Evangelcal leader James Dobson is on the warpath. He has targeted six Senators who are facing reelection in 2006 and threatened that if they block conservative judicial appointees, he'll use his muscle to remove them.

In a letter his aides say is being sent to more than one million of his supporters, Dr. Dobson, the child psychologist and founder of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, promises "a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea" if President Bush fails to appoint "strict constructionist" jurists or if Democrats filibuster to block conservative nominees.

The six are: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Bill Nelson of Florida.

Who does he think he is, Popeye? Someone ought to think up a ditty about him we can spread around -- "I'm Dobson, the ________man."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist gave his annual speech on the state of the judiciary the other day. His message: We need to preserve the independence of our judiciary.

Ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said today that judges must be protected from political threats, including from conservative Republicans who maintain that "judicial activists" should be impeached and removed from office.

"The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction," the chief justice, whose future on the court is subject to wide speculation, said in his traditional year-end report on the federal courts.

One conservative judicial activist down. Carolyn Kuhl has withdrawn her name from consideration for a 9th Circuit judgeship. Kuhl was one of the nominees filibustered by Democrats last year. Her most vocal opposition came from women's and pro-choice groups.

We wrote about opposition to her nomination almost two years ago, quoting another Law.com article that reported:

On Friday, a coalition of left-leaning employment law, environmental, abortion rights and minority groups met to urge public opposition to Kuhl, saying she was among President Bush's most conservative nominees. She was called anti-consumer, anti-labor, anti-abortion, anti-environment and more.

If only William Meyers and Janice Rogers Brown, who are among two of the twenty names Bush resubmitted last week, would follow Kuhl's lead.

This didn't take long. President Bush has resubmitted 20 rejected extremists for federal judgeships. Among them: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor; Priscilla Owen; Richard Allen Griffin, David W. McKeague; Henry Saad; Janice Rogers Brown and William G. Myers III.

Opponents say many of the stalled nominees opposed abortion rights, preservation of the environment and civil rights safeguards. ``It's a slap in the face of the Senate and a show of contempt for many of the issues Americans care about the most,'' said Nan Aron, director of the Alliance for Justice, which opposes a number of Bush's nominees.

Then there is William Haynes, who as General Counsel for the Department of Defense, submitted the infamous "torture memo" to Rumsfeld.

Charges that the Democrats are being obstuctionists are ill-founded. More than 200 of Bush's appointees were approved in his first term. The Dems have strategically chosen the worst of the worst to oppose. Even Harry Reid is on board so far to oppose these nominations:

by TChris

Judges who feel a need use their judicial office to promote the Ten Commandments should take a refresher course in constitutional law, focusing particularly on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It doesn't matter that Judge Ashley McKathan of Alabama has received nothing but supportive calls and messages since he wore a robe in his courtroom with the Ten Commandments embroidered on his chest. The Bill of Rights does not give way to popular opinion; it protects everyone from the government's endorsement of religion. Judges, of all people, should understand that simple concept.

While Judge McKathan is pleased at the attention he's received, others who enter his court aren't as happy.

"I objected to the robe because the news media attracted by it has been a distraction in this case," [Attorney Riley] Powell said Wednesday. "Even though the judge warned them not to read papers or listen to the news media, this morning at least half had seen the news and read accounts of the issue -- it was on Rick and Bubba's radio show this morning and on 'Paul Harvey.' Some had even been called by the media."

Jurors are supposed to base their decisions on the law as explained in jury instructions, not on their own interpretations of the Ten Commandments. But when the Commandments are displayed on the judge's chest, will the jury understand the difference?

Let's hope that creative lawyers obtain a reversal of every conviction before Judge McKathan on the ground that improper jury instructions were written on the judge's robe. Maybe that will teach the judge to honor the Constitution he swore to uphold.

The newest Jeb Bush appellate judicial pick favors rock and roll executions:

Brad Thomas, Gov. Jeb Bush's long-time public safety policy coordinator, is leaving to take a judgeship on the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee. He was named Thursday to the appellate court to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Anne Booth.

Thomas' previous attempts to secure a circuit and county court judgeship were unsuccessful. Thomas, who has advised Bush on the death penalty, crime policy and other issues, caused a stir in 2000 when he urged a more streamlined system of appeals for death row inmates, telling the St. Petersburg Times, "Bring in the witnesses, put them on a gurney, and let's rock and roll." He later apologized for the comment.

