May 4, 2008

Judicial Questionnaires: Why Not?

Family News in Focus' weekend radio program broadcast the best round-up we've heard of the legal issues involved in voters guides and questionnaires for judicial candidates. (Download audio file.)

Granted, it's an advocacy piece; conservative Christian groups like Focus in the Family want more transparency in state judicial elections because they believe it benefits candidates who are rule-of-law judges (as opposed to liberal activists). State business groups tend to agree.

The report brings more info to bear on a national issue being played out in the states than we've encountered anywhere else. Did you know that the James Madison Center has organized the Judicial Accountability Project to end laws and rules that prevent judges from answering questionnaires? Legal efforts are under way in eight states.

As John Stamberger of the Florida Family Policy Council says: "All judges have views. The only question is [whether] they express those views when they write a decision, when they do a dissent, or when they rule from the bench. The question is, does it serve the interest of a robust democracy for us to know those views before they’re elected or learn those views after they’re elected. "

The soundfile linked above is the full 5:30 interview broadcast this weekend. A shorter version was broadcast on April 28th; here's the transcript.

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:16 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

November 20, 2007

Everything I Needed to Know...Oh, C'mon

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal last week, "Justice for Sale," bemoaning the rise of politicized judicial elections and concomitant "special interest" money. Familiar O'Connor arguments, well worth engaging, even to those of us who see higher-profile judicial races as encouraging citizen involvement in our justice system. And O'Connor's disreputable "special interest" is another person's livelihood.

But this sentence toward the end, in the middle of a plea for improved civics education (agreed!), undermined the seriousness of her case:

Perhaps children can understand the role of a fair and impartial judiciary better than any of us. Children depend on their teachers, their parents and their sports referees to know the rules and to apply them fairly.

Submitted, your honor: Children do NOT understand the role of a fair and impartial judiciary better than any of us. OK, they're quite conversant in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- no spanking! -- but otherwise, we've found kids to be quite wanting in their legal comprehension.

All this came to mind after reading a line yesterday in the New York Times obituary of Harold J. Berman, the great legal scholar.

Harold Joseph Berman was born on Feb. 13, 1918, in Hartford. Under a theory he enunciated in 2006 for The Fulton County Daily Report, an Atlanta legal and business newspaper, he said that he, like all children, had been a law student from a young age.

“A child says, ‘It’s my toy.’ That’s property law,” he said. “A child says, ‘You promised me.’ That’s contract law. A child says, ‘He hit me first.’ That’s criminal law. A child says, ‘Daddy said I could.’ That’s constitutional law.”

Well, if Harold Berman says so ...

Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg at the National Review.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:57 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

July 29, 2007

Survey: A Majority Probably Have No Idea

Washington Post, Page A03 Sunday (A1 in early editions), "Fewer See Balance in Court's Decisions."

About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly a third of the public -- 31 percent -- thinks the court is too far to the right, a noticeable jump since the question was last asked in July 2005. That's when Bush nominated John G. Roberts Jr. to the court and, in the six-month period that followed, the Senate approved Roberts as chief justice and confirmed Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Quick, and don't cheat. Name five decisions the Supreme Court handed down in the last term. And were those decisions "conservative" or "liberal?"

All this polls tells us is that after a year of being told incessantly -- and incorrectly -- by the media that the court was handing down "conservative" decisions, more people in a survey say the court is more conservative, and maybe too conservative. One of the cases most often cited to make the argument is the court's ruling upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Conservative? The law passed the Senate in 2003 by a vote of 64-34 and the House by 281-142. Seems pretty popular, bipartisan, not by any stretch "conservative." The court's ruling upheld the policymaking branch's ability to make policy. Only those who prefer an activist court, one that legislates, would term that "conservative."

And look at the first person quoted in the story: Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way. A Google search of the Washington Post and Ralph G. Neas has him cited 67 times. What a circle of circles: Post writes stories arguing the court is conservative, quotes Ralph G. Neas warning of its dangerous conservatism, contracts for poll that shows public has been influenced by Washington Post saying court is conservative, and then quotes Ralph G. Neas avering it so. And the media wonder why people don't trust them.

Posted by Carter Wood at 3:06 PM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 31, 2006

'Senate to Vote on Alito Today'

Under that headline is a front page story in the Washington Post today about the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the Senate beat back a (frankly) wimpy and last-minute effort by erstwhile Presidential candidate Sen. Kerry (D-MA) to force a filibuster on Judge Alito's nomination. This in spite of knowing that he lacked the votes to do so. He was, in essence, trying to take his ball and go home. He failed. The cloture vote wasn't even close, with a final vote of 72-25. Ouch. Here's a link to see how your Senators voted. His nomination now goes to the floor where hopefully there will be no further mischief, only a vote.

Some interesting statistics for you to ponder:

The average time from the President's nomination until confirmation for the last few Justices was 68 days. For Judge Alito -- if he's confirmed today -- it is 92 days.

The time from the President's announcement of the nomination to the start of the hearings in Justice Rehnquist case was 13 days. For Ruth Bader Ginsburg it was 26 days, for John Roberts 55 days and for Judge Alito, 70 days.

No nominee was "held over" in Committee since 1971. Judge Alito was held over for a week, a simple delaying tactic.

This man has been subjected to grueling questioning and bitter partisan barbs. Republicans confirmed the former General Counsel of the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, without a fight, because it was seen as the President's prerogative. Ah, the days of yore.

Hundreds of you have weighed in through this blog to urge your Senators to vote, with a bunch doing so in the last week. We are down to the short strokes. Please tell your Senators to get on with it. Legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:07 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 30, 2006

The Week Ahead: Alito Nomination Inches Toward a Final Vote

This is going to be a very busy week, lots going on. First and foremost, the Alito nomination -- longer in gestation because of blatant partisanship run amok than just about any other Supreme Court nomination in recent years -- will be on the floor of the Senate. Even though he has far more than the 51 out of of the 100 Senate votes he needs to get confirmed, expect mischief.

A few points: First, America really doesn't understand why 50% + 1 vote doesn't get you a victory. Probably not a good idea for the Senate to be calling attention to this little rule of theirs. See, to break a filibuster or to invoke cloture, meaning to force something to a vote -- you need 60 votes. That's why a minority of 40 -- of either party -- can frustrate the will of the majority. Do you have this rule where you work?

Didn't think so.

Second, it's clear among the few Democrats who who are pushing the idea of a filibuster and who also appear to be running for President in 2008 (this is probably coincidental) the the idea is dead on arrival and will be summarily unsuccessful. But no matter. Here's this from a San Jose Merc article on this whole imbroglio:

"The threat of a filibuster emerged late last week after liberal activists accused Democratic senators of failing to vigorously oppose Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court. After Sen. Kerry began the effort, several liberal groups mounted a campaign by Internet, telephone and fax to persuade other senators to follow suit."

Welcome to democracy. Judge Alito is going to be confirmed. We will as a result have more certainty on the bench. That will give us less litigation at some point, a trend we desperately need to begin. Legal reform, an issue on the top of the minds of every manfaucturer, begins at the top.

Drop your Senators a note and tell them to confirm Judge Altio.

Posted by at 7:45 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 27, 2006

Two More Senators Heed the Constitution

Two more Democrat Senators -- Robert Byrd (WV) and Tim Johnson (SD) have announced their support for Judge Alito. Funny -- in this Washington Post story, you have to go all the way to the 9th paragraph to find that stunning news. The headline is about how a few Democrats still foolishly -- and dangerously -- hold out hope of a filibuster.

It's pretty simple. The Senate's job is to provide advice and consent, not obstruction. They asked this man over 600 questions over some 18 hours of questioning. The number of Americans who support Judge Alito increased during the hearings. Some of the Senators embarrassed themselves and were seen as being too mean-spirited.

Kudos to Sens. Byrd and Johnson for heeding the Constitution ad understanding their role. As for the rest, we provide this helpful link.

Please write to your two Senators and urge them to support the good Judge, get this thing done. We sent our Key Vote Card up there today, letting every Senator know that the vote on Judge Alito will be considered a Key Manufacturing Vote. Legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:23 AM | 4 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 25, 2006

Judge Alito: One Step Closer

Judge Alito was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10 - 8 party line vote, with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats voting against. It goes to the Senate floor starting today, with a vote expected maybe this weekend. As of today, it has been 86 days since Judge Alito was nominated. Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed 71 days after his nomination, and that one hardly moved at a rocket's pace. By comparison, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation only took 41 days.

You know the drill: If you've not already done so, please drop a note to your Senators, urging them to support Judge Alito and urging them in any case to move it to a swift up-or-down vote. Remember, legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:17 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 24, 2006

Senate Judiciary Committee To Vote on Alito Nomination

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the nomination of Judge Alito to the US Supreme Court. Here's a link to the full Judiciary Committee. Please phone, fax, or e-mail them and urge them to support his nomination.

Beginning tomorrow, his nomination should go to the floor of the Senate and debate will begin. For most of the past hundred Justices or so, debate is brief and more of a pro-forma exercise. Please click here to urge your Senators to have a quick up-or-down vote on Judge Alito. Even if they don't support him, they ought to vote their conscience and move on. Delay is a way to postpone the inevitable, and is unfair to Judge Alito and the Constitutional process (anybody remember the Constitution....?) In fact, the latest poll shows that support for Judge Alito actually increased after his hearings, and his supporters now outnumber is opponents by almost 2-to-1.

This is the home stretch. If you care about legal reform, it begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:44 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 20, 2006

The Checks and Balances Fig Leaf

OK, here's a quiz: How many Democrat Senators can hide behind one fig leaf? the answer is at least three -- in one day, that is. Thursday, the big shockeroo (not) was that Sen. Leahy (D-VT), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his opposition to Judge Alito's nomination. Word was back when that he was ready to oppose John Roberts, too, but once Minority Leader Reid (D-NV) beat him to the punch and opposed Roberts -- thereby breaking with Senate decorum, by not deferring to the relevant Committee chair -- he changed his mind. Well, Sen. Reid played by the rules this time and so Leahy opposed Alito. it's important to note that he did so before a crowd of folks at Georgetown University Law School. Jeez, almost sounds like theater, doesn't it? In any event, the reason he cited was his concern over checks and balances, specifically that Judge Alito wouldn't be enough of a check on Presidential power. Right.

As it turns out, this was the same theme sounded by Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and later today by Sen. Salazar (D-CO), who said he'd be open-minded but apparently became way too anxious about this whole checks and balances thing to support Judge Alito. Starting to sound like the party line, no?

So after the endless questioning about ethics, the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and yes, abortion, they decide they just can't support him because of checks and balances? Don't get us wrong -- this is a big issue, but it's one that really hasn't resonated until now. Must've come up in somebody's polling. What's next, riparian rights?

At the moment, it seems like an intellectual fig leaf for them all to hide behind so they can check the box marked "opposition" and curry favor with their far-left constituents. Truth is, Judge Alito is an accomplished jurist and one who will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.

We hope you'll drop a note to your Senators, urge them to support him, and urge them to get this thing to a quick up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:26 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 18, 2006

Sen. Ben Nelson, Statesman

Kudos to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) for resisting the blatant partisanship that has gripped this city and especially the bad theater that is the Alito nomination battle. Looks like Judge Alito will be confirmed with bipartisan support, as Sen. Nelson has announced that he will be voting for Judge Alito.

Hmmmm... Seems like Sen. Nelson is the only one in his party who read and understood Hamilton and Federalist 78 when he talked about the Senate's role in such matters. It's advice and consent, period. As even the Washington Post has argued, the President ought to be afforded wide latitude in his appointments. It's what elections are about, after all. Some would choose to keep fighting the elections long after they are settled, as here. Fact is, Judge Alito is supremely qualified for this job and deserves the support of the US Senate.

Bravo to Ben Nelson for understating his Constitutional role. Let's hope others in his party will follow suit. If you're from Nebraska, please drop him a note to thank him for his leadership and for being that rarest of endangered species here in Washington, a true statesman.

Posted by at 7:43 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 17, 2006

Democrats Force Delay On Alito Vote

That's the word from this Washington Post story, which will be played out in every other newspaper today, the news from the Senate this week. In other words, the Senate can't get its work done. In the face of all-but certain confirmation, the Democrats in the Senate have decided to stall. This first of all violates a gentleman's agreement made Senator Leahy (D-VT), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, to Committee Chair Specter (R-PA) to mvoe this to a swift Committee vote. It's the Senate equivalent of taking your ball and going home -- for a week -- because you're about to lose the game.

We've said it here in this space many, many times -- and the Post editorial page agrees: Judge Alito is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is the President's prerogative to appoint the men and women he feels are most qualified and for the Senate to provide advice and consent, not obstruction.

