This week marks a great opportunity to eliminate yet another of President Obama’s liberal activist candidates from getting a lifetime federal judgeship, in this case on the notoriously liberal—and often overturned—9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In November the commander-in-chief nominated pro-abortion radical Andrew Hurwitz to fill a vacancy on the San-Francisco-based appellate court. In late January Hurwitz appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and his nomination was reported to the full Senate in March. He must be confirmed by the full Senate, which gives lawmakers a great opportunity to keep another liberal activist away from the federal bench.
Hurwitz currently sits on the Arizona Supreme Court. He got that job in 2003 thanks to then Governor Janet Napolitano, now Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security. In a letter asking senators to vote against Hurwitz, a Texas congressman (the House doesn’t participate in the process) points out the following; Hurwitz played a key role authoring two 1972 decisions which are clearly reflected and expanded upon in the Supreme Court’s infamous abortion ruling on Roe. v. Wade.
The landmark decision stands almost undisputed as an unprecedented judicial usurpation of legislative authority in its fabrication of a right to abortion that had never before existed in the Constitution, the congressman writes. He further points out that, as an attorney, Hurwitz suggested that the Supreme Court change the Constitution’s language to arrive at a ruling based on his beliefs rather than the rule of law. “These two examples illustrate significant divergences from the standard we believe life-tenured federal judges should follow in deciding questions of law and fact.”
Hurwitz’s nomination is scheduled for debate and a vote this afternoon. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, tells a legal publication that it’s impossible to read Judge Hurwitz’s article and not conclude that he wholeheartedly embraces Roe, and importantly, the constitutional arguments supporting it. Grassley further points out that Hurwitz wasn’t a young college student when he wrote the pro Roe article, but rather a well-established and seasoned attorney 30 years out of law school.
President Obama’s quest to transform federal courts by appointing unqualified leftist ideologues is worse than previously imagined, according to a mainstream newspaper that reports the notoriously liberal American Bar Association (ABA) has rejected a “significant number” of potential judicial nominees, most of them minorities and women.
This is hardly earth-shattering news considering Obama’s judicial appointments so far. However, the ABA rebuff sheds light into the magnitude of the president’s crusade to stockpile the federal court system, where judges get lifetime appointments, with like-minded activists. In fact, Obama has made it an official policy to “diversify” the federal bench when it comes to gender, race and even life experiences.
But the White House has agreed not to nominate any candidates deemed unqualified by the ABA, the 400,000-member trade association that provides law school accreditation. Though it claims to be an impartial group of lawyers, the ABA usually takes liberal positions on divisive issues and Democratic/liberal nominees are more likely to receive the group’s highest rating of “well qualified” compared to their Republican/conservative counterparts. This has been documented in various studies, including a recent one conducted by political science departments at three Georgia universities.
With this in mind, one can only imagine how deficient Obama’s rejected candidates really are. Their identities and negative ABA ratings have not been made public, but inside sources tell the paper that broke the story this week that nearly all of the prospects were women or members of a minority group. Nine are reportedly women—five white, two black and two Hispanic—and of the five men one his white, two are black and two are Hispanic.
The number of Obama hopefuls stamped “not qualified” already exceeds the total opposed by the ABA during the eight-year administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the story points out. That means Obama’s rejection rate is more than triple what it was under either of those previous administrations.
While alarming, this is not surprising. After all, Obama has tried appointing a number of leftist ideologues with no legal experience such as Goodwin Liu, the California law school professor who suspiciously concealed more than 100 of his most controversial speeches, publications and other background materials from the U.S. Senate committee that screens judicial candidates. After failing to earn Senate confirmation for a federal appeals court seat, Liu landed a spot on California’s Supreme Court which only requires state approval.
Obama’s two Supreme Court appointments (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) also have documented histories of bias and favoring liberal causes or favored groups. Sotomayor was a top policy maker at the leftist Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund and a member of the open-borders National Council of La Raza. Her race-conscious and activist judicial philosophy was in full force during her Supreme Court debut when she introduced a pair of new terms aimed at describing illegal immigrants in a more friendly and politically correct way.
Kagan is a liberal activist and political operative with no experience as a judge. This month Judicial Watch obtained internal documents that indicate Kagan was involved in crafting Obamacare during her time as solicitor general. This is important because Kagan will likely participate in the Supreme Court’s upcoming deliberations to review the constitutionality of the controversial healthcare law. As the president’s top advocate Kagan was responsible for drafting the measure’s defense in the event of a legal challenge.