-Caveat Lector-
>From Boston Herald . CoM
> Clinton's judges: Peas out of a pod
> by Don Feder
>
> Wednesday, June 9, 1999
>
>
>
>
>
> Here's a delicious irony: Bill Clinton, who six months ago was
> impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, could
end
> up appointing more judges than any of his predecessors.
>
> To date, Clinton has put 306 of his soulmates on the bench, close
to
> President Reagan's record of 385. By the end of his second term,
the
> perjurer in chief could have appointed 40 percent of the entire
> federal judiciary.
>
> But in the twilight of his tenure, the confirmation process has
slowed
> to a crawl. The usually compliant Orrin Hatch, chairman of the
Senate
> Judiciary Committee, hasn't held a confirmation hearing this year -
> which has set the establishment to whining about the unfairness of
it
> all.
>
> Clinton's judicial picks get high marks for diversity, we're told.
His
> choices for the Supreme Court are praised, with a perfectly
straight
> face, as middle-of-the-roaders.
>
> This president's judicial nominations are diverse where it matters
> least - gender and race. Intellectually, they reflect all the
variety
> of Stalinists at a party congress, not to mention the same
political
> leanings.
>
> Take Claudia Wilken, one of Clinton's first appointments, who was
> placed on the U.S. District Court for Northern California in 1993.
In
> 1997, Wilken invalidated California's popularly enacted
> term-limitation amendment.
>
> Casting about for a rationale, Wilken determined term limits
violate
> the 14th Amendment because voters who prefer politicians who've
been
> in office for eternity can't vote for their hacks of choice.
>
> How this view could be reconciled with the 22nd Amendment to the
> Constitution, limiting presidents to two terms in office, Wilken
> didn't say. After it stopped laughing, the Supreme Court overturned
> the decision.
>
> Fast forward to 1998, when Wilken held that San Francisco was
> perfectly within its rights in forcing companies that do business
with
> the city to provide health insurance for domestic partners on the
same
> basis as spouses.
>
> The ordinance is constitutional because it ``effectuates a
legitimate
> local public interest to combat discrimination on the basis of
sexual
> orientation,'' Wilken insisted in an opinion that read like a
> manifesto.
>
> A typical Clinton appointee, Wilken reasons that if she likes a
thing
> it must be constitutional; if she doesn't, it goes without saying
that
> it violates the law of the land.
>
> Another of Clinton's Oliver Wendells, William Fletcher, went to a
> federal appeals court despite a total lack of courtroom experience.
> Who needs experience when he has theories? A former law professor,
> Fletcher believes judges may declare legislatures ``chronically in
> default'' and assume their functions. He says out loud what most
> Clinton appointees believe in their hearts.
>
> Other Clinton judges have: enjoined the enforcement of a state ban
on
> partial-birth abortions, rejected a student-initiated graduation
> prayer, forced an Ohio municipality to remove a cross from its city
> seal and voted to overturn a federal law restricting the broadcast
of
> obscene material to the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
>
> But doubtless, Clinton's crowning achievement was the nomination of
> Frederica Massiah-Jackson to one of the district courts. A state
judge
> from Philadelphia, Massiah-Jackson was forced to withdraw when
> Republican senators (in a rare show of determination) said, ``No
way
> in hell!''
>
> Massiah-Jackson's record was described by Philadelphia's Democratic
> district attorney as ``replete with instances of leniency toward
> criminals, an adversarial attitude toward police and a hostile
> attitude toward prosecutors.''
>
> Her acquittal rate was 60 percent higher than the average for
> Philadelphia judges; her sentences were twice as lenient. She once
> swore at a prosecutor in her courtroom and on another occasion
> declared that both capital punishment and three-strikes laws are
> racist and unconstitutional.
>
> Given her brilliance, it's a wonder the president didn't nominate
> Massiah-Jackson for the Supreme Court. Instead, he chose those
> notorious moderates Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, who have
> consistently taken an activist approach on everything from religion in
> the public sphere to term limitation to racial preferences.
>
> Republicans, who pay lip-service to judicial restraint, have been far
> too obliging to this president. As Tom Jipping of the Free Congress
> Foundation notes, when Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans
> the White House from 1987 to 1992, Congress denied hearings to an
> average of 7.3 GOP judicial nominees a year. When the roles were
> reversed (1995 to 1998), on average Republicans blocked hearings
for
> only 4.3 Democratic nominees each year.
>
> Given this president's demonstrated contempt for our system of
> justice,
