Hello, everyone. I am so pleased to be joining you here today. I’ve seen that you already have some questions and great suggestions for future participants in the series. I’m really looking forward to working with all of you here.

Welcome Nan Aron!

Hi Nan — welcome to FDL. Thanks so much for being here today and working with us on this series. This is such a crucial issue at a critical juncture for our nation’s courts and the rule of law — and I couldn’t be more pleased that we are helping with a public education series on this.

This is wonderful. Thank you so much for being here. Although I have to drive in to work now, I’m eager to watch Quiet Revolution & read all the comments here this evening.

Read you all later, & thanks again, Nan Aron.

Welcome and I echo everything Christy says. My work does not allow me to participate in the conversation, but I look forward to reading the thread tonight, participating in future conversations, and helping with your endeavor.

Nan — One of the criticial issues that we have seen, time and time again, has been the unwillingness of members of the Senate to hold the line on judges who are clearly being appointed not for legal scholarship and fairness but for purely ideological purposes. It has been incredibly frustrating to fight particular appointments (Southwick is the most recent that comes to mind) only to have members of the Senate fold at the end.

Any thoughts on how to better educate the public on why this is crucial? Beyond what we’ve already been doing, I mean?

Thanks for the welcome. I thought I would start with a couple of questions that I saw in yesterday’s post. The first one I want to address is how will conservative packed courts affect ordinary people? I think we’ve already seen some of those effects. Just last term, Lily Ledbetter, a worker at an Alabama tire plant was denied compensation for unfair pay. The Third Circuit recently ruled that consumers who get merchandise they didn’t want through the mail can be tricked into paying for it by deceptive companies and the courts close the door to any effort to get their money back.

Good Morning Nan and thank yo for all your efforts and for joining us here at the Lake.

How do we go about educating the Senators on something so obvious to most of us, that the Rs being appointed to judgeships (Federalist Society?), will say most anything in order to be confirmed at which point they then send big fat fingers at us all?

I’m thinking specifically of Roberts and Alito and their supposed acceptance of “stare decsis” and the constitutional provision of settled law and immediately vote contrary to that.

Don’t the senators understand that these people were lying through their teeth when speaking in the confirmation hearings?

Well, we completely agree with you about the Senate. Your questions clearly demonstrates why the progressive community needs to make the courts a top priority. We have to do an even better job at holding senators’ feet to the fire, and exert pressure on senators who have clearly not done all they can to push back on the White House. Ultraconservatives have been helped considerably by the right wing echo chamber and individuals and elites on all levels working from the same playbook. As I say in my post, this is a priority for them every single day and it needs to be the same for us. More calls, more letters to the editor, more op-eds, more home state meetings with senators, more questions at town hall forums. Basically, the answer is more. Louder advocacy from progressives around the country.

I am particularly interested in methods advocacy groups can use to influence the moribund Senate nomination/confirmation process for lower-court judges. All of us witness the flawed process for Supreme Court nominees. It would be helpful to find new ways to influence the process when potential high-court nominees are being considered earlier in their careers for District and Appellate court positions.

I think, in some ways, the senators DO understand the dynamics, but they don’t have the political will (or, in their view, incentive) to oppose bad nominees. It goes back to what I said in my last answer. We need to make the courts a priority in the states. Anyone running for office or in office needs to be asked the tough questions about where they stand on this issue and about the votes they cast.

Other than their jobs as judges…what’s in it for them?? Scalia really seems to be a political “player”…hunting with Cheney and all, during Cheney’s energy taskforce clam-up. How does one effectively scrutinize their ethical practices?

I also want to recommend the film linked up in this post to everyone. It’s a clear laying out of the issues in terms of the Federalist Society, Christian conservative agenda and Dick Cheney/unilateral executive wing to remake the courts in their own image. The film does a great job at showing the roots of this, the planning that has gone into it and the conservative money and muslce that has been brought to the table to make it happen.

Good Morning Nan Aron, and thankyou for coming.

Thank you Christy and Jane. What an incredible idea this series is!

I am excited to read this series. Thanks for being here Nan and thank you FDL for helping with this series.

