American Bar Association accused in plot against (Bush) nominee

Two liberal advocacy groups and the American Bar Association have been accused in court memos of colluding to write ethical rules regulating judicial travel that would have derailed one of President Bush's appeals court nominees.

The advocacy groups are leading the opposition to the nomination of District Judge D. Brooks Smith to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for taking privately funded judicial training trips.

Community Rights Counsel (CRC) is a not-for-profit, public interest law firm based in Washington DC that was formed in 1997 to assist communities in protecting their health and welfare by regulating permissible land uses. CRC provides strategic assistance to state and local government attorneys in defending land use laws. CRC has published a litigation handbook, which serves to assist state and local attorneys who are defending against takings claims. CRC conducts litigation workshops, helps governments secure amicus support and, in critical cases, offers free representation to state and local governments. For a list of clients CRC has represented in state and federal courts around the country, click here.

Community Rights Counsel is directed by a board consisting of 5 members:

Veronica Eady, the Director of the Environmental Justice and Brownfields Program for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs;

Douglas T. Kendall, CRC's founder and Executive Director;

Charles Lord, the founder and Executive Director of the Urban Ecology Institute at Boston College;

James E. Ryan, a law professor at University of Virginia; and

Henry Underhill, the Executive Director and General Counsel of the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

CRC began as a project of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA)--a national association representing over 8,000 city and county managers from around the country--and was housed within ICMA's offices until July 1998.

The Alliance for Justice is a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women's, children's and consumer advocacy organizations. Since its inception in 1979, the Alliance has worked to advance the cause of justice for all Americans, strengthen the public interest community's ability to influence public policy, and foster the next generation of advocates.

Securing Access to Justice
Since 1985, the Alliance has been extensively involved in the appointment process for federal judges. Through the Judicial Selection Project, the Alliance monitors and investigates judicial nominations at all levels of the federal branch, and encourages public participation in the confirmation process.

About the Judicial Selection Project

Status of the Judiciary: April 2002 Summary Report Press/Reports

March 7, 2002 - Statement of Nan Aron, President of Alliance for Justice, on the Nomination of Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. of Mississippi to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

February 26, 2002 - Alliance for Justice Raises Serious Concerns about Judge D. Brooks Smith and his Nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit

January 24, 2002 - Full Report: The Case Against Charles Pickering

Alliance for Justice Outraged Over Committee Action on Judge D. Brooks Smith
Nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

May 23, 2002 -- Washington, DC—The Alliance for Justice expressed its great disappointment over the decision on the part of a majority of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to send to the Senate floor the nomination of Judge D. Brooks Smith to the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. “We believe that a careful review of Judge Smith’s record could produce only one conclusion,” said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron. “We urge the full Senate to undertake that review.”

Responding to the Committee vote today, Aron warned, “Our efforts to defeat Judge Smith’s confirmation are not over. We expect that groups dedicated to gender equality will be especially energized for a floor fight, but his record is one that should alarm anyone committed to equal justice for all, who believes in a capable, fair, and independent judiciary.”

Aron noted that Judge Smith’s record raises serious concerns in a number of different areas. He has been reversed more than fifty times by a relatively conservative 3rd Circuit in cases involving such critical issues as workers’ rights, consumer safety, environmental protection, and gender discrimination. Many of these decisions demonstrate a tendency to favor powerful entities over the interests of ordinary Americans and a bias against some of the country’s most vulnerable populations.

Other aspects of his record raise further concerns about his commitment to gender equality, as well as his compliance with standards of judicial ethics. At his district court confirmation hearing in 1988, Smith promised the Senate that if he were confirmed, he would withdraw from an all-male club, unless he were able to persuade the club to change its discriminatory policy. Nonetheless, he remained in the club for eleven years, in contravention of the judicial code of ethics, and withdrew only after the appellate court seat to which he has now been nominated came open.

In a speech before the Pittsburgh Chapter of the Federalist Society in 1993, Judge Smith strongly criticized the Biden-Hatch bill that became the Violence Against Women Act, arguing that Congress did not have the power under the Constitution to enact such protections. At his February 26, 2002 confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee senators focused on his attendance of and failure to properly report corporate-funded judicial seminars, as well as his failure to recuse himself promptly from a case involving a bank in which he had a substantial financial interest.