We know most blog readers support Judge Alito. From this space, you have logged in hundreds of e-mails to the Senate urging his confirmation. But for those who do not, isn't it at least fair to let the man have an up-or-down vote, tally the votes at day's end and move on?

As we saw in Senator Hatch and Grassley's comments last week -- men with decades of experience at this confirmation game -- the level of discourse just keeps sinking. The Democrats aren't helping when someone as qualified as Judge Alito is forced to wait. Poll s show overwhelming support for his confirmation. The Democrats ought be careful not to overplay their hand here bending over backwards to curry favor with their far-left constituencies.

Please drop your Senators a note to tell them you're watching and you want them to get on with their Constitutional duties and put the Alito nomination to a swift up-or-down vote.

Legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:27 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 16, 2006

'Confirm Samuel Alito'

Under the above title was the lead editorial in yesterday's Washington Post -- no bastion of conservatism. But the Post --as regular blog readers know -- has been pretty consistent on these Supreme Court nominees, lamenting the ugly state of political play and reminding readers that this is, in their words, "Not a Campaign." They even went so far as to scold Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for not giving more deference to the President's nominees.

Says the Post editorial in part:

"...Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached...Judge Alito will favor a judiciary that exercises restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that of the political branches in areas of their competence."

Here's a link to the full editorial. It's well done. And don't forget to contact your Senators and urge them to vote for Judge Alito and to move his nomination to a swift up-or-down vote. Legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 8:48 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 15, 2006

Alito: Were Those Really Questions....?

OK, so the latest estimate is that Judge Alito took some 677 questions from Senators during about 18 hours of hearings. However, according to an ABC News report, Sen. Biden (D-DE) spoke for 24 minutes on Tuesday, leaving only 6 for Judge Alito. On Wednesday he spoke for about 13 minutes, as compared to 6 for Alito and on Thursday went for about 13 and a half minutes, with Alito spending about half that amount on answers.

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) took almost 23 minutes for himself on Tuesday, leaving only about 7 minutes for the good judge. On Wednesday, he talked for over 15 minutes, leaving only about 5 for Alito and finally on Thursday, bloviated for almost 20 minutes, leaving 10 minutes for Judge Alito.

Doesn't really sound like an attempt to get at the truth or the facts, does it? Sounds more like a lot of hot air, a lot of speechifying by folks not that interested in the Judge's views after all.

Click here to write to your Senators and tell them to support Judge Alito and to put his nomination to a quick up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:52 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 14, 2006

Dems Delay Alito Vote by a Week

Violating a "gentleman's agreement" (insert joke of choice here), the Senate Democrats have forced a postponement of a Judiciary Committee vote on Judge Alito's nomination by one week. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) was ready to vote on the nomination next week (let's face it, they all know how they're going to vote), but Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) said they would "hold over" his nomination an additional week, meaning he should be voted out of the Judiciary Committee on January 24. His nomination should go to the full Senate shortly thereafter, but who knows the way this thing will go?

Hmmmm.... So let's see. If they can just delay the vote, how about next time they're each up for election everyone who's going to vote for them stays home and just goes to the polls a week later. A fair exchange, no? This is a delaying tactic, pure and simple. This man was grilled b this committee, some times in ways that showed the ineptitude of the questioner. We'd be damned lucky to have him on the Supreme Court. Let's get on with it.

Click here to see who's on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and remember next time they're up for re-election. Also use the same link to tell them to quit delaying and put this thing to an up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:43 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 13, 2006

Alito Hearings: What Was on the Senators' Minds?

In case you were wondering what was on the Senators' minds during the hearings, here's a partial list of the major topics asked of Judge Alito this week. It's interesting to see that an issue like abortion garnered 101 questions when in fact he'll probably not spend much of his time as a Justice on that issue. By comparison, there were only 11 questions on the 4th Amendment (search & seizure), an issue that will probably find its way to the court with much more frequency. Note that there aren't many questions about business issues, on which he will spend a fair amount of his time (if past if prologue), and why we're in this fray in the first place. Here's the topic list:

Concerned Alumni of Princeton: 49
Vanguard/Ethics: 49
Abortion: 101
Commerce Clause, Federalism, Congressional Power: 42
Executive Power: 94
National Security/Wiretapping: 20
Criminal Procedure/4th Amendment: 11
Religion: 16
Habeas/Death Penalty: 15
Race: 23
Reapportionment: 6
Judicial Philosophy/Role of Courts: 71
Disability: 6
Plaintiffs' and Consumers' Rights: 8

Please drop a note to your Senators, tell them to get on the stick and support Judge Alito, and move his nomination to a quick up-or-down vote. He's entitled to that, it's the role given the Senate in the Constitution -- if any of them are familiar with the Constitution. If not, Judge Alito can give them a refresher. Oh, wait -- guess he just did...

Posted by at 7:27 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Alito Hearings: A Comparison of Days to Confirmation

On the off chance that there's anyone who watched the Alito hearings that doesn't believe that the level of discourse in Washington as deteriorated, here's a comparison of how many days it took some other Supreme Court nominees to get confirmed after their nominations:

O'Connor: 33
Kennedy: 63
Ginsburg: 41
Breyer: 72

As of today, by our count, it's been about 74 days since Judge Alito was nominated. Others had much shorter hearings, as we've discussed, and answered far fewer questions.

Here's a roster of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tell them the whole country is watching, and it's time for them to do their job and confirm this great judge to the US Supreme Court.

Posted by at 7:12 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 12, 2006

The Alito Hearings: What's Good for the Ginsburg, v.2

Way back when, during the Roberts hearings (seems like a lifetime ago now), we ran a piece called, "What's Good for the Ginsburg", comparing Roberts' hearings to those of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one-time General Counsel for the ACLU and Clinton nominee. We pointed out that Ginsburg had 17 hours of hearings and 216 questions as compared to 22 hours of hearings for Roberts and a whopping 510 questions.

Well, in light of the pace of the Alito hearings, it's time to bring out the Ginsburg yardstick again. While Alito is fast approaching her 17 hours, he has far surpassed her in questions. He has -- in only the first two days -- received a whopping 620 questions.

The disparity really is striking. There is simply no justification for it. Please drop a note to your Senators and tell them to support Judge Alito and to move his nomination to a swift up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:31 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Engler Actuality on Alito

Here's a link to a radio actuality from NAM President John Engler on the nomination of Judge Aliot. it's a few minutes long, was sent out this week to a few hundred radio stations around the country. He makes all the points therein -- give it a listen.