Scott, that’s a great observation. All too often, the blinders can be on when it comes to the appellate courts. We need to start paying attention at all levels of the judiciary. It is important for the Senate to treat each federal court nominee, at every level of the judiciary, to treat the hearings with the same seriousness that anyone hiring an employee would. After all, these people serve for life and cannot be fired or voted out of office. You wouldn’t hire an interviewee who refused to answer a question about their credentials, would you, let alone someone you could never fire? I know I’ve said it again, but in terms of what we can do is MORE. LOUDER. CONSTANT.

Welcome Nan Aron. Will wait to hear further from you. And Thank you for
coming before us today.

The biggest way in which the Senate can be influenced, IMHO, is to ring their phones, hit their faxes, and most of all — show up at their offices (either in DC or at home) and make the point in person.

Judicial nominees matter, and we’re tired of the Senate serving as lapdogs.

If the senate values its “advise and consent” role, it had better start offering some advice and, when necessary to protect the independence of the judiciary and to uphold the basic rule of law, withhold their consent.

Perhaps in the future, the films could be posted the Friday before the First Monday, so that we can view them before the guest comes to chat.

Think of it as filing briefs in advance of the oral argument.

*g*

Nan — are there particular issues that are upcoming in this session of Congress that you all are tracking? I’m interested to see what is on your radar screen.

Nan - Thanks so much for being here with us.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the politicization of the nomination process. So often we here from the “right” that democrats are turning the process into a circus. I have a feeling that there must have been controversial (and subsequently politicized) judicial picks as far back as the founding of our democracy. Am I right?

Thanks.

Welcome Nan - what a great new series this is for FDL!

As to ethics… Part of the overall record of a nominee is a review of their past dealings. We here at Alliance for Justice always takes a look at whether that person has been honest and ethical. For example, several recent nominees have made campaign contributions to politicians involved in their confirmations process AFTER they were considered for the job. However, it comes back to the Senate. For example, Arlen Specter is pushing for the confirmation of a judge with just such a question on his record. Gene Pratter should not be confirmed to the Third Circuit. So, we need to scrutinze the record and bring the attention of the Senate and the public and the press about these problems. As for the specifics on Scalia, Supreme Court justices have a tradition of policing themselves, just one more reason why we have to be especially careful when confirming a nominee to the Court.

Nan, I’ve seen some criticism in the news lately regarding the failure of the Senate to schedule hearings for Bush’s latest round of nominees. But if I remember correctly, didn’t conservatives do the same thing to Clinton nominees at the end of his presidency? What are your thoughts on this so-called, “end of term slow-down?”

Hi Nan Aron! Thanks for doing this. I agree the courts need to be a top priority. I’m wondering about the non-profit world, and how it could influence this. When and why were 501s created? Is the fragmentation of organizations a handicap? The 501c3 seems to be especially problematic. It can collect a lot of money, but is limited in its political action. It seems to weaken other types of groups in its fundraising.

If the U.S. is to survive it will be imperative to purge the courts of right wing ideologues who have more allegiance to their party of anti-democratic authoritarians than to the Republic. They are a fifth column that poses a far greater threat to America than any cave dwelling terrorist.

501(c)(3) organizations are charities and by design are not permitted to do more than a minimal amount of political work.

Actually, 501(c)(3)s aren’t limited in terms of action on issues — that’s pretty open-ended. They simply cannot advocate for a particular candidate in a political campaign. But the type of issues education we hope to do with this series is exactly the sort of thing that a 501(c)(3) can — and should — do.

Nan can probably speak to particulars on limitations for her group, though, as I’m sure they have hit that candidate wall on occasion in frustration. *g*

You’re so right, BitterCynic. Politics have been an issue as far back as George Washington. One of his nominees was not confirmed because of his views on the Jay Treaty. The Constitution envisions an adversarial process given that the power is shared between the Executive who nominates after ”advise” from/consultations with the Senate (a practice clearly repudiated by this White House)and then the Senate makes an independent decision about confirmation.

Glad to read about the film, and thanks for making it. It’s relevant to us in Michigan. We have a terrible state supreme court right now here, where the majority is rumored to be Federalists. They are overturning precedents on flimsy grounds. I know the Federalists don’t publish their membership list, but is there some other way to confirm that?

Thanks for the link to the film, more items for the syllabus!

Nan, what would it take to get A Quiet Revolution onto television? Is this something that AFJ is looking into?