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron is available for comment and can be reached by calling Julie Bernstein at (202) 822-6070 x297 or (240) 601-5562.

Alliance for Justice
11 Dupont Circle | Second Floor | Washington, DC 20036
202-822-6070 voice | 202-822-6068 fax
independentjudiciary@afj.org

Alliance for Justice on Dennis Shedd
Jun 27, 2002 --

ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE CALLS FOR SECOND HEARING ON JUDGE DENNIS SHEDD

Washington, DC—The Alliance for Justice strongly criticized the administration for waiting until the day before the hearing on US District Court Judge Dennis Shedd’s nomination to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee yet more of Judge Shedd’s numerous unpublished opinions. And the Alliance noted that it appears that the administration has still not turned over all of Judge Shedd’s rulings, despite the Committee’s request well over a month ago and despite reports of intense pressure on the Committee by Shedd’s Senate and outside supporters that he be given a hearing.

“The Fourth Circuit has a profound effect on the lives of millions of Americans in West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. “The U.S. Senate has a duty to the American people to ensure that it has thoroughly reviewed the record of any nominee to the federal bench. The administration is once again demonstrating its clear contempt for that responsibility.”

Aron noted that for years Senate Republicans blocked President Clinton’s nominees to the Fourth Circuit. “Shedd’s supporters now seek to capitalize on that obstructionism by pushing through a nominee who has a very troubling record without even allowing time to review that record,” Aron said. Several groups in addition to the Alliance have raised concerns about Judge Shedd’s record, particularly on race and sex discrimination cases, including the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Judge Shedd has published only 61 opinions in his 12 years on the federal bench, and is estimated to have issued more than 1,000 unpublished opinions.

Aron called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a second hearing, but only after it has obtained all of Judge Shedd’s rulings and has thoroughly reviewed them. “To do any less,” said Aron, “would undermine the public’s confidence in the Senate’s exercise of its Constitutional responsibility.”

The problem with ‘strict constructionist’ judges
By Nan Aron

The American system of checks and balances served the people well last month when the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Though the Mississippi judge’s defeat was described in unflattering terms by the media, the fact is that the Senate did its job in thoroughly reviewing his qualifications and judicial record. In this case, the committee determined that Judge Pickering was not deserving of this lifetime appointment.

The committee’s action also sent a clear message to President Bush: When he selects qualified candidates who are able to render fair and independent judgments, the Senate will consider and confirm them promptly. However, when the president nominates judges who don’t respect precedent and who will roll back established rights and protections, they will be defeated.

Unfortunately, this message has not been heard at the White House. “We’re going to have more fights when it comes to the judiciary,” President Bush predicted in Dallas in late March, “and I’m going to put more strict constructionists on the bench.” We appear to be in for more of the same.

Although U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has declared the term “strict constructionist” meaningless and “nothing but fluff,” these buzzwords are meaningful to some administration supporters. The term is code to describe judges who seek to strip us of our rights to privacy, clean air and water, freedom from unjust discrimination, safe workplaces and reproductive freedom.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s definition of a “strict constructionist” jurist when he was President Nixon’s assistant attorney general in charge of vetting judicial candidates was one who would be “not favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs.”

Apparently, a “strict constructionist” in the eyes of this administration is a judge like Pickering, whose judicial overreaching in support of a cross-burner helped bring about his defeat in the Senate. Or like Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, also nominated to the Fifth Circuit, whose “strict constructionist” philosophy allows her to ignore statutory provisions included by the state Legislature to protect pregnant minors. (Current White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, a former colleague of Owen’s on the court, described her position in one such case as “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”)

Another “strict constructionist,” 6th Circuit nominee Jeffrey Sutton, apparently believes that Congress had no right to pass the part of the Americans with Disabilities Act that would have compensated a state hospital nurse with breast cancer who was fired because her boss didn’t like sick people.
And Los Angeles County Judge Carolyn Kuhl, nominated to the 9th Circuit, was apparently motivated by her “strict construction” view of the law to argue vehemently as a special assistant in the Reagan administration’s Justice Department on behalf of restoring tax-exempt status to South Carolina’s Bob Jones University.

