People for the American Way have released a report Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears that documents "troubling trends identified in earlier reviews have continued as more Bush appointees gain more experience and tenure on the appellate courts – more and more opinions seek, sometimes successfully, to cut back broadly on Americans’ rights under our Constitution and laws."
I haven't read the report yet, but the summary seems similar to others I've read. E.g., this is from page 4:"For example, two controversial Bush appellate judges on two different courts of appeal -- Michael McConnell on the Tenth Circuit and Lavenski Smith on the Eighth Circuit -- cast deciding votes in different cases that significantly restricted individuals’ rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including one decision that struck down a Department of Labor regulation protecting workers." The real question is was the regulation a good one or a bad one?
The problem is, it's very hard to evaluate a judge. It's easy to know if they lean conservative or liberal, but neither is a crime. People can differ on how government should work, in fact the founders had great and famous differences. The Great Compromise that allowed slaves to count as 3/5 of a person for representatives in the House and equal representation for each state in the Senate won with the votes of just 5 states (CT, NJ, DE, MD, NC) of the 13 (MA was split, RI didn't attend and NY and NH lacked a quorum).
It's much harder to know if they are making good decisions or bad. Bush's rhetoric about judges interpreting the law rather than creating it is useless. Judges are supposed to overturn bad laws and many laws are necessarily vague and need interpretation in specific situations. Nevertheless, in the above example, the details they describe (p. 89), seem to suggest it was a bad decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment