First in a series
The Left's Book on Judicial Warfare: Dismay-Demand-Distort-Defame-Delay     6/29/2005
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel

A guide to understanding the tactics of the Left.

First in a series

There's a classic scene in the movie Patton starring George C. Scott. After his defeat in North Africa of the Nazi General Erwin Rommel, known as the "Desert Fox," Patton is seen standing in a jeep waving a book exclaiming, "Rommel, you magnificent b******! I read your book!"

No. We're not calling or equating the left with Nazis or b*******. Just as we're not calling them magnificent either. The point is that Patton knew the victory was due primarily to his reading of Rommel's book about warfare, Infantry Attacks.

The left has a "book" about defeating Republican presidential nominees to the Supreme Court. Anyone familiar with the nomination debacle over Judge Robert H. Bork, as in "borked," has seen it unfold.

Less than an hour after President Reagan announced on July 1, 1987, that Judge Robert Bork was his choice to replace retiring Justice Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) appeared on the Senate floor to fire his opening salvo: "Robert Bork's America," he warned in a statement largely written by chief legislative aide Carey Parker, "is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution," and so forth.¹

When President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to take the place of retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the attacks began:

Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League, and the National Organization for Women opposed his appointment to the Supreme Court because of his criticism of affirmative action and suspected anti-abortion position. Thomas asserted that he had not developed a stance on the Roe v. Wade decision, which prevented states from illegalizing [sic] abortion.

Toward the expected end of the confirmation hearings, Democratic staffers for the committee leaked to the media the contents of an FBI report which reported that a former colleague of Thomas, University of Oklahoma law school professor Anita Hill, had accused him of sexually harassing her when the two had worked together at the U.S. Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In the end, the Committee did not find sufficient evidence to corroborate Anita Hill's claim.²

The scurrilous and baseless attacks against Judges Bork and Thomas are straight out of the left's book. A key tactic is to create dismay among the public.

Dismay means to deprive of courage, resolution and initiative through the pressure of sudden fear or anxiety or great perplexity.

The recent battles over circuit court nominees with the added filibusters were re-runs of the same old attacks and a warm-up of things to come.

Understanding their book means being informed, prepared, equipped and engaged instead of bamboozled, disengaged and defeated.

The left's tactics have a long, ignoble history. They create dismay by creating fear and anxiety about "extremist" nominees who they claim will deprive you of constitutional rights if they are put on the Supreme Court. "Chicken Little" is a rank amateur in creating alarm by comparison.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) recently called to mind how the left made the same attacks using the same old charges against other judicial nominees. Ironically, their rulings after being placed on the Supreme Court have made them "mainstream" heroes of the left:

• Lewis Powell was accused of demonstrating "continued hostility to the law" and waging a "continual war on the Constitution." Senate witnesses warned that his confirmation would mean "justice for women will be ignored."
• John Paul Stevens was charged with "blatant insensitivity to discrimination against women."
• Anthony Kennedy was scrutinized for his "history of pro bono work for the Catholic Church" and declared "a deeply disturbing candidate for the United States Supreme Court." "Deeply disturbing." Ring a bell?
• David Souter was described as "almost Neanderthal," "biased," and "inflammatory." One senator said Souter's civil rights record was "particularly troubling" and "raised troubling questions about the depth of his commitment to the role of the Supreme Court and Congress in protecting individual rights and liberties under the Constitution." That same senator condemned Souter for making "reactionary arguments" and for being "willing to defend the indefensible." He predicted that, if confirmed, Souter would "turn back the clock on the historic progress of recent decades." At Senate hearings, witnesses cried, "I tremble for this country if you confirm David Souter," warning that "women's lives are at stake" and even predicting that "women will die."³

The left in the Senate and their allies are ratcheting up their disgraceful attacks against President Bush and the type of person they expect him to nominate, even before a Supreme Court vacancy is announced:

• Reid, now the Senate minority leader, recently told a group of high school students that "the [P]resident is a loser." He has yet to apologize to the President.
• The left attacked several of the President's recent nominees to the circuit courts, such as Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Henry Saad, calling them "kooks," "Neanderthals," "turkeys," "scary," "despicable," "extreme beyond the mainstream." Reid implied on the Senate floor that there was something in Saad's FBI file that would prevent his confirmation. It is a despicable and baseless defamation of a good man.
• "The nomination of Justice Antonin Scalia [as chief justice] would ignite a firestorm of debate in this country," says Nan Aron, executive director of Alliance for Justice, a group opposing many Bush judicial nominees. "His views on originalism, abortion, school prayer, and federalism are way out of the mainstream."⁴
• "What would happen with just one or two more far-right justices on the Supreme Court? In its latest release of Courting Disaster, People For the American Way Foundation highlights the decades of social justice gains that could be wiped out by the confirmation of new justices with judicial philosophies akin to Scalia or Thomas."⁵
• The National Women's Law Center hosts an online chat on judicial nominees: "It is a unique opportunity to speak with two of the nation's leading experts on both the Courts and Women's Issues. … And, we'd add: We do know that even one new Justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia could be in a position to do serious harm to women's rights for decades to come."⁶
• "Anti-choice forces will put everything they have into securing an anti-choice majority on the Court, which is within their grasp. Right now, Roe v. Wade is only supported by a razor-thin majority - and we expect three or even four Justices to retire while Bush is in office."⁷
• "George W. Bush has been following the right-wing court-packing plan that his father and President Reagan began in the 1980s to fill the appeals courts with judges who oppose women's rights and civil rights. … They have the opportunity to strike down our most fundamental constitutional rights. … His model justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have a consistent record of opposing our fundamental rights. Considering that two out of three Supreme Court decisions in the last term were decided by 5-4 votes, all of our fundamental rights- reproductive rights, civil rights, lesbian rights, disability rights and so many other gains feminists have fought for in the past 35 years-could be at risk with the addition of just one new ultra-conservative Supreme Court justice. This is a grave concern because at least two of the current justices, including Sandra Day O'Connor, whose fragile vote is what upholds Roe v. Wade today, have voiced interest in retiring during the tenure of a Republican president."⁸
• "In the next few months, it is likely that there will be at least one, and possibly more than one, vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. An extremist majority on the court would quickly dismantle the constitutional protections for a woman's right to choose. This is a fight we have to win."⁹

As King Solomon said, "There's nothing new under the sun." And there's no reason for you to be dismayed, discouraged and disengaged by the left's same old plays. When a vacancy does open on the Court, the left wants you on the sidelines instead of on the field where you'll be needed.

In case you think who sits on our courts doesn't concern you, consider the June 23 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court that might result in you receiving a letter in the mail from your city council that reads: "We think your home and property would be put to better use as a hotel and health club, so start making plans to move out": click here.

To read, "When Judges Are Out of Order: A Gavel May Be All That Stands Between You and the Rights and Liberties You Cherish as an American": click here.

Click here for the second part of this series.

Click here for the third part of this series.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Biased Judge on California’s Proposition 8 Marriage Case

Like a Blind Man in the Watch Tower

Just a Thought: Liberal Judicial Activist Set for a Vote

Back to Plan A: The Courts

Coalition Letter in Opposition to the Nomination of Judge David Hamilton

Obama Names His First Judicial Nominee

Obama’s First Judicial Nominee: Another Slap in the Face of Christian Conservatives

Consider Judges When You Vote in November

Justice and Fairness Dead in Judicial Confirmation Process

Judging a Judge