The American people want courts that are fair and impartial; they want to make certain that the hard-fought rights they have come to cherish remain in place for their children. In order to make certain that occurs, the Senate must do its job and consider all nominations in a thorough manner consistent with its advise-and-consent role.

The federal courts hold a unique position in our constitutional system. It is the judicial branch that provides a balance in the democratic system, ensuring a forum for underrepresented Americans, to be heard. The courts protect against violations of civil and constitutional rights and are the ultimate arbiters in clashes between government and the individual, ensuring governmental compliance with the law.

How can we protect the judiciary from efforts to undermine its independence and integrity? First, senators must set very high standards, and insist that nominees affirmatively demonstrate fairness, open-mindedness and a profound respect for the role of the federal courts as guarantors of equal justice for all.

Second, the administration should consult with members of the Senate. President Clinton’s White House nominated only people who had the sign-off of Senate Republicans, although many of these consensus candidates were nonetheless blocked from receiving hearings and votes. The administration and Senate Republicans are now trying to benefit from their own party’s prior obstructionism by criticizing a deliberative process (that is nonetheless resulting in confirmations at a rapid clip).

Third, Democrats need to articulate to their constituents and to the country what’s at stake. They need not apologize for defeating nominees who pose a threat to our democracy.

Finally, the legal community around the country must find their voices, as those best positioned to recommend deserving candidates for judicial appointments. Currently, local bars are routinely ignored; lawyers must insist on a meaningful role in the process, and not solely respond to the demands of the Department of Justice, only seeking to validate its own nominees.

We need to protect the judiciary from efforts to undermine its independence and integrity. The unique American system of checks and balances can work — if we all have the will to make it so.

Nan Aron is president of the Alliance for Justice.

Press Conference with the Alliance for Justice to unveil Educational Campaign about Gun Violence.

December 6, 2001

Congresswoman McCarthy and Congressman Henry Waxman join Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice, and Georgetown University student, Mary Gibson of the Gun Industry Watch, to unveil a billboard to increase public awareness about gun safety.

________________________________________________

Court watchers predict Bush could end up filling as many as three vacancies on the Supreme Court.

"We can be fairly confident that, with a few appointments, the court's current conservative philosophy will be maintained, if not strengthened greatly," said Clint Bolick, litigation director for the libertarian Institute for Justice.

"We're certainly prepared to fight a nomination battle, if one arises," he added.

Liberal public interest groups sound as if they are girding for war.

"It will be scorched earth," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. "We won't give one lousy inch."

If Bush nominates an ultraconservative judge -- such as Judge J. Michael Luttig of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. -- the reaction is going to be "very swift, very severe," Aron said.

Bush should understand, Aron said, "there is no mandate to appoint a justice hostile to civil rights, women's rights, the environment. If the administration goes ahead and nominates someone like that, we will muster every resource to make sure that person is not confirmed."

Another factor in the conservative shift of the courts is what Nan Aron, executive director of the Alliance for Justice, describes as the popularity of the "Law and Economics" movement.

The movement, Aron describes, was popular in the early 1970s at the University of Chicago, home of the "Chicago School" of economics, where students were taught a free market theory that accepts monopolies and rejects governmental intervention in the marketplace.

According to Aron, the movement promotes "a more predictable legal environment for businesses, because of its anti-regulatory orientation and its focus on economic costs and benefits rather than 'abstract' notions of right and wrong."

___________________________________________

Gun Violence Prevention Groups Claim Victory H&R Block Severs Ties with National Rifle Association

"Let this send a loud message to other corporate partners of the NRA," said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron. "If you support the NRA, we will work to make sure that your employees, customers, and all of your stakeholders know that you support an extremist gun lobby that is out of step with mainstream America."

"The termination of this agreement is a tremendous victory for everyone who was outraged that a reputable business like H&R Block would support an extremist organization like the NRA," said Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March. "Marketing your products to a specific group of people is an accepted business practice, but H&R Block crossed the line when it agreed to pay royalties to the NRA."

"Corporations doing business with the NRA should be very concerned by the large efforts of hundreds of gun safety activists that came out in defiance of H&R Block's agreement with the NRA," said Bryan Miller of the Mid-Atlantic Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.