Posted by at 7:21 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

The Alito Hearings: Final Thoughts on Yesterday's Senate Blog Event

It was great to be a part of the Senate blog event yesterday. It was interesting to watch the hearings in a group and to hear from the Senators and the clerks who stopped by. A few thoughts linger a day later:

-- Listening to Sens. Hatch (R-UT) and Grassley (R-IA), you realize you are listening to the voices of experience. Combined, these men have many terms, many decades of service in this august body. Both had the same overriding frustration and observation, i.e., they both lamented the death of comity and condemned the ugly tone of these hearings. As we quoted Senator Grassley, he said this was more like an ugly political campaign, not a Supreme Court nomination. He cited Hamilton and Federalist 78 -- advise and consent, period. Sen. Hatch made the same point. Asked how things have changed in his many years in the Senate -- and on the Judiciary Committee -- Hatch looked almost sad, wistful, recalling the comity of old and sickened by its degradation. Decorum needs to be restored. Judge Alito is a good, intelligent man. He deserves the respect of every US Senator, whether or not he will get their vote.

-- The other thing that struck us, very powerful, was the discussion with his former clerks. We talked to them as a group and individually. Their tone when talking about Judge Alito is almost reverential. It was palpable that they held him in the highest regard. Asked what irked them most, they all seemed visibly restrained when trying to describe their disgust at the attacks on his character. From left and right, they praised him effusively as a judge and as an individual. It was incredibly persuasive. There were no cameras, just a few bloggers, in very close quarters. The clerks were very credible, very powerful in their statements. Former clerk Keith Levenberg's comments about Alito's familiarity with business issues (on which he will spend far more of his time than the stuff he's being questioned about), was a reminder of why it matters for business to be involved in this fray.

All in all it was a good day and again, we're happy for the invite, if for no other reason than to be a part of history. We're glad we could bring you with us, hope you all enjoyed it.

Here's the Judiciary Committee roster. Please call, fax or e-mail them and tell them to quit horsing around, quit the character assassination of this fine man and let's get on with a vote.

Posted by at 7:04 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

January 11, 2006

Sen Hatch is Here....

It'll be interesting to see if we get any Democrats on the Committee voting for Alito. How is that possible that people could stoop so low as to put politics above confirmation of an eminently qualified nominee? Half of Democrats voted for Roberts, If you at vote for Roberts, who an you vote for?

Look at the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer were treated. We treated them very well, knew both were social liberals, disagreed with most of our positions, yet they were treated very well, won overwhelming votes on the floor of the Senate. Whoever is President deserves true deference for his or her nominees. We should vote for them if they are qualified. The fact that we disagreed with their ideology was irrelevant. As much as you might differ with their views, they were both honorable people. So are Roberts and Alito. Alito deserves to be confirmed.

Posted by at 1:36 PM | 3 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

What Irks Them Most?

We asked the clerks what irks them most, what of all they've seen and heard said about Judge Alito would they want to correct, would they want to set the record straight? Their answers:

Keith: The smear tactics related to the CAP issue. It's a disgraceful tactic. Reminds me of the fascist slogan: it's easier to tell a big lie than a small lie

Jeff: The Vanguard issue. He is the most ethical judge that most judges, lawyers know. To attack his integrity is appalling.

David: Vanguard. Sen. Schumer says we want him to answer questions. I think he's been very forthright. The problem is that the Senators are giving speeches, not asking questions. The Senators are playing to their constituencies rather than getting to know this judge, who has impeccable integrity.

Posted by at 11:48 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Alito Clerks Have Arrived

Three Alito clerks have arrived: Keith Levenberg, David Moore and Jeff Wasserstein.

Jeff Wasserstein: 97-98 : I consider myself a fairly liberal Democrat. Judge Alito does not judge with any ideological bias. Given the perceptions of Judge Alito as a conservative and my own liberal views, you would think there would be a conflict, but there wasn't. We agreed 95% of the time. All the clerks with liberal leanings did not see the ideologue that he's been characterized as. A former chief prosecutor made sure criminal defendants received fair hearings before the court. People have a hard time understanding that you an set aside your biases. He doesn't make up his mind until after argument, after he's researched it fully. I clerked for him during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The judge never entered into the clerks' banter, never expressed an opinion. I was identified to the judge by a colleague as "a flaming liberal."

Said the Judge: "So what?" He thinks about individuals, thinks about individual cases. Judge Alito is the consummate judge.

David Moore: 2000-2001, currently a professor at the University of Kentucky Law School: After a year of working for him, we didn't have a sense of what his politics were. I worked for him during Bush v. Gore, but it wasn't something he brought to chambers or to his judging. He is very open-minded.

Keith Levenberg, 2002-2003: This is a nomination that the business community can get interested in -- particularly because of his expertise. On securities, you'll look to two Alito opinions in the Third Circuit. The Supreme Court's been criticized that no one takes these cases, since no one on the court has the interest or expertise to handle them. There are many circuit splits., This is onerous on companies trying to comply with securities laws. This will be a major upgrade in this are for the Supreme Court. Has business law experience, expertise.

Jeff: We don't have anyone on the court now who has been a US attorney, who is familiar with the day-to-day issues of law enforcement. He approached criminal law cases with expertise and an open mind.

Posted by at 11:21 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Sen. Hatch Will Join us at Noon

Stand by....

Also, check out the Committee for Justice website, which has a bunch of information about Alito and the hearings

Posted by at 11:03 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Sen. Grassley on Alito

Standing in front of us in dark suit and red vest, Sen. Grassley looks over the assembled bloggers and says, "This is a first for me -- I've never talked to people like you - you look like everybody else..."

Doesn't seem like the Democrats are getting the traction that you think they might be getting, after reading the news reports from the last few months. It seems the Democrats' demeanor is a little more reserved, might mean they think they're fighting [a losing battle]. I met with Alito. Unless there's a bombshell, he's going to be confirmed. With this paper trail, we are seeing a person who is sincere, ope-minded, who will wait to see the last fact laid on the table...before he makes a judgment. That's what judges are supposed to do -- they're supposed to render justice.
His performance before this committee -- he's doing what judges are supposed to do. You want someone on the bench who will be open-minded, based upon our system of laws.

The role of the Senate -- expressed by Hamilton in Federalist 78 -- is to make sure that incompetent people are not appointed and that no political hacks get on the court. [Alito] is obviously not a political hack, obviously very competent. I plead that Democrats should give them same deference that we Republicans gave to Ginsburg, the Clinton nominee, who passed 96-0. This in spite of the fact that she worked for the ACLU and the fact that [many of us] disagreed with her political views. I voted for her because I thought I was fulfilling the role of the Senate [not because I agreed with her political views].

Also, the incivility that comes toward an honest, decent, man is "disturbing". It encourages greater incivility in society. We need to become a more civil society in America. Our social cohesion is based on one individual's respect for another. Judge Alito should have our respect even if people don't agree with his opinions. This may be apropriate for a political campaign, but not for a Supreme Court nominee.

Posted by at 10:32 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Senator Grassley is Coming By at 10:30.....

Will update you then, still not a lot of talk about any issues of importance to manufacturers, although those are the issues on which a Supreme Court Justice will spend the bulk of his or her time. Senator Durbin gets an award for tying the coal miner story to Judge Alito, questioning him on a case he decided involving mine safety. Anything to make the papers.

We're told that other Senators as well as some former Alito clerks will be dropping by.

Posted by at 10:21 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Away we go....

Sitting here in Room 460 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building with about a half dozen other bloggers, watching Alito confirmation hearings. Senators will be dropping by throughout the day to visit and discuss the hearings. Will keep you posted, will be filing regular updates. Stay tuned, and do drop us an e-mail if you have questions. We'll try to get them answered for you throughout the day....

Posted by at 9:43 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Judge Alito Takes Sen. Schumer to School on the Constitution

In among all the flapping jaws and bad theater that is the Alito hearings was this extraordinary and priceless exchange between Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Judge Alito:

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question...

This exchange was notable if only for the Senator's apparent ignorance of the difference between rights that are written in the Constitution and rights that are interpreted from the Constitution. To help Sen. Schumer and his staff, we provide this link to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, in which the right to free speech is quite clearly stated. And here's a link to the full Constitution, just as a little refresher.

It's been fun to watch Judge Alito gently and calmly swat one challenge after another like so many flies buzzing about his head. This was but one more. Indeed, he could've been forgiven for saying, "Duh!" in response to the question from Sen. Schumer.

Follow this link to see a list of Senate Judiciary Committee members, along with their phone and fax numbers and hot links to their e-mail addresses. Please use it to weigh in and urge them to confirm Judge Alito and to bring his nomination to a swift up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:18 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 10, 2006

Judge Alito: Why We Care

As Judge Alito's hearings continue this week, we ought to take this opportunity -- for those of you who just joined us -- to remind you of why we care who's on the Supreme Court.

As you may know, legal costs soak up over 2% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), an amount seven and a half times that of our nearest competitor. We flush more money down the rat hole on tort costs than some 200 countries spend on their entire GDP's. We know that litigation is in inverse proportion to predictability. That is, the more certainty you have in the courts, the less litigation there is. The more adventurers you have on the bench, the more judges you have willing to ply their own theories -- the law be damned -- the more litigation you have. And that's always bad for manufacturers.

We have been very active in Washington over the years working two branches of the government, but we have too long ignored the judiciary -- unless, as NAM President John Engler likes to point out, you count being a defendant. We can't stay on the sidelines any longer. Some 80% of a federal judge's caseload is spent on issues of importance to manufacturers -- torts, contracts, property rights, employment law, etc. Yet the debates over Supreme Court nominees always seem to focus on a narrow band of social issues -- issues on which a Justice will spend relatively little of their time. We thought it was important to be the voice of business in this fray.

And so our Judicial Review Committee did a fairly in-depth examination of Judge Alito's record and concluded that he met our criteria. Try to find another group in this thing with published criteria. They decided he would be the kind of justice that we should support, the kind of Justice who will apply the law as written, not as he thinks it should have been written. Legal reform begins at the top.

Please drop a note to your Senators and urge them to support Judge Alito and urge them to pt his nomination to a swift up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:31 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 9, 2006

The Week Ahead: Judge Alito's Hearings Begin

This week, theater season continues in Washington with the start of Judge Alito's confirmation hearings. Way back in July, in the run-up to Judge (now Chief Justice) Roberts' hearings, we ran a piece called, "The Post Gets It Right, And Wrong". We applauded the Washington Post editorial writers for a neat editorial they did called, "Not a Campaign", reminding all parties involved in the Roberts hearings that this was not a political campaign, it was a confirmation hearing -- and they urged all to dispense with the smears and name-calling. However, on the other pages of the Post were the smears and name-calling.

Well, here we go again. In today's Post is a story by Chuck Babington entitled, "Democrats Ready to Go After Alito". Ick. At times it seems we are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization. We didn't used to "go after" anyone. We used to have calm and sensible hearings. And, you don't have to reach back to ancient history either. Justice Ginsburg's hearings lasted a total of 17 hours and she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Justice Breyer's hearings lasted exactly one hour longer and he was confirmed by a vote of 87-9.

We want to remind folks that it's not nice to "go after" anyone. Fair questions are, well, fair, but this new style of Inquisition borders on the obscene.

Please drop a note to your Senators and urge them to support Judge Alito's nomination and urge them to get on with it, to move it to an up-or-down vote.

Posted by at 7:32 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 7, 2006

The Chamber Endorses Judge Alito

Once again, we want to welcome our good friends and allies over at the US Chamber of Commerce to the judicial nomination fray. As they did with Judge Roberts, they have just announced their support for Judge Alito. Here's a link to their press release from Thursday. With the Chamber and the NAM behind Judge Alito, we expect he'll be confirmed with due speed.

Don't forget to click here to drop a note to your Senators to urge them to vote to confirm Judge Alito. Remember, legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:54 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 6, 2006

More Support for Judge Alito

Someone sent us a copy of this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, signed by about 200 of the top appellate lawyers in the country -- from both parties -- stretching all the way back to the Johnson (that would be Lyndon B.) Administration, supporting Judge Alito's confirmation to the US Supreme Court. In it, they say:

"Although we reflect a broad range of political, policy and legal views, we all agree that Judge Alito should be confirmed by the Senate... Judge Alito has a well-deserved reputation as an outstanding jurist. He is, in every sense of the term, a 'judge's judge'."

Momentum is clearly building for Judge Alito's confirmation. Don't forget to drop a note to your Senators and urge them to vote to confirm Judge Alito with all due speed. Remember -- legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:35 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 5, 2006

Judge Alito Gets a Boost from the ABA

A week before his confirmation hearings begin, Judge Samuel Alito got a boost from the American Bar Association, receiving a unanimous "well-qualified" rating -- their highest, and the same rating he received when first nominated to the federal bench in 1990. Here's a link to an AP story by Jesse Holland and here's a link to the actual letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter from the ABA.

Please use this link to drop a note to your Senators and urge them to support Judge Alito. Remember, legal reform begins at the top.

Posted by at 7:23 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 4, 2006

Blogging Events Next Week

As we mentioned yesterday, we have been invited to two blog events next week -- one in the House, one in the Senate. The latter will focus on the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. His hearings begin next week. As you know, we have endorsed him. We'll give you the details as soon as we have them, but in the meantime, please drop a note to your Senators and urge them to support Judge Alito's nomination. He has served with distinction on the federal bench and would make a great Supreme Court Justice. And if you don't believe us, ask Sen. Kennedy (D-MA).

Posted by at 7:25 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

December 15, 2005

Alito Opposition Makes More News Than Support

Here's a story entitled, "Green Groups Mobilize Against Alito" in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. So here's what's got us scratching our heads: in the same day that we endorse Judge Alito and the enviros (predictably) oppose him, why does the opposition get the lead? We actually had stated criteria by which he was evaluated by a group of some very smart lawyers (our Judicial Review Committee) over a period of a few months. For some reason, that garners a yawn from much of the mainstream media, but oppose him -- even if you're part of the liberal left coalition -- and you're guaranteed a headline. The Journal was not alone here -- lots of others piled on. Type "Alito" into Google News and you'll see the array of lefties -- the AFL-CIO (talk about predictable!) and others weighing in against this fine Judge. Where are their criteria? Where is their deliberation, other than the simple jerk of the knee?

Don't forget to contact your Senators and tell them to support Judge Alito's nomination. As if you needed a push, the fact that the enviros and the AFL-CIO oppose him should be reason enough to get on the bandwagon.

Posted by at 7:15 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

December 14, 2005

The Alito Endorsement: Take Action

Big day yesterday with the announcement of the NAM's endorsement of Judge Alito. It was fitting, as we noted, that we were preceded in the Press Club (same room) by the American Tort Reform Association and their annual list of "Judicial Hellholes". The two issues are related. As NAM President John Engler likes to point out, predictability is very important in the law. In fact, it is in inverse proportion to litigation, ie., the more predictability you have, the less litigation (i.e., judicial hellholes) you have. It all begins at the top. Engler appointed many judges when he was Governor of Michigan, knows what he's talking about. Here's a copy of his opening statement from yesterday.

The NAM has long been involved in advocacy before the legislative and executive branches, but we became involved in the Supreme Court confirmation process this year for the first time because business issues make up more than half of the high court's caseload. Too often, hard-won legislative or administrative gains are lost in the courts to judges who wander beyond what the law is into what the law should be.

It is our hope that, with jurists like Chief Justice John Roberts and Judge Alito, we can begin to reduce the exorbitant legal costs in this country. Legal costs consume more than 2 percent of our GDP, making us the world leader in legal costs, which are 7.5 times that of our nearest competitor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on the Alito nomination the week of January 9, and a floor vote is expected the following week. Please take time now to contact your Senators, urging support for Judge Alito's nomination. To e-mail your senators, click here. For contact information (phone, fax, email, etc.) for your senators, click here.

A videotape of yesterday's press conference announcing our endorsement is available by clicking here.

Posted by at 7:33 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

December 13, 2005

It's Official: The NAM Supports Judge Alito for the Supreme Court

At a press conference at noon today at the National Press Club, NAM President John Engler announced the unanimous decision by the NAM's Judicial Review Committee to endorse the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He was evaluated according to our established criteria.

Here's a link to our press release announcing the decision and here's a link to the 15-minute streaming video of the press conference. We'll post more on this later.

Posted by at 2:06 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Judicial Review Committee Decision on Judge Alito Due Today

Today at noon at the National Press Club, NAM President John Engler will announce the results of our Judicial Review Committee's (JRC) deliberations on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. For details on the event, call 202-637-3096.

Coincidentally, preceding us in the same room at the Press Club is the American Tort Reform Association and their annual list of "Judicial Hellholes".

We will post the JRC announcement as soon as it's done.

Posted by at 7:31 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

December 12, 2005

The Week Ahead: The NAM's Judicial Review Committee Completes Its Work

As you know, the NAM's Judicial Review Committee has been hard at work reviewing Judge Samuel Alito's' record based on stated criteria. This has been a deliberative and dare we say judicious process by a very conscientious group that has been working since shortly after the nomination was announced by the President. They will make public the results of those deliberations this week. Watch this space for details.

Posted by at 7:06 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

October 31, 2005

Samuel Alito's Nomination

This morning, the President nominated Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's a link to the White House announcement and here's a link to Judge Alito's biography.

The NAM's Judicial Review Committee (JRC) will review Judge Alito's record and qualifications according to our stated criteria. This is the same process we used for Chief-Justice Roberts and were using for Harriet Miers prior to her withdrawal.

We will make a public announcement once the Judicial Review Committee reaches its result. Here's a link to our press release on the topic.

Congratulations to Judge Alito on his nomination.

Posted by at 9:07 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

October 15, 2005

'The Finest Court in the Nation'

Don't know if you caught this great op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, touting "The Finest Court in the Nation", namely the Michigan Supreme Court. We take great pride in this, in that the majority of the court was either directly appointed by or supported by our boss, former Michigan Governor and now NAM President John Engler.

Those of you who know him know he speaks quite passionately about the need to have good judges, those who will interpret the law and not act as quasi-legislators. Certainty is in inverse proportion to litigation, so the more certainty they can build in, the fewer lawsuits we have and we can begin to reduce the crushing costs of lawsuit abuse in this country.

Says the op-ed by Patrick Wright, "For the past six years, the Michigan Supreme Court has been leader in attempting to restore a proper balance between the judiciary, the legislature and the people." Chief Justice John Roberts, in his confirmation hearings, talked of a judge as an umpire, not a batter. Governor Engler appointed men and women to the Michigan Supreme Court who understood that role and have applied it well, not adventuring into areas reserved for legislators. It is exactly the kind of temperament we need in all the courts, and certainly why we endorsed John Roberts. (Our Judicial Review Committee will evaluate Supreme Court Harriet Miers in due time as well, according to the same established criteria.)

