SOMETHING ABOUT MYERS
Democrats believe that something about William G. Myers that disqualifies him for lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. That something centers around his lifetime of opposition to settled New Deal legislation and his interpretation of the Commerce Clause. More than seventy years ago, the Supreme Court determined that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution allowed Congress the power to make laws relating to business, relations between employers and employees, and to recognize a broad public interest in other spheres some would prefer private. William G. Myers continues to favor a narrow, non inclusive interpretation of the law, which some find appealing. However, the implications view are profound for anyone who has a stake in workers rights in the work place, for protection of the environment, and a sense that citizens may have a final appeal to their government when business interests have wronged them. Myers’ views express a benevolent view of the marketplace that history has proved less than reliable.
FOR EXAMPLE, For example, in the amicus brief Myers authored in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Army Corps of Engineers,90 Myers advocated a very limited view of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause – a view with implications far beyond the environmental policy field.
Myers’ advocacy for a very narrow Commerce Clause has implications that reach far beyond environmental law. Diminishing congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is a primary goal of the modern “federalism” movement, which advocates limited federal powers and severely limiting congressional authority, even to the extent of literally rolling back the New Deal. 98 A number of the Administration’s most controversial appellate court nominees have embraced such a philosophy. 99 Myers’ arguments in SWANCC would not only remove many of our nation’s most valuable resources from the umbrella of federal protection, but could also be used to strike down a broad range of federal laws protecting the health, safety, and rights of all Americans.
SCHUMER AND KENNEDY EXPRESS MORE RESERVATIONS ABOUT PRISCILLA OWN
Senator Schumer said, “If there was ever a judge who would substitute her own views for the law, it is Judge Owen. Her record is a paper trail of case after case where she thinks she knows better than 100 years of legal tradition and clear legislative intent. There is no question that when you look up ‘judicial activist’ in the dictionary, you see a picture of Priscilla Owen..
Sen. Kennedy said, “Our children know that you can't change the rules just to get your way, but Washington Republicans seem to have forgotten this lesson. The nomination of Priscilla Owen is a glaring example of their arrogant attitude -- she shouldn't be confirmed regardless of what rules are in effect. She was elected to the Texas Supreme Court with donations from Enron and other big companies, and she has consistently ruled against workers, consumers, and the most vulnerable members of our society.”
A PLOT AGAINST THE SENATE MAY 11, 2005
FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE: If only Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, had attended the rallies in Riga or Tbilisi over the weekend to hear President Bush tell the budding democrats of Latvia and Georgia how important it is for them to protect minority rights. Perhaps Frist would have emulated former Soviet bloc countries and moved to dismantle his threatened ''nuclear option."
But what's important for Eastern Europe is apparently not so important at home, where Bush and Frist are attempting to steamroll age-old minority rights in Congress in order to pepper the nation's courts with extremists.
"Judges disagree from time to time on particular issues," Gonzales said yesterday. "That doesn't in any way detract from my view that she would make a terrific judge on the 5th Circuit. I've never accused her of being an activist judge."
BEWARE THOSE WHO WOULD COMPROMISE
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: Both parties' leaderships are wary of a bipartisan bid by a few centrists to find a middle ground that would force GOP and Democratic leaders to accept options they have called intolerable.
Frist rejected the offer again yesterday, saying this "is a matter of principle, and the principle is this fairness of an up-or-down vote" for all nominees.
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) suggested that exploring compromises may help Frist gain the votes he will need to outlaw judicial filibusters. Moderate GOP senators, Lott told radio talk host Tony Snow, "have to feel assured that every avenue has been explored. . . . If every effort has been made and fails, then they will be there" when Frist calls for the showdown vote.
WILL CONSCIENCE RULE?
AP: With a Senate showdown looming, possibly as early as next week, Democratic leader Harry Reid publicly challenged Frist to allow GOP senators to "follow their consciences" when voting on a streamlined procedure for certain judicial nominations. "Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude," he wrote.
"To me, it's common sense, and it has to do with principle, and that is that each of these nominees deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Frist told reporters. "Confirm them or reject them, vote yes or no, but allow them the courtesy of a vote."
KEN STARR SIDES WITH DEMOCRATS?
FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO GATE: Kenneth Starr — an appeals court judge on the D.C. circuit from 1983-1989 — came out against the Republican plan to ban judicial filibusters on Monday. He told CBS Evening News that it is a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
Is Myers one of the ones that gets talked about in the alleged compromise offers? Everytime I go through the list, I have a harder time finding which two or three the Dems think they want to let through.
Posted by: eRobin | May 16, 2005 at 07:27 AM