5-24-05, 10:35 am

Right-wing religious groups that helped mobilize voters to continue the Republican Party’s ruling status in the last election are outraged over last night's Senate filibuster compromise related to Bush’s judicial nominations.

Far-right religious theocrat James Dobson described the deal as a 'bailout' and a 'betrayal' that caused a sense of 'abandonment' among the fundamentalist religious base that brought the GOP to power. Their anger arises from their fears that the compromise will allow Democrats to block some of Bush’s extremist nominations to the federal judiciary.

Critics of Bush’s appointments say his nominations do not reflect mainstream values, are not fair and balanced, and are being installed to push a right-wing agenda into Constitutional law.

Bush’s judicial nominees have records as conservative activist judges who represent only the values of very small sections of the population. They are broadly outspokenly against a woman’s right to choose, favor codifying their Christian religious beliefs into law, oppose civil rights policies like affirmative action and anti-discrimination statutes, and support judicial activism to intervene in the private lives of people on moral questions.

Three nominees likely to be voted on in the next couple of weeks are Judges Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor.

Texas Judge Priscilla Owen has openly expressed her willingness to rewrite the law to reflect her personal conservative beliefs. She has argued for narrowing the scope of Texas anti-discrimination laws and has argued for using the courts to protect business interests over consumers.

Owen’s efforts in one case were described as 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' by current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown has consistently used her seat on the California Supreme Court to attack civil rights and has interpreted the law so narrowly that if upheld would have set civil rights law back decades. Her opinions have rarely reflected the mainstream views of most Californians. Brown has argued that racial slurs in the workplace are protected by the First Amendment even when they rise to the level of discrimination. But Constitutional rights aren’t always a high priority for her. In another case, in her dissent from the majority opinion on the court, she argued that warrantless searches of people’s homes is legal.

Former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, also expected to receive a vote in the Senate as a result of the compromise, has a record of right-wing judicial activism that outshines his compatriots. As Attorney General for Alabama, Pryor involved his office in cases that were not related to Alabama expressly for the purpose of publicizing his own ideologically-driven views.

Pryor’s activist record earned him such ire at his initial appointment early in Bush’s first term, that he was installed as a 'recess appointment' to the US Court of Appeals.

Pryor showed his willingness to exercise a role beyond the jurisdiction of his Alabama state office when he filed a brief in a Texas case urging the Texas Supreme Court to uphold a law that banned the private sexual activity of gay people. He also publicly announced his opposition to changing a policy at the Virginia Military Institute that denied women access to that public university.

Pryor’s record shows that he has actively used his position to intervene in cases that had little to do with his job as Alabama Attorney General, but everything to do with pushing his personal beliefs for political advancement.

He has urged Congress to eliminate parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which guaranteed federal protection of the voting rights of all people. He has argued for eliminating Constitutional protections against the abuse of prisoners. Even further, Pryor represented the only state to challenge the constitutionality of the federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence in the Violence Against Women Act.

So, it is unclear why Dobson and his right-wing friends are angry about the Senate filibuster compromise. It appears that the GOP majority will be able to seat at least three activist judges with ideological views that fall far outside the mainstream views of most Americans. Leaders of the religious right have generally expressed their support for the anti-democratic agenda Bush’s judicial nominees have built their careers on. So why all the huff?

Opponents of Bush's right-wing Constitutional agenda urge people to protect democratic values, civil rights, women’s rights, and the Constitution by demanding that their Senators vote against these nominees and others who adopt Bush’s and the Republican Party’s far-right agenda.



--Contact Joel Wendland at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.