By Isaac Peterson
isaac3rd@attbi.com
 

Many articles, from the left and the right, have been written about the Senate Judiciary Committee not confirming Charles Pickering to a Court of Appeals. Almost as much has been written about Trent Lott and other members of the GHP (Grand Hissy-Fit Party) doing what they do best when they don't get their way-having a grand hissy fit. But even with all that's been written, I couldn't resist throwing in my two cents worth.

Since Pickering's nomination died, Trent Lott has been doing everything he can to obstruct the Senate's business. Among other things, he is trying to block an aide of Tom Daschle's from a seat on the FCC. He says the man is too young at 39, but the head of the FCC, Colin Powell's son, is 38. The Republicans spent more than $70 million investigating Whitewater, a land deal the Clintons were involved in. The only real estate Trent and his pals were interested in, though, wasdirectly behind Bill's zipper. So now, in retaliation, Trent is blocking the Democrats who want to spend $1.5 million to investigate the performance of  federal law enforcement agencies during the weeks before September 11.Whenever the going gets tough, we can always count on Trent Lott to open up a few cans of dumbass. My two cent's worth to Trent: grow up and get over it.

Pickering was rejected for what I consider some pretty valid reasons. His record on civil rights, reproductive rights, his favoring of religious groups and causes while he was on the bench would have been enough for me. So would finding out that he's had a good number of decisions overruled (by conservative appellate judges, no less) and had his legal ethics questioned by ethics scholars. But what really did it for me is his record on race. In 1959, he wrote an article which explained how the Mississippi legislature could rewrite a law providing criminal penalties for interracial marriage, which the legislature did. 1959 was a long time ago, most of my life, and it's possible for people to change. George Wallace did it to my satisfaction before he died-Pickering had an opportunity with the Judiciary Committee to renounce those views, but he didn't do it. He also lied about being involved with a white supremacist group called the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission.

Pickering supporters tried to make something of the fact that some black leaders from Mississippi supported Pickering, but I was glad to see that didn't impress anybody. We need to get over this idea that one or a few black people speak for all black people. Clarence Thomas' endorsement would mean a whole different thing than the endorsement of, for example, me, or The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, Now Currently Known Again As Prince. The wrong people of color were being paid attention to here. We needed to take into account the ones who had had the bad luck to end up in Pickering's courtroom. We needed to realize that from the bench, all black people look the same to Pickering. He's proved it before, and he needed to be stopped from doing it from a federal bench. My two cent's worth to Pickering's far right supporters: the judiciary is supposed to be color blind in regard to the law. It's fine for Pickering to believe whatever he wants on his own time, but when he comes to work, the only black he is supposed to be concerned about is his robe.

It's been obvious for a long time that the far right intends to make a power grab in the judiciary by stacking it with Federalist Society judges. The law, justice, and right and wrong mean nothing to these people. Much has been written about how Clinton's appointees were held up while the right was waiting for a Republican president to pack the courts with these partisan hacks. These people's main qualification for consideration is being way far to the right of most people. My two cents to Orrin Hatch and Co.: stop whining about partisan Democrats on the Judiciary Committee until you stop springing these extremist partisan hacks as nominees.

Keep rejecting these far right wingnuts. You already have messed up badly by letting Ted Olson (Solicitor General) and John Ashcroft slip through. I know; you were trying to make nice with Bush's party. But even the dimmest of you know by now that that's a loser's game. For all his talk about compromising and changing the tone in Washington to cooperation, you should have gotten a clue long, long ago. Bush and Co. never intended any such thing. You should have been on guard, at the latest, when Bush said that Scalia and Thomas were his model "justices". The other side has proven over and over that they cannot be trusted to run a fair game. Enough with confirming these cranks that the rest of us will be stuck with for the rest of their lives. If everybody wanted Republicans running everything, they wouldn't vote for Democrats. It's time to stand up, stand your ground and show how you're different. You've made a good start with Pickering. Keep ithe stiffness in your spines and do what people elected you to do. Don't keep making Nader right about you. We have two parties for a reason (and you're making more and more people want more than two).

Judge Abner Mikva suggests that you don't confirm any of Bush's nominees for the Extreme Court, if any vacancies come up. There is a  precedent for it: in Andrew Johnson's tenure as the VP that replaced Lincoln, he was not allowed to place any federal court judges because he was NOT elected, he was appointed, by the death of Lincoln. I hope you'll listen to him and that you'll also hold his Circuit Court nominees to high standards of fairness and competence. Let me remind you:

GEORGE BUSH WAS NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT. HE WAS APPOINTED BY A PARTISAN SUPREME COURT OVER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. HE HAS NO MANDATE TO STACK THE COURT FOR DECADES AFTER HE'S GONE WITH FAR RIGHT FANATICS.

Bush hit the ground running-appointing far-right wingers to every post in sight. The words that he used to con many voters with, the ones promising compromise, a new tone, all of that, was forgotten as soon as he was handed the keys to the White House. The Democrats did their part iby rolling over and confirmed some of the worst candidates that could have possibly been nominated. The Supreme Court performed every bit as well as Reagan and the first Bush could have wanted when they originally stacked the Court with far-right justices. Rehnquist and O'Connor are on record saying that they wanted to retire, but not until a Republican was president, so that their replacements would also be right-wing. Stevens is old, and could go at any time. If Bush is allowed to place his picks on the Supreme Court, then in effect, by handing him the election, the Infamous Five would have picked their own replacements. That's not their job, and it's up to the Democrats to prevent a far-right wing court being in office for the next few decades.  I don't question Bush's legitimacy, I believe he has absolutely none, and so I think he has absolutely no right to have an effect on the judiciary, and especially not the Supreme Court.

I've heard that there are regrets about putting Souder on the Court, but those regrets come from the right. Souder hasn't always marched in lockstep to the Republican drummer, and so he's a disappointment. It's also been true sometimes with Kennedy. You can bet they won't make that mistake the next time they have a shot at a vacancy.

My two cents worth to Bush: the Constitution (remember that piece of paper? It's good for more than toilet paper) says the Senate is to "advise and consent"-not rubber-stamp any extremist yahoo you have waiting in the wings. Advise is not spelled out in this context, but one way it can be read is that the president and the Senate actually confer on nominees-in other words, work together. Consent means Comgress has to also agree. If they don't consent, your nominee doesn't get the seat. Plain and simple.

To give you an illustration of why I don't want to see any more stacking by the right, consider this: Chief Justice William Rehnquist chose fellow conservative David Sentelle to head the three-judge panel that selects independent counsels. Sentelle was appointed by Reagan with sponsorship from Jesse Helms. That's scary enough, but it gets better. When independent counsel Robert Fiske wasn't finding anything to hang Bill and Hillary Clinton with, David Sentelle's three judge panel replaced him with Kenneth Starr. Then the Extreme Court ruled that it wouldn't be a distraction from Clinton's duties as president to defend himself against the bogus charges by Paula Jones. We all saw how well that worked out. (Don't e-mail me to remind me it was a unanimous decision. Even if there had been dissenters, it still would have gone through, probably 5-4, with the usual suspects voting for it).

To me, that's the kind of judiciary we can look forward to if Bush gets to place anyone on the Court. I don't think this country can afford to be in that situation again, let alone for the next few decades. And that's my two cents worth.

isaac peterson

I report. I decide.