DEMS’ VILE SMEARS OF TRUMP JUDGES

New York Post - - POST OPINION - BETSY McCAUGHEY

DEMOCRATS and the lib­eral me­dia are slam­ming Pres­i­dent Trump for pack­ing fed­eral courts with sup­pos­edly “un­fit” judges. Non­sense. Trump’s nom­i­nees have im­pres­sive cre­den­tials.

What’s the left’s real gripe? These judges will de­cide cases based on what the US Con­sti­tu­tion says, in­stead of rewrit­ing law to suit a progressive agenda.

Look for fire­works in the Se­nate Wed­nes­day, when the Amer­i­can Bar As­so­ci­a­tion tries to jus­tify rat­ing sev­eral of Trump’s nom­i­nees “not qual­i­fied.” Such ABA rat­ings are a po­lit­i­cal hit job mas­querad­ing as high-minded ob­jec­tiv­ity.

Con­sider the ABA’s “not qual­i­fied” rat­ing of Leonard Steven Grasz, a Ne­braska at­tor­ney nom­i­nated to the ap­peals court. The ABA claims Grasz is un­fit be­cause of his “deeply held so­cial agenda.”

One com­plaint: Dur­ing 11 years as Ne­braska’s chief deputy at­tor­ney gen­eral, he de­fended many of the state’s laws, in­clud­ing a ban on par­tial-birth abor­tion. But de­fend­ing that law was his job.

Op­pos­ing any limit on abor­tion is enough to out­rage pro-choice ac­tivist Cyn­thia Nance, the law pro­fes­sor who led Grasz’s re­cent ABA re­view. She stooped to grilling him on why he sends his chil­dren to re­li­gious schools — a ques­tion that should be out of bounds — in­stead of stick­ing to prob­ing his le­gal phi­los­o­phy. Ap­par­ently, be­ing re­li­gious is dis­qual­i­fy­ing.

Grasz re­it­er­ated his “solemn obli­ga­tion” to put aside per­sonal views and “faith­fully ap­ply” Supreme Court prece­dent. As­ton­ish­ingly, that’s an as­sur­ance the left re­jects. Sen. Shel­don Whitehouse (D-R.I.) ar­gues “there’s sim­ply no way to pre­vent a judge’s ... per­sonal be­liefs from in­flu­enc­ing” rul­ings. The con­clu­sion is ob­vi­ous. To Democrats like