Two federal judges yesterday expressed their criticism of Congress and the Justice Department's interference with their ability to exercise independent discretion in sentencing decisions. See here and here. We hope more Judges follow suit. The independence of our judiciary is at stake. Ashcroft must be stopped from hijacking it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today on the nomination of controversial Bush judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown. The San Francisco Chronicle explains why Brown's nomination is a political lightning rod that has civil liberties groups rising in opposition.

Here's our prior coverage.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today on the nomination of controversial Bush judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown. The San Francisco Chronicle explains why Brown's nomination is a political lightning rod that has civil liberties groups rising in opposition.

Here's our prior coverage.

The next battle over President Bush's controversial judicial nominees is likely to be fought over conservative California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
Her nomination could come before the Senate Judiciary Committee as soon as next week.

The bashing of Brown -- nominated in July to the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- is expected to get more intense as the confirmation date approaches. Opponents are actively lobbying senators to vote against her, and a highly critical, 2-month-old report by the NAACP and the People for the American Way is being distributed throughout the Senate.

Also troubling for Brown is that no major black law group backs her, now that the National Bar Association and the California Association of Black Lawyers have joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in panning the justice. Nan Aron, president of the left-leaning, Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Justice, says opposition will come from all fronts -- not only black groups, but also women's organizations and pro-abortion associations.

"We will do everything we possibly can to ensure that she's not confirmed," Aron says. "We are working on a report and plan to release it to coincide with the announcement of her hearing."

We hope it's goodbye time to Judge Brown. Our prior coverage of her is here. We highly recommend you read this report on Judge Brown , prepared by People for the American Way.

The Senate Judiciary Committee votes Thursday on the nomination of Charles Pickering to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Fierce debate is expected . But, in the end, as this is just the committee, and the Republicans have the majority (it's a 50/50- vote), Pickering will get approved for a full senate vote.

But then the fun begins--Dems are promising a filibuster. Call today and tell your Senator you want one too. Here's the phone list with their individual office numbers. Or call the toll free Congressional switchboard, 1- 800-839-5276.

All of our Pickering coverage and reasons for opposing him can be found here.

We are as intrigued by the Plame affair as the next person, but we don't want to forget other important events of the day. Mississippi's Charles Pickering should be winding his way through the House Judiciary Committee very soon in his quest for a lifetime seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read the new Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy on Pickering's re-nomination. Register your disapproval of Pickering's confirmation with your Senator.

Confirmation hearings for Bush judicial nominee Charles Pickering are on deck in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pickering is up for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The reaction was immediate from liberal groups.

"Judge Pickering's disturbing record exemplifies this administration's efforts to appoint judges who are far out of the mainstream to lifetime seats on the federal bench," said Ralph Neas, president of People For the American Way. "We are aware of nothing that has altered Judge Pickering's record since the committee's vote to reject his confirmation to the Fifth Circuit."

Pickering, a U.S. District judge in Hattiesburg, Miss., was defeated 10-9 in March 2001 when Democrats were in control of the committee. This came after civil rights groups said he supported segregation as a young man in Mississippi. Pickering's opponents also pointed to his conservative voting record as a Mississippi state lawmaker and decisions as a judge.

If Pickering makes it out of the committee, Democrats have promised a filibuster. Hold them to it. You can read all of our Pickering coverage here.

Will the Republicans never learn how to nominate a judge? This editorial from Newsday is right on the money. Some highlights:

The blast of Republican invective that followed Estrada's decision was probably inevitable in the run-up to next year's presidential election. But if the goal is to fill court vacancies and not just make points with the Republican right wing, then President George W. Bush blew it in a way that bodes ill for any Supreme Court nominations on his watch.

Bush should have advised Estrada not to stonewall legitimate Senate inquiries. And he should have allowed senators a look at Estrada's legal writings from his time in the solicitor general's office. Lacking any real sense of what Estrada thinks about the legal issues of the day, senators were right to block his appointment to the powerful U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Stealth nominees shouldn't be rewarded with lifetime jobs on the federal bench. Neither should nominees with ideologies outside the broad mainstream of political thought, like the handful currently being blocked, as Estrada was, by Democratic filibusters.

Jonathan Groner of The Legal Times takes an in-depth look at the withdrawal of Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada and says it could mean big trouble for Bush's other controversial nominees. Many people erroneously think that large numbers of Bush judicial nominees are being blocked. Not true.

Overall, Bush has nominated 196 federal judges, 138 of whom have been confirmed. ...The Senate has confirmed 12 Hispanic judges nominated by President Bush.....Eleven African-American Bush appointees have been confirmed

The nominees being blocked are those that the Democrats believe, justly in our view, are right wing ideologues and activists who will insert their personal view of the law into their decisions--Priscilla Owens, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown are prime examples of nominees in this camp.

Some of Bush's judicial nominees have sailed through the process. One example, who we endorsed excitedly, is Judge Prado from Texas who is now on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This week we read that Denver-area attorney Phil Figa left for Washington for a confirmation hearing on his nomination to the Colorado District Court bench. Figa was recommended to Bush by both Democrats and Republicans. He sailed through his confirmation hearing. We are excited about Figa's appointment--he will make an excellent judge.

If Bush would refrain from trying to reshape the federal judiciary in his image, an effort that if successful, would define the judicary for the next several decades, and instead appoint judges whom both sides agree are fair and possess the requisite skills, there would be no need for filibusters--and the effect of Miguel Estrada's withdrawal on the other nominees would be inconsequential. That this may not be the case is Bush's own fault.

We just returned home to Denver and the first news we see is good news--Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has withdrawn his name from consideration for a federal judgeship on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Democrat's filibuster worked. Estrada came up for a vote six times and each time the Republicans failed to get the necessary 60 votes.

From People for the American Way's (PFAW) press release:

Estrada’s withdrawal highlights the importance of continued Senate scrutiny of President Bush’s judicial nominations.

Estrada had been blocked by a courageous Democratic filibuster based on his troubling right-wing record and his refusal, and the refusal of the Bush administration, to answer many legitimate questions about his record and judicial philosophy.

We continue to urge the Bush administration to engage in bipartisan consultation, cooperation, and compromise in naming judges to these important courts. Unfortunately, the administration’s most recent nominees to the very same DC appeals court – Brett Kavanaugh and Janice Rogers Brown – reflect a rejection of that path. The administration continues to pursue a strategy of confrontation and resist any meaningful bipartisan dialogue on judges.

People for the American Way (PFAW) has released a comprehensive report in opposition to Bush judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown.

Currently, Rogers Brown is a very conservative Justice on the California Supreme Court. Bush nominated her for a seat on the powerful D.C. Court of Appeals. A seat on this court is regarded by many as a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PFAW's press release on the report states, in part:

More and more editorials are blasting Ashcroft for his July 28 Sentencing Memorandum directing prosecutors to keep tabs on judges who depart downward from the federal sentencing guidelines.

Some of the more recent:

The Asheville Citizen Times calls Ashcroft's memo a a blatant abuse of power.

The Berkshire Eagle says Ashcroft clearly has the 'lock 'em up' mentality and we should be listening to Justice Kennedy's criticism of the sentencing system.

The Lebanon, PA Daily News wonders if Ashcroft slept through his law school classes.

For a comprehensive look at Ashcroft's assault on the federal courts, check out Mark Allenbaugh's commentary at Findlaw.