In any event, we just wanted to say bravo to the Wall Street Journal for a great piece and to John Engler , for practicing what he preaches and leaving a legacy of predictability on the finest court in the Nation.

Posted by at 8:18 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

October 5, 2005

An Appointee in the World of Instant Opinions, Take Two

Got a call from a reporter yesterday, asking all about our process for evaluating Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. We dutifully went over chapter and verse of our Judicial Review Committee, our criteria, etc., all stuff that regular blog readers know by heart.

But then he said, that "the official NAM blog" (guess we never thought of this as "official" anything....) was, as he read it, advocating for Miers in yesterday's post. Ah, language is so imprecise...

We explained that the point we were trying to make was that this is a world of instant opinions and it seems that everyone -- instantly -- has an opinion on her qualifications when in truth, no one really knows all that much about her. The post was not to advocate but was to call for a respite and to say that groups ought not rush to judgment -- as we have not -- and should be deliberate -- as we intend to be. In other words, everybody should be more like us: Perfect. We will have a decision all in good time.

Hope that clears things up.

Posted by at 7:18 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

October 4, 2005

An Appointee in the World of Instant Opinions

Once word leaked this morning of the President's intention to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, it seemed that opinion began instantly to form. Opinions are OK if they are informed, but it seems these days the premium is placed on speed and not accuracy. Well before her name had left the President's lips, TV and other media pundits were expressing opinions -- opinions on a nominee about whom they knew (and still know) almost nothing. Harriet Miers quickly became Harriet Miersapersonwithnojudicialexperience. It was incredible how quickly the appellation attached: "Harriet Miersapersonwithnojudicialexperience". And this became really important for reasons not entirely clear to us. Almost a third of the Justices appointed in the last seven decades came with no judicial experience. These included such standouts as the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and former Justice Byron White.

Harriet Miers is the White House Counsel. We know that much. That is a world of fairly rarefied air not typically inhabited by hacks of either party. This is the high wire, you need to know your stuff. Her bio is filled with a lot of "firsts" and accomplishments that aren't shared by most other lawyers. Named one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers, after all, is an honor that all but 50 do not get.

For our part, we actually have a process in place. We have a Judicial Review Committee, made up of General Counsels and top executives from our member companies that evaluates nominees according to a set of stated and published criteria. The criteria can be applied to nominees who come from the bench and those who don't. It will take a few weeks for this process to run its course, the same process that resulted in an endorsement of John Roberts.

In the meantime, we would urge everyone to just stand back, take a deep breath and -- God forbid -- wait for the facts to come in.

Posted by at 7:26 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

October 3, 2005

The President Nominates Harriet Miers

As the whole world knows by now, the President has nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Here's a link to the White House announcement and here's a link to our press release.

Recall that we at the NAM have a process and have criteria by which nominees will be evaluated. Our Judicial Review Committee will evaluate her by these stated criteria and will announce its decision, all in good time.

More on this later.

Posted by at 9:11 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

The Week Ahead: A Nominee....?

This will be a busy week, with the debate on energy to begin in earnest (see below). However, if the President announces his new nominee for the Supreme Court, it will dwarf all else that is going on, as the ad hominem attacks will begin instantly from the left, with vigor. The Washington Post noted with disdain in its editorial last week that both the People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice (a couple of misnomers if ever there were) are both poised to pounce on the new nominee, regardless of who they are. "The liberal groups", said the (liberal) Washington Post, "have made it clear that they will oppose any nominee from this Administration, regardless of qualifications, temperament, or testimony." So much for reasoned debate. We actually have criteria -- what a concept.

This week, we will work in the usual round of stuff, including one likely Report from America, the Poster and the Thursday Open Thread.

Stay tuned.

Posted by at 7:15 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

The Week Ahead: In the Supreme Court

History is made today when the Supreme Court begins its term -- the first Monday in October -- with its 17th Chief Justice, John Roberts, at the helm.

Among the cases on the docket, one that he and his colleagues will hear today is one called, IBP v. Alvarez, which has been paired with another case with the identical issue, Tum v. Barber Foods. This is a case both arcane and not. It involves interpretation of something called the Portal-to-Portal Act, read in conjunction with federal wage and hour laws. At issue is whether workers are required to be paid under Federal law for time spent at the beginning and end of the day -- if only a few minutes -- donning and doffing (as it is called) safety equipment. The time -- and the pay at issue -- for each employee is tiny. However, in the aggregate, the potential liability for employers is enormous.

Regardless of how you feel about the merits of the question, there was a little funny business from our friends in the labor movement that made this issue emerge. What's ironic is that over the past several decades, employees in union-represented facilities (most by the UFCW) were not paid for this time. Ironic, no? That's because the union bargained it away. That is, in the course of collective bargaining, they gave up any claim to be paid for this time, a quid that any labor negotiator will tell you was undoubtedly rewarded with a quo somewhere down the line.

Well, one day the boys and girls down at the UFCW were sitting around and figured they could get this time paid even if they couldn't get it in the contract. They sent a letter to the friendly old Clinton Labor Department and said, "Hey -- we were just wondering -- shouldn't we be paid for this time?" Lo and behold, the good customer-friendly folks over at the Clinton Labor Department -- a place up 'til then not known for its speedy replies -- wrote back almost instantly (so fast it made some cynics wonder if the letter had been already drafted) to say, "Glad you asked. Yes, this time should absolutely be compensated time under Federal wage and hour laws." They ignored, of course that the UFCW had bargained this away for all these years. So the UFCW came calling to all these employers with an enormous bill for back pay. They prevailed in the Ninth Circuit (big surprise), but lost in the First Circuit. The Supreme Court now has the case to resolve the conflict in the Circuits.

In our view, the court should not require this time to be compensable (in legal parlance), but should defer to the collective bargaining agreements where present. However, seems to us that if the court decides that this time is indeed compensable, it's only fair that the UFCW split the bill with the employers, having sold their members out for all those years, no?

Here's a link to the case summary and here's a link to the amicus brief we filed in the case.

Posted by at 7:06 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

September 30, 2005

The Kowtow Caucus

Here's a list of the Senators who voted against the nomination of John Roberts today. If they are waiting for a more qualified nominee, they won't get one. Roberts, after all, has had a stellar legal career and has argued nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court, a staggering amount.

