Washington – When William G. Myers III appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month in the hope of filling a vacancy on a federal appeals court, the Democrats were polite but unyielding.
Myers was “a hard-working, decent man,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, told the nominee. But “your record screams ‘passionate activist.’ It does not so much as whisper ‘impartial judge.”‘
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, told Myers that the Democrats objected to “his partisanship.” Leahy called him “an outspoken antagonist” and “the most anti-environmental judicial nominee sent to the Senate in my 30 years here.”
Democrats, it seems, don’t like activist judges any more than Republicans do.
Though cloaked in the rhetoric of constitutional law, the struggle over President Bush’s judicial nominees is steeped in the familiar politics of polarization. Both sides accuse the other of supporting judges who read their personal beliefs into the law.
The stakes are raised by the expectation that Bush will get to name at least one new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives would like to strip the Democrats of their power to filibuster a Bush nominee.
Allowing the Republican Senate majority to move on Bush’s judicial nominees is crucial right now, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for the Colorado Springs-based group Focus on the Family. “They are the key to everything.”
With Chief Justice William Rehnquist in poor health, Bush could have a new appointment as early as this summer weighing in on social issues such as abortion or gay rights.
His stance on judicial nominees has thrown Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar into a heated public debate with Focus leader James Dobson over appellate court appointments and the Senate filibuster rule.
Senate Democrats on Thursday rejected a compromise proposal by Majority Leader Bill Frist that would have allowed “up or down” votes by the full Senate after no more than 100 hours of debate on an individual nominee.
“Until the rules are changed, as a nation founded on the rule of law, we must abide by the rules to avoid breaking them,” Salazar commented. “Sen. Frist’s proposal would require breaking the rules of the Senate with regard to the United States Supreme Court and all Circuit Courts of Appeals. … But I am encouraged by the dialogue of compromise. I hope this dialogue continues.”
Myers, a University of Denver law school graduate, served as Interior Department solicitor during the president’s first term. He was the first of three nominations to appellate courts that the Republican majority on the Judiciary panel have approved and sent to the Senate floor, and Democrats have threatened to filibuster.
The other two are state judges Janice Rogers Brown of California and Priscilla Owen of Texas. Four other nominees also have been delayed during Bush’s first term.
Myers has no experience as a judge, never tried a case before a jury and wrote few formal opinions as Interior solicitor. The American Bar Association gave him its lowest passing rating as a nominee.
And when examining Myers’ record as Interior solicitor, and his writings over the years, many Westerners might scratch their heads at why Democrats and liberal interest groups have labeled him “extreme.”