As to what is on our radar screen coming up: Working to stop FISA legislation granting telecom immunity AND to make sure any legislation creates meaningful oversight by the courts, “The Ledbetter Fix”–legislation restoring the ability of people to seek redress for pay discrimination, the American Anti Torture Act of 2008, reaffirming the illegality of waterboarding and other torture techniques. And, of course, there are several controversial judicial nominees in the pipeline. They need to be stopped and the Senate needs to declare a moratorium on confirming judges. Tell your Senator NO MORE CONFIRMATIONS.

Quiet Revolution was actually an introductory piece that AFJ put together in 2006. They have done a LOT of work with it on college campuses, to help students get a better feel for the court system and the legal impact on our everyday lives. I thought it was a great intro piece for this series, so everyone will start out on the same page when the first Monday in February rolls around for all of us.

Christy, you’re right of course, 501c3 action on issues is unlimited. It just seems like 501c3s can’t close the deal because they can’t actually elect one of their own. You have to have a 501c4 and a PAC. And a political party. Maybe I’m making too much of it, but the fragmentation seems like a problem. It requires a lot of resources, and that works against the grass roots.

Nan — have you all had an opportunity to look into the National ID issue that reared its head again with the Chertoff fiat last week? Last I’d heard, there were significant state’s rights considerations that were being raised by a number of states AGs — yet the Bush Administration seems to have dismissed that question entirely, let alone privacy concerns on this. Have you all looked at it at all? Would love to know thoughts if you have…

I am thinking of becoming a volunteer to teach a unit on “civics” to mid-school students after school. I think your films would be really great, can we get them on DVD for this kind of project?

More Democracy. You are right, there is no public list of membership (we’ve looked), but given the growth of their influence, most people are proudly proclaiming their membership. Also, many nominees to list it in their questionnaires. That’s a recent change, though. Remember John Roberts and the Federalist Society? He tried to conceal his Federalist Society ties–even demanding a correction from The Washington Post when they noted it–however he could explain away his name appearing on a published list of steering committee members. Ultimately, neither he nor the White House had any comment. Well, at least until the Federalist Society annual dinner a few months back when he praised the organization in videotaped remarks.

If you really want to know, you could try just writing these people, or asking your state legislator to ask them, about their membership.

Quick note about the film. We don’t have broadcast rights at this time for a lot of the footage that we use, but we do have free DVDs that you can order from our website, as well as versions online.

bgrothus — if you go to the AFJ page on the film, they have a click-thru button that allows you to order the film and other materials about the courts. It’s a great idea to show this to civic groups, btw — including things like your local Democratic or DFA groups and such.

Far too few people think about the broad-ranging impact that the courts can have on their lives. And how much their votes can matter in terms of influencing that.

I agree with a moratorium on confirmations. It’s not my favorite tactic, but in this case, you have to fight fire with fire. The Republicans would not confirm judicial nominations under Clinton, and they shifted many courts to the ultra-conservative under Bush. We need to shift them back.

Nan, I thoguht one of the most effective portions of the film was where you juxtaposed Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito’s testimony. Their answers were almost mirror image ones — and then to see the language from Thomas’ opinions since his appointment to the bench against the backdrop of that testimony was devastating.

On The National ID, we’re thinking about it here in the office, but it’s interesting how the White House and some conservatives use states’ rights when it is convenient to them. They push the states’ rights argument when it helps their agenda, but as soon as it creates a roadblock to what they want to do, they brush it aside.

This is an extremely controversial issue frought with problems for many disadvantaged constituencies in the United States and it is vital that any such proposal be intensely scrutinized to ensure that it does not trample the constitutional rights of Americans.

Heh, like the Bushites EVER have any reason to be consistent. This whole unitary executive is just their method of doing whatever they want whenever they want.

It is devastating and is still happening. If you compare Alito and Roberts answers during their testimony to their rulings on issues like school desegregration and women’s rights… Their rhetoric does not match the reality. We actuall did an analysis of this at the end of last term if you want to take a look. I’ll post the URL in just moment.

The Bush White House coaches their nominees to say as little as possible and senators fail to insist on meaningful answers during the hearings. Interestingly, the WHITE HOUSE’s screening interviews with these people are conducted in private and never revealed, where sensitive issues are discussed. We strongly believe the public has the same right to hear–on the record–about the nominee’s views and the nominee’s answers that the president does.

