Good morning, I’m Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch is non-partisan, educational foundation that monitors our government, and especially, as our name implies, the judiciary.
With the passing away of Chief Justice Rehnquist and two pending vacancies to the Supreme Court, Judicial Watch seeks to contribute to the public’s understanding of the courts through a thoughtful discussion of the role of grassroots groups in the Supreme Court confirmation process.
It used to be that nominees to the Supreme Court were often confirmed with little or no public debate. Up until recent times, it was not unusual for a nominee for the Supreme Court to be confirmed within five days of a president notifying the Senate. Chief Justice John Marshall’s nomination was submitted by President John Adams on January 20, 1801 and confirmed by the Senate on January 27, 1801. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was nominated by President Teddy Roosevelt on December 2, 1902 and was confirmed on December 4, 1902.
Things have changed. Justice Antonin Scalia, who was nominated by President Reagan, took almost three months to be confirmed. A two-month delay is now the norm. Judge Roberts was nominated on July 19, and it now seems “rushed” to even begin his hearings within two months. Some would want to delay the Senate’s consideration of his nomination even longer.
And, it is fair to say, the debate has gotten nastier. Supreme Court nominations have been rejected before, but it is only recently that judicial philosophy has come to be seen as a legitimate basis for rejecting a nominee. In the case of lower court appointments, and in violation of the U.S. Constitution ideology, there are now excuses for never-ending filibusters that prevent the Senate from ever voting on a judicial nomination. (Judicial Watch, by the way, is challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster in federal court.)
The ideological litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees are a creation of the Left. It began full throttle with Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan. Liberal grassroots groups, such as NARAL, People for the American Way, and the Alliance for Justice, distorted Judge Bork’s record and pronounced him unfit because of how he was expected to rule on issues such as affirmative action, abortion, and race quotas. These liberal groups worked with liberal Democrats and pressured centrist Democrats and liberal Republicans with coordinated media and grassroots pressure. Judge Bork, in an affront to sane public policy, was rejected by the Senate. The Reagan administration and its supporters in the Senate never knew what hit them. The process was repeated with Justice Thomas, where race politics and feminist smears almost upended that nomination. It seems that some of these leftist groups, principled conservatives need not apply for Supreme Court confirmation.
By contrast, President Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees sailed through with relative ease. Justice Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3 and Justice Breyer was confirmed 87-9. Their painless confirmations came despite records, especially in the case of Justice Ginsburg, that placed them troublingly far to the left of the political mainstream.
This time around, conservatives have studied these past defeats and near defeats and have organized. Several grassroots groups are now devoted to advancing conservative nominees for the Supreme Court. What used to be ad hoc and temporary has become organized and institutionalized. The Internet has provided a voice for the conservative grassroots in a way that was inconceivable even five years ago. We are pleased to be joined by representatives of some of these effective conservative grassroots groups:
Sean Rushton, is Executive Director of the Committee for Justice. Founded in 2002, the Committee for Justice exists to restore the judiciary to its proper role under the law and counter the partisan warfare that has arisen against constitutionalist judicial nominees. The Committee for Justice is a leading national voice on judicial issues, using television, radio, and print advertisements to inform the public about judicial confirmation controversies.
Manuel Miranda, Chairman of the Third Branch Conference, previously the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters, a coalition of over 200 organizations nationwide. A practicing lawyer, Mr. Miranda served as Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, leading the Republican conference staff on judicial confirmations. He previously served as Senior Nomination Counsel to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Orrin Hatch. In both positions, he served as liaison to advocacy organizations and coalitions on judicial confirmation and religious issues. He recently published “The Memogate Papers: The Politics, Ethics, and Law of a Republican Surrender” in the Texas Review of Law and Politics.
Gary Marx, is Executive Director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, an organization of citizens joined together to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, the Judicial Confirmation Network works to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote. Gary had previously been a coalition organizer for the Bush-Cheney 04 national campaign. Gary is also president of Principium Consulting a public policy and public affairs consulting firm.
Before we begin our discussion, I would like to note that we did invite representatives from some of the liberal grassroots groups. None accepted our invitation.
Our panelists here today are on the front lines in the Supreme Court confirmation battles and we look forward to their presentations as well as your questions and comments.
Thank you.
