Federal Judicial Nominations: A Critically Important Issue
August 2003

Arkansas Chapter Sierra Club

The Bush court-packing agenda is a key event that can dramatically shape the political climate for decades. Each nominee to the Supreme Court or federal appellate court must be able to demonstrate that he or she has a commitment to open-minded decision making and to fundamental constitutional and civil rights. The right wing has made it clear that its appointment of ultra-conservative ideologues is part of an agenda to reverse many of the key civil and environmental rights in this country. These nominees cannot demonstrate their open-mindedness. The single check on the appointment of judges is the Senate's "advice and consent" power. A filibuster on one of the ideological appointees effectively halts this procedure and the appointment process ends. The support of a filibuster is one of the few ways that fair-minded Americans can remedy this desperate situation.

The Senate has confirmed virtually all the candidates that President Bush has nominated with only a few exceptions. These few appointees showed extremes in both ideological views and judicial activity. Conservative members of the Texas Supreme Court have criticized Priscilla Owen for judicial activism and rewriting laws while on the bench. President Bush re-nominated Owen even after being rejected by the Judiciary Committee in 2002. Charles Pickering, Sr. has also been re-nominated by Bush after his initial rejection and has consistently displayed insensitivity and hostility for key civil rights laws, including Roe v. Wade and the Voting Rights Act.