Many of us here are quite familiar with what has happened and how it was accomplished by a right-wing juggernaut. If only the general public knew or cared to know how it affects them. The media has become a part of the right wing machine and it serves to catapult the propaganda. Obscure programming on CSPAN 2 is not reaching the masses. God how we all (FDL) were so disgusted with the Senate for confirming both Alito and Roberts. Some of our senators did a good job of pretending to fight against those nominees.
My question is this: What is an efficient method of determining the mettle of a judge on the local level. Whenever I vote, I don’t know who the judges are or more importantly what they represent. How do we avoid saying yes to a winger judge?

Sorry to be late to the discussion, but I needed to watch the film clips.

I agree with Christy — this was the standout piece for me with the testimonies of Thomas, Roberts and Alito. What would it take for the Senate Judiciary Committee to make a practice of not forwarding nominees that conveniently ‘forget’ facts and not answer questions directly? The standards for acceptance must be higher than they are now. Behavior like this is what gives Dems the wimp label.

Here’s the URL for that analysis: http://www.afj.org/about-afj/p.....view.html.

Welcome Non.

I’d like to see the process of recess appointments, which I understand was created because of travel constraints prevalent in the 18th century, scrapped entirely.

What would it take, constitutionally speaking?

Thanks for your efforts.

Nan — One of the issues that we have spent a considerable amount of time and energy on is the havoc that Dick Cheney and his unilateral executive pushing crew have wreaked on the federal government. From the politicization of the DOJ through to the myriad signing statements, there has been such a wholesale attempt at pushing executive power to the detriment of the other governmental branches. Have you seen any shift in the willingness of members of Congress to stand up on this issue? What, if anything, can all of us do to help with that — beyond contacting our elected representatives and giving them an earful when they let that issue ride instead of standing up for balance of powers and against Presidential fiat?

I’d like to thank Nan Aron and AFJ for all their great publications, their web site, their consulting, and all the great work they do. They are super resources for organizations trying to take their game to the next level. Recently got a new copy of The Connection, a fantastic resource.

I have two comments:
I have not seen any federal judges who do not have a biased agenda.
The other comment is the quality of judges is poor. The government needs to pay them more in order to find a better quality judge. It seems there are two kinds of judges. One is the person who cannot make it in the real world or the other who is power driven and has a bias of one type or another.

It’s a great idea to show this to civic groups, btw — including things like your local Democratic or DFA groups and such.

Can you say “meet ups”?

Imagine getting a bunch of canvassers together, and showing them this film before they hit the streets. “This is why we need MORE AND BETTER DEMS.”

Every Democratic candidate for the US senate — especially those challenging a GOP incumbent (or a new Republican looking to hold a GOP seat) — needs to view this film. Of all the powers that a member of the Senate has, the power of confirming or withholding consent is probably the most powerful, and no one else has it.

Good Morning Nan;

What role, if any, have our premier ‘Law’ Schools played in this deliberate assault upon the fundamentals of our legal system? Why are professors of law at such august institutions as Harvard and Yale not stepping up to their responsibilities? There are judges on the Supreme Court whose professors must well have known to posess proclivities that if played out wouild result in just what has happened. The polemics and prejudices of these judges have been clear and evident for years.

I do not think that Law schools or professors of Law deserve a pass on this. The Judge in the Libby trial showed (as I read it) something less than glowing respect for certain professor-attorneys in this specific regard

Peterr — That is a fantastic idea. Along the lines of what Robert Greenwald was able to do with Iraq for Sale when it came out — that would be a great community project for readers who are looking for a way to talk about these issues.

Hackworth, that is a struggle. In communities where voter guides are available, they can be an invaluable tool. Your question points to the need to have a concerted effort on the LOCAL level to collect and disseminate information. It is often the case that local judges are deciding cases of huge importance to communities around the country and many of these local candidates recieve funding from large national corporations to implement an agenda. Indeed, few state judges do not write opinions explaining their decisions once they are on the bench. We all have a right to know who is being considered. I think organization at the local level is CRITICAL. It might start with a group of people at a coffee shop and build from there. The profile of the issue needs to be raised on all levels: Local, State and Federal.

