What do you think of a judge who's published fewer than 10 percent of hisopinions? You might think that he's hiding something because his record reflectsan unsuitable judicial temperament or extreme views on such subjects as race and reproductive choice. And according to those leading the opposition to thenomination of U.S. District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the FifthCircuitCourt of Appeals, you'd be right.
Participants include the Alliance for Justice, the LeadershipConference onCivil Rights, NARAL, the NAACP, and People for the AmericanWay--a coalitionreminiscent of the one that defeated Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987.For comprehensive research on the record of Pickering and other nominees ofGeorge W. Bush, go to www.independentjudiciary.com.
For instance, Pickering once urged strengthening of Mississippi's law banning interracial marriages. As a judge, he ruled several times that legislativedistricts did not have to be redrawn, despite acknowledging in some of the casesthat the districts at issue violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act or theConstitution. As a state senator, he voted several times against measures toexpand electoral opportunities for African Americans and he worked tirelesslyagainst the Voting Rights Act.
Pickering has disparaged Miranda and other landmark Supreme Courtdoctrines created to ensure that constitutional rights are respected. He supportsa constitutional amendment to prohibit all abortions, regardless of the risk tothe mother's life. And though he initially denied it, documents have revealedthat he was closely involved with the hateful Mississippi Sovereignty Commission,which took whatever steps it could to maintain segregation in the wake of theBrown v. Board of Education ruling.
While Pickering's record on women's rights and civil liberties is horrific,his nomination is but one among several alarming picks made by PresidentGeorgeBush. Bush's nominee to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals--JeffreySutton--hassought to immunize states from suits over environmental predations and fromcivil-rights challenges. He has also contended that federal protection fromdiscrimination by state government against people with disabilities isunnecessary. Timothy Tymkovich has been nominated to the 10th Circuit.He'sdefended an amendment to Colorado's constitution that bars the state andmunicipalities from protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination--a restriction that the Supreme Court has rejected as unconstitutional. He has alsodefended a Colorado statute that required the state to withhold funding forabortions in cases of rape and incest, despite the measure's clear conflict withfederal law.
Carolyn Kuhl, nominated to the Ninth Circuit, was one of two JusticeDepartment officials who persuaded Reagan administration Attorney GeneralWilliamFrench Smith to reverse an 11-year policy of the Internal Revenue Serviceandreinstate the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and other raciallydiscriminatory schools. The Supreme Court disagreed with Kuhl's position andreversed the IRS shift. She also worked on several high-profile reproductive-rights cases on behalf of the government, in one case arguingbefore the Supreme Court to allow states to ban all abortions, even though theconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade was not at issue.
Civil libertarians and human-rights advocates are serious about defeating extremist nominees. And given the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision,voters remember the importance of judicial selections. Last week, RalphNeas,who heads People for the American Way, was rewarded with a vicious personalattack on The Wall Street Journal's notorious editorial page--a sure signthat the campaign is having some effect.
The Facts and the Farm Bill
Let the facts speak for themselves. That's what the D.C.-based EnvironmentalWorking Group hoped to do when they launched a Web site listing federal subsidies sent to every farm in America (www.ewg.org/farm). Now, with storieshaving appeared in news venues from the Bismarck Tribune to The New YorkTimes, small farmers, environmentalists, and traders at the New York CottonExchange are all celebrating a recent Senate amendment to the $45-billion farmbill that would cap annual subsidies at $270,000 per farm. This is a blow to bigindustrial operations. The proposal's surprise adoption was helped along by thesite, which reporters (who love easily searchable databases of localinformation) and members of Congress have praised.
The site revealed that nearly 60 percent of farm subsidies go to the largest10 percent of growers--often encouraging big farms to overplant crops to receivemore subsidies. Overplanting results in more surpluses, and this in turn squeezessmaller-yield family farms. It also leads to more topsoil destruction.
The new subsidy caps would create higher crop prices--hence the coalitionbetween commodities traders and mom-and-pop growers. (Most profits go to intermediaries, however, so there is little effect on final retail prices.) Lessplanting also means less land destruction through plowing, less grassland annexation, and less pesticide use. And fewer subsidies could make more moneyavailable for conservation efforts.
The amendment passed 66 to 31, but its fate is uncertain. U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest proposes to raise the existing cap to $550,000, and the House-passed version of the farm bill differs significantly from the Senate version in other ways--so thelegislation is likely headed for conference committee.