[hat tip Rochelle R., Tampa.]

by TChris

Complaining of the "extreme special-interest groups" that opposed his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Charles Pickering announced his retirement from the court. President Bush used a recess appointment to send Pickering to the court after the Senate twice failed to overcome a filibuster of his nomination. TalkLeft's coverage of Pickering is collected here.

Pickering complained that his nomination was opposed because of "hostility to any nominee with strong religious convictions who personally disagrees with them on abortion, marriage and references to God at public ceremonies and institutions." More accurately, his nomination was opposed by those who feared that his personal opinions, rather than faithfulness to the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, would guide his decision-making. As Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, commented, it was "a graceless goodbye."

The Senate reconvenes Tuesday for its lame-duck session. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who is pro-choice, is up for the Chair positon on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate may decide to give outgoing Chair Orrin Hatch a two-year waiver so he can stay on as Chair.

Right-wing extremists oppose him. What do you think, will he get the job? Will his ghost from the past (the confirmation hearing of Robert Bork) cost him now? What does his defeat mean for Roe v. Wade?

Specter's defeat could mean abortion rights opponents are one seat away from victory on the Supreme Court. The Boston Globe takes a look at what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

With Roe in the judicial dustbin, arguments against abortion could no longer be couched in the language of state's rights and judicial activism that Bush used on the campaign trail. In all likelihood, the party would have to make good on the commitment, enshrined in its platform, to outlaw abortion.

What is the likeihood that Bush will succeed in packing our courts with right-wing ideologues? Jeffrey Rosen in the New York Times and Carolyn Lochhead in the San Francisco Chronicle provide some illumination.

Update: the ACLU slams Ashcroft for his disdain of American law.

He's back....at least today. Ashcroft gave a speech today at the conservative Federalist Society:

Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.

In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers group.

Well, we won't have him to kick around any more, thank goodness.

Congress did not pass a federal courts budget before it recessed. A continuing resolution provides funding only until November 20. A crisis looms.

...what is particularly worrisome this year is that Congress is considering a hard freeze: appropriations for all nondefense, nonhomeland security operations would be frozen at fiscal year 2004 levels. If that happens, wrote Chief Judge John W. Sedwick of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a letter to the Senate's Appropriation Committee chairman, the courts, which already stand "on the brink of a fiscal abyss" will "plunge over the precipice."

Under a hard freeze, the judiciary estimates it would have to fire or furlough 2,200 to 5,000 full-time employees-almost 20 percent of probation officers and clerks' office staff-and make a 50 percent cut in court operations costs. Money to pay attorneys who represent indigent criminal defendants under the Criminal Justice Act would run out next June, and money for jury fees would be exhausted in July.

Caseloads are increasing. There is a shortage of judges. Staff reductions will morph into salary cuts and reduced hours. Not a pretty picture, and there is no relief on the horizen.

In June, 2003, we wrote about New York Senator Charles Schumer's letter to President Bush suggesting recommended replacements for any retiring Court Justices:

New York Senator Charles Schumer is pushing Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Spector for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Schumer's suggested list of five candidates includes Specter and Michael Mukasey, a Ronald Reagan appointee now serving as chief judge of the federal court in Manhattan. He also recommends judges Anne Williams, Edward Prado and Stanley Marcus, all current federal appeals court judges nominated by Republican presidents.

Schumer's effort to block the nominations of lawyer Miguel Estrada and Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen has angered Republicans, who have suggested redrafting Senate rules to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. Here is the full text of Schumer's letter to President Bush. [links via How Appealing]

[hat tip Jim Lindgren at Volokh who reminds us of Schumer's letter today.]

After Specter's non-warning to Bush last week about appointing ideologues on the abortion issue, I'd say Specter has no chance. Jim thinks it will be Alberto Gonzales, as has been rumored for over a year. If I had to back someone on that short list, it would be Edward Prado of Texas hands-down, a Bush 5th Circuit nominee unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

Jim is not alone in predicting that Bush will select Alberto Gonzales. As we wrote in December, 2002, in a plea for readers not to back a third party candidate, the New York Times reported: