats had broken a pledge to move judges. FRC says they are "confused by Sen. Specter’s remarks" while the Committee for Justice says he is "trying finesse and soften" his complaints.

PFAW

ACLJ Riding to Southwick's Rescue?

Jay Sekulow decries that the "judicial confirmation process has been tainted by political obstructionists" and proclaims that he has "directed our Washington team to engage in the effort to get Judge Southwick the up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate that he deserves."

PFAW

Right Gearing Up For Fight Over Judges

Politico reports CWA, FRC, and others met with Sen. Specter "to plot strategy for pushing President Bush's nominees, including former Mississippi Judge Leslie H. Southwick." The Hill has more.

PFAW

Playing the Racist Card

Ever since the election of President Bush, Republicans and their allies on the Right have frequently dealt with opposition to his controversial judicial nominations by ignoring the arguments raised by those with legitimate concerns about a nominee’s record in favor of knocking down strawmen of their own creation.  

For instance, when People For the American Way and others voiced opposition to the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, right-wing groups like The Committee for Justice responded by claiming that such opposition was rooted in the fact that Estrada was Latino and claiming that it was an affront to Hispanic-Americans, ignoring the fact that the opposition was actually due to Estrada’s own refusal to reveal anything about his own jurisprudential views and the administration’s refusal to make his full legal record available to the Senate to review.  

Then, when progressive groups opposed the nominations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, the Right claimed that criticism of the nominees was both sexist and, in the case of Rogers Brown, racist – again, preferring to disregard the substantive concerns about their respective legal records.  

The Right did the exact same thing when it came to the nomination of William Pryor, ignoring serious concerns about his record that displayed a blatant hostility to reproductive choice [among other things, he called Roe vs. Wade the “worst abomination of constitutional law in our history”] and accusing those who opposed his nomination of being anti-Catholic – a tactic they trotted out again when John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court.   

In situations where the Right couldn’t accuse a nominee’s opponents of being specifically anti-Latino, anti-Catholic, anti-woman, or straight out racist, they attempted to conflate criticism of a nominee’s legal record with false accusations that the nominee was being accused of being racist – a tactic they deployed during the fight over the nomination of Charles Pickering.  As we explained [PDF] back in 2002:

Some Pickering supporters are arguing in effect that it is impossible to criticize Judge Pickering’s public record on the principles that govern civil rights law without accusing him of being a racist.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that with a battle brewing over the nomination of Leslie Southwick to a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – not incidentally, the very same seat for which Charles Pickering and Michael Wallace were nominated, both of whom faced significant opposition due to their disturbing records on civil rights - the Right has reverted to form and begun using both of these tactics: claiming either that opponents of Southwick’s confirmation are racist or are accusing him of being a racist.   

PFAW
Syndicate content