ante upped

Bush has raised the temperature on the "nuclear option" debate by calling for an "up-or-down vote" on Priscilla R. Owen and Terrence W. Boyle for seats on appellate courts. Who are these two justices, and why have Democrats taken a stand against them? A few profiles from the Alliance for Justice tell the tale of these conservative "activists": Priscilla Owen, 5th Circuit nominee: Texas Supreme Court Justice Owen advocated requiring a minor to show an awareness of the "philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear" before obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent, although the pertinent statute contained no such requirement. In another case dealing with the same statute, Justice Owen's former colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, called Justice Owen's dissent "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Of Justice Owen's opinions, which include nearly uniform, pro-corporate rulings invalidating jury verdicts and dismissing claims favoring workers and consumers, the San Antonio News Express remarked that "her record demonstrates a results-oriented streak that belies supporters' claims that she strictly follows the law." The Houston Chronicle concluded that she is "less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda." Terrence Boyle, 4th Circuit Nominee: In his 20 years on the U.S. District Court, Judge Boyle has demonstrated a distinct lack of respect for procedural rules and legal precedent, having been reversed over 150 times, at twice the rate of the average trial judge in the Fourth Circuit, often for wrongly deciding cases involving individual rights. In one case, the Supreme Court reversed Judge Boyle twice for improperly striking down a 47% African American Congressional district, the first time in a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas, who criticized Judge Boyle for ignoring substantial evidence to conclude, without holding a trial, that the district's configuration was "facially race driven." In a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act, parts of which he invalidated on questionable constitutional grounds in other cases, Judge Boyle wrote that the statute's plain language "has no force of law and is not binding on any court," that a regulation promulgated under the statute was "superfluous," and that, despite the statute, "Courts should … refus[e] to second-guess what is or is not a reasonable expense for a particular business to incur in order to maintain a particular employee." The Fourth Circuit condemned Judge Boyle's defiance of Congress and criticized his overall analysis as "misguided. Courts are often asked to define reasonableness in various contexts; the standard of 'reasonableness' is empty if 'reasonable' means only 'the employer's opinion.'" In another case, Judge Boyle overruled Supreme Court precedent on his own and disregarded the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to reject an agreed-upon settlement and throw out a Justice Department lawsuit alleging that North Carolina state prisons discriminated against women seeking employment. In manifesto-like pro-states' rights language, Judge Boyle berated the Justice Department for "punish[ing] a state for having a non-conforming culture" and using anti-discrimination law "to impose a uniformity of cultural outcome upon the individual states." The Justice Department later persuaded Judge Boyle to change his mind about dismissing the case, but in a remarkably brazen effort to remake the law, Judge Boyle nevertheless published the wrongly decided opinion to be cited as precedent. He also allowed North Carolina to withdraw from the binding settlement agreement - a decision the Fourth Circuit reversed. Lovely. Given that Democrats have passed through 207 of Bush's nominees, and have only rejected 10, is it really too much to ask that such overtly biased judges be screened out--especially in light of conservatives' own arguments against imposing ideology from the bench?