February 1, 2006
Terry Eastland is the publisher of the Weekly Standard With Samuel Alito's confirmation, it's time to take stock of this particular episode in the making of a justice, the nation's 110th. Bear in mind that Alito was not President Bush's first choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor. The estimable John Roberts was, but when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, Bush decided to redesignate Roberts for the center seat. That meant finding another nominee for O'Connor's seat. Bush surprised the world by naming White House counsel Harriet Miers, whose nomination proved a major blunder.
June 13, 2010
After the outrageous treatment of Justice John E. Wallace Jr. by Gov. Christie in failing to reappoint Wallace after seven years of outstanding service on the New Jersey Supreme Court, it is ironic that Christie would choose former Justice Peter G. Verniero, who came close to impeachment in 2001 in the furor over racial profiling in New Jersey for allegedly misleading the state Senate in his confirmation hearings, for a panel that screens nominations ("Christie...
November 1, 2005
President Bush began mending fences with conservatives yesterday by nominating Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. That may be great news for the Republican Party, which was nearly torn in two by the President's nomination of Harriet Miers. But the key question is whether the choice of Alito is as good for the nation as it is for the President's political outlook. This debate will be all about Alito's judicial philosophy and his judgment - which is as it should be. Unlike Miers, Alito's r?sum? leaves no room to question his experience or his intimacy with constitutional law. Alito, 55, of West Caldwell, N.J., a judge on the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has compiled an impressive record of public service without any taint of cronyism.
July 5, 1987 |
Liberals and moderates are combing Judge Robert Bork's writings, speeches, and judicial opinions, seeking some nonpolitical basis for opposing his nomination to the Supreme Court. What they are looking for is not some sort of ADA rating that says this nominee is too conservative. His conservatism is public knowledge and, indeed, the basis for his nomination to the Supreme Court. No, what the "good guys" (from my point of view) hope to find is some flaw, some disqualifier, some evidence that Bork's political/judicial philosophy places him outside the American mainstream.
July 24, 2007 |
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor sounds nostalgic these days, as he recalls what the state's 40-year-old judicial retention system used to be - a nonpartisan, merit-based election that could be waged for the price of a postage stamp. Saylor, who is seeking a second 10-year term on the high court, now finds himself running a statewide campaign - complete with major fund-raising and political consultants - against an elusive opponent: voter anger. In an unusual public appearance yesterday, Saylor, 60, discussed his judicial philosophy, his high-profile dissenting opinions, and the difficulties of campaigning in an anti-incumbent climate that has lingered since the 2005 legislative pay-raise debacle.
January 19, 2006
WHEN WORKING people hear that Samuel Alito's record speaks for itself, they should be very concerned. Judge Alito's record speaks to racial and gender discrimination in the workplace. His record speaks to restrictive views of workers' access to family and medical leave. His record speaks to weakening protections for pension, health and safety, and wage-and-hour provisions. Judge Alito's judicial philosophy has led him to decisions that would have "eviscerated" legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Bray vs. Marriott Hotels)
September 19, 2005 |
In our lifetime, has there been a more politically poisonous Supreme Court decision than Roe v. Wade? Set aside for a moment your thoughts on the substance of the ruling. (I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion.) I'm talking about the continuing damage to the republic: disenfranchising, instantly and without recourse, an enormous part of the American population; preventing, as even Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, proper political settlement of the issue by the people and their representatives; making us the only nation in the West to have legalized abortion by judicial fiat rather than by the popular will expressed democratically.
September 18, 1987 |
Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork today fielded more questions about his judicial philosophy from Senate Judiciary Committee members as they neared the end of a week's grilling of the federal judge. Bork, as composed today as he was when he began testifying Tuesday afternoon, repeatedly sought to assure lawmakers that he would respect past rulings by the nation's high court, despite his strong beliefs that many of those decisions are constitutionally faulty. Bork said today he would be "disgraced in history" if he were confirmed and then took an opposite view from those he expressed during his confirmation hearing.
March 26, 2013 |
The New Jersey Supreme Court, once viewed as a bastion of independent, if liberal, jurisprudence, risks a sharply diminished reputation if political battles over filling its empty seats are not quickly resolved, legal experts and court-reform advocates say. The immediate issue facing the court is the maneuvering between Gov. Christie and Senate Democrats over the two unfilled positions. But experts say the larger issue is the breakdown of an informal, decades-old agreement between the parties to minimize partisan wrangling over judicial nominees.
September 13, 1990
Frankly, we expect that Supreme Court nominee David Souter will be asked the "A" question - where he stands on abortion rights - before the Senate Judiciary Committee's dissection is all over. And we're just about as certain that he'll parry it diplomatically (or, perhaps if it's asked too many times, with an exasperated Harvard-New Hampshire snort). That doesn't bother us - neither the asking of the question nor Mr. Souter's likely evasion. But that doesn't mean that we'd like President Bush's so-called "stealth candidate" to remain a mystery, dancing away from every inquiry, invoking "judicial independence" as if it were the Fifth Amendment.