Recall the following confirmation vote counts:

John Paul Stevens, 1975: 98-0
Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981: 99-0
Antonin Scalia, 1986: 98-0
Anthony Kennedy, 1987: 97-0
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993: 96-3
Stephen Breyer, 1994: 87-9

Shame on these Senators -- a few Presidential candidates past and future among them -- for shamelessly kowtowing rather than putting partisanship aside and focusing instead on his impressive qualifications. In so doing, they have started down a most dangerous road. If you live in one of these states, you should tell them you don't appreciate it.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Posted by at 8:11 AM | 7 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

September 29, 2005

Roberts Confirmed 78-22

John Roberts was just confirmed by the US Senate to be the next Chief Justice of the United States by a vote of 78-22. Congratulations to Judge Roberts and thanks to the hundreds and hundreds of manufacturers who weighed in to make it so. You made a difference, you were a part of history.

More to follow.

Here is a link to what we said in our press release and here's a link to view the roll call vote.

Posted by at 11:53 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

Roberts Vote Expected Today -- Make Your Voice Heard!

The vote on Judge John Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States is expected before noon today. If you've not already done so, please weigh in with your Senators. If they've already announced their support, this will shore them up. If they're some of the minority of the Kowtowing Caucus, voting against, then your message will let them know this is not a free vote.

It's easy to weigh in. Just click here, send a message -- literally -- to your Senators. Be part of history.

Posted by at 7:07 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

September 25, 2005

Bravo The Washington Post

Yikes! Did we just say that...?

The Post continued its support of all things Roberts -- and disdain for all partisan hijinx related to the nomination -- in an excellent editorial Saturday entitled, "The Right Vote". They credit the 3 Judiciary Committee Democrats -- Leahy, Feingold and Kohl -- for supporting the Roberts nomination, while noting that it shouldn't be necessary to praise them for doing so. "Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court," says the Post, "Used to be the norm, not an act of courage." They go on to observe -- and lament -- that "liberal groups" have already announced their opposition to the next nominee, as the Post says, "regardless of qualifications, temperament or testimony."

As the Roberts' nomination moves to the full Senate floor this week, let's hope more Senators heed the Post's words and put partisan politics aside in the interest of a qualified nominee.

And, if you haven't already weighed in with your Senators, please do so by clicking here.

Posted by at 7:51 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

September 22, 2005

13 to 5

Seeing as though we were the first business group to endorse Judge Roberts and did so according to a set of criteria, we should also be the first to alert you that Judge Roberts recieved the nod of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13 to 5 just a few minutes ago.

In our press release, we noted that Chairman Specter and Sen. Leahy led a dignified and judicious process that provided an opportunity for the nomination to be considered, debated and decided with thoroughness and comity.

VOTES FOR: Specter, Leahy, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Kohl, Sessions, Feingold, Graham, Cornyn, Brownback.

VOTES AGAINST: Feinstein, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Durbin.

More on this later tonight and tomorrow.

Posted by at 1:24 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

The Daschle-ization of Harry Reid

Harry Reid walked out of the Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday, strode immediately to the Senate floor and announced his opposition to Judge Roberts' nomination. Given the context, this was no doubt expected to be a bold "Who's with me?!?" clarion call, to be followed by the rest of his Caucus. However, Plan A was somehow foiled. While he was joined in a drip, drip, drip by his other, predictable, fellow pander bears Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Corzine and Lautenberg, the shocker came Wednesday when the leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy, endorsed Roberts. Did he not get the memo? And so, tongues around town are wagging: Might Reid be challenged for Leader by Senator Chris Dodd or others? Why can't he hold his Caucus?

Tom Daschle -- Reid's predecessor -- got himself in trouble by drifting too far from his South Dakota roots and buying wholesale into his party's agenda in Washington. This is a lesson not lost on his South Dakota colleague Tim Johnson, who today also endorsed Roberts. Reid, too, is from a state far more conservative than his party's core. He has two problems: How is he going to keep his constituents happy, and thereby guarantee his re-election (although he has five more years to worry about that) and if he does, how on earth can he keep his Caucus in line? The fissures from that Hobsons' choice are on display this week. No doubt his constituents aren't very happy with his decision not to support Judge Roberts. Yet, having gone out on the limb, he can't hold his own Caucus, beginning with the man who honchoed the hearings. Not very Leader-like, is it?

To make matters worse, Reid was lambasted in the Washington Post's lead editorial on Wednesday. In a piece entitled, "Words That Will Haunt" (Trivia question: How many times has the Post attacked a Senate Democratic Leader?), the Post notes his "remarkable" statement of yesterday as part of his rambling statement of opposition to Roberts. He said, "The President is not entitled to very much deference in staffing ...the judiciary." As the Post says (correctly -- did we just say that?), "These are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret," adding, "The President's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation." Amen.

So Tuesday, Harry Reid launched into the breach. Behind him is only the smallest band of the far left of his party. The liberal Chair of the Committee of jurisdiction has publicly parted company with him. And one of the most liberal newspapers in the country have called him out. Are we witnessing the Daschle-ization of Harry Reid? We are reminded of George Santayana's famous quote: "Those who ignore history," he said, "Are doomed to repeat it."

Posted by at 7:46 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

September 20, 2005

What's Good for the Ginsburg....

Forgive us another Ginsburg comparison, but here goes:

Ginsburg: 17 Hours of Questioning
Breyer: 18 Hours of Questioning
Rehnquist (for Chief Justice): 12 Hours of Questioning
Roberts: 22 Hours of Questioning

Ginsburg: 216 Questions
Roberts: 510 Questions

When David Broder, the Washington Post and the NAM are on the same page, it's a movement. This man is going to be confirmed and should be, with all due speed. If you've not already done so, please weigh in with your Senator.

Let's get on with it, shall we?

Posted by at 7:36 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Another Voice for John Roberts

In case you missed it, the Dean of the political pundits, the respected David Broder of the Washington Post -- a guy with whom we almost never disagree -- weighed in on Sunday with a piece entitled, "Roberts's Sterling Showing". In it, he said:

He is so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

Like we said, we almost never disagree with David Broder, and won't in this instance either. Another great op-ed that is required reading, lays out a pretty strong case for Judge Roberts' confirmation. If you've not already weighed in with the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do so by clicking here.

Posted by at 7:27 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

September 19, 2005

On the Other Hand....

Here comes the kowtowing New York Times yesterday in its lead editorial entitled, "Too Much of a Mystery" (this after 22 hours and 510 questions' worth of of hearings, dwarfing Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer or just about anyone else, save Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas -- is there a pattern here...?), they withhold their mighty endorsement of John Roberts for Chief Justi