Nan and Christy, thanks for this great new series.

Nan, does the Constitution allow for the impeachment of Federal judges?

If so, may the fact of Federalist appointees’ false statements to Congress re their Federalist connections offer sufficient grounds for impeachment?

Beyond that - is the Federalist society’s antipathy for Constitution (as manifest in the “unitary executive” cult) sufficiently great as to render participation in the organization an act of treason?

As you can see, I’m hoping for Constitutional means by which the Federalist appointees may be excised from the body politic.

Well, I can hope, anyway.

Salaries for the federal bench are a constant concern — especially given how they have not kept pace, even remotely, with legal salaries in private practice and with inflationary concerns. You end up either with real ideologues who want to get a lifetime appointment to skew legal scholarship and opinions and precedent. Or you get folks who are either independently wealthy or well connected, or who don’t have the same prospects in private parctice as they do with an opportunity on the federal bench.

There has been a LOT of discussion about this issue among legal folks across the country about this for thelast several years.

Quick answer: The Constitution does provide for impeachment, but it is extremely rare and difficult to do. Of course, 51 votes to stop a judge from being confirmed is much easier than getting 67 votes to convict and remove a judge from office.

There are so many questions, I am trying to get to them all as quickly as possible!

I think local judges — both at the state level and the district court folks on the federal bench — do such important work. And it is so overlooked in the everyday discussion of these issues, even though the impact is enormous on communities across the country.

This is one of those issues that truly needs a lot more sunshine and education for folks outside the legal field.

Recess appointments were not intended to be a loophole to escape Senate review, but to fulfill a genuine need. This Administration has used recess appointments (like Charles Pickering) hostile to basic rights in defiance of the Senate. Eliminating them entirely would, I think, require an amendment to the Constitution.

Wasn’t there an attempt to impeach the judge in the Terri Schiavo mess? I recall Man on Dog talking about that.

Actually, a lot of them have been. But for the first 6 years of the Bush Administration, when the GOP controlled the Senate, those professors and/or peers who had practiced with these potential judges were not often called as witnesses in the confirmation process. And the media wasn’t exactly running to dig into coverage of them, either.

We are living with the results of this lack of true and meaningful oversight in the advice and consent process, and will be doing so for years to come. This isn’t to say that the Dems have perfected things since taking the Senate back in 2006, but at least some questions have begun to be asked instead of a wholesale whitewash and rubber stamp operation which we had from 2000 through to 2006, by and large.

Thanks for your answer. That was the answer I feared. The answer is that there is no simple way for the average voter to know. Judges who are up for re-election are seldom if ever discussed in the newspapers.

It’s also worth noting that the Bush Administration has pushed recess appointments so far that they shoved John Bolton into his UN position over strenuous objections from Republicans in the Senate who refused to hold a vote on his nomination because they felt he was too odious, even for them.

Thanks so much to all of you for a wonderful dialogue and great questions. Unfortunately, I am out of time, but we here at Alliance for Justice is thrilled to partner with FDL in this exciting venture. If you have more questions, post them here over the course of the day and I will answer them both here and in Alliance for Justice’s Justice Digest blog. If you want to find out more about the confirmation process, records of judges, etc., please don’t hesitate to ask or visit our website for resources. I would be excited to hear about your ideas for future series. The commitment to this issue here is heartening and we need to share that passion with more people. Thanks so much again. I hope you all enjoyed this as much as I did.

Alcee Hastings (current D-Representative from Florida) is I believe the most recent Federal judge impeached and removed from office.

All through the fifties and early sixties, the conservatives were continually pushing to have Earl Warren impeached because of the rulings by that court.

Thank you Nan — you and your group are doing an excellent job. As a layperson, I particularly appreciate how well you lay out this issue for people like me.

One thing that might help is to speak with any lawyers you might know about their experiences with a particular candidate. I know my day-to-day experience with various candidates in court and in negotiations and such gave me a real feel for who would or would not be good on the bench or as a prosecutor, etc. That can be useful to know, but isn’t likely to be something anyone will broadcast publicly in print, for obvious reasons: what if a vindictive, odious person wins election and knows you publicly criticized them? Your clients would suffer as a result. (Just as a real world example, I’ve seen that happen a time or two…)

But most lawyers will have a private conversation with you about various candidates if you ask them about it and have more than a passing acquaintence with them. Thought it might be worth mentioning for folks.

thanks nan and christy!

(and thanks dakine01)

Nan — thank you so much for being here today and answering so many questions. Looking forward to all the issues ahead of us in this series. Folks, if there are particular issues that you are interested in discussing, let us know in this thread and we’ll see what we can do on them. Can’t promise we’ll hit every legal issue — it’s a big, wide field — but we will try to highlight a number of them between now and November.

How about reproductive rights? I discovered recently that our state now defines a ‘fetus’ as ‘from the point of conception’ — making frozen embryos subject to ‘fetal experimentation’ laws. I’m less interested in the Roe v Wade stuff as the many ways laws are being chipped away by states and what we need to know to get some of these discussions out in the open before they become law.

In the movie linked above, they talk about reproductive rights issues and privacy briefly. (Lots of ground to cover, which is why this really is an introductory film on a lot of issues.) The most telling point in it is the Santorum interview wherein he says he would overturn Griswold v. CT (the case which was pivitol in allowing contraception). If anyone thinks this is not a wholesale assault on any number of fronts at once, they really are not paying attention.

There is a reason that pharmacists all over the country have started refusing to dispense contraception to customers on personal belief grounds, refusing to give them back their prescription forms and then refusing to tell them where they could go to receive contraception — even when it is medically necessary to prevent a pregnancy that could kill the person with the prescription. This is not happenstance…not by a long shot.

Thank you Nan and Christy, as well;

It is my fear that the citizenry (at least here in Penn’s Woods) have but little concern about the ‘quality’ of their local judges (excepting minorities)and , for the most part, the public is blithely and quite happily ignorant concerning what is going on; and not much inclined to become interested.

Whom do I fault? The various media, politicians in general ( as judges are elected here, they are also ‘politicians’) and our failing educational system (from Kindergarten to advanced degree).

I wish I could be more encouraging regarding this issue, it has been a concern of mine for years, but I suspect that ‘consequence’ has not,as yet, reached a magnitude sufficient to impact enough people. At that critical juncture, we run the risk of it being ‘too late’ for many.

Until Americans have understood, at the individual, personal level, the need for widespread, ongoing civic involvement (beyond the volunteer fire company and the PTO), we shall make little progress in this critical area of democracy.

That’s what made me think of it. There is a highly organized, well funded opposition to reproductive rights and privacy that I don’t think is equaled on the other side. Given their end game, it easily could be — not that I’m convinced NARAL or even Planned Parenthood will pick up the slack. This war on ‘life’ is being waged largely at the state level and by forces that can pivot from contraception to frozen embryos to end of life decisions on a dime. It’s like we need a ‘butt out of my life’ group to counter it.

I am curious if you, Nan, have any sense of the conservative judges giving deference to strong executive if that executive is not a conservative.

My sense is that that deference would be toward the conservative and apparently the strong executive is precedent we now have.

I appreciate that Nan Aron spent time here, and the great work she and her organization do.

The reviews of judge candidates by ALJ are helpful, but it’s difficult to put those reviews into any venue where we can apply them after we read them.

One of the problems is that despite efforts of many worthwhile groups like ALJ, letters to the editor, etc. judges are confirmed because of horse trading deals by members of SJC or Harry Reid and SJC, with the White House and Mitch McConnell, so that these efforts are for nought. That’s how many of the currently approved far right wing extreme judicial candidates (240 to date that Bush has nominated for the trial and appellate bench were approved).

It leaves little that we are able to do. And of course many of these judges have been reported out of SJC, not by a 10-9 Republican Majority but by a 10-9 Democratic majority in the 110th Congress. I don’t see this changing.

Another typical problem is that currently many Immigration judges were veted by one Monica Goodling, and the requirements for the job were to “be a good Bushie.” Prior experience litigating in Immigration court was not one.

Of the federal judges that are not nominated from the US attorneys office, with prior litigation expereience as AUSAs, including many on Circuit Courts of Appeals, many of them have never litigated a civil or criminal case in a federal court room. This is obviously a disadvantage as to their competency level.

Brett Cavanaugh and Janice Rodgers Brown, currently judges on the D.C. Circuit, are two shining examples and they received very poor reviews from Ms. Aron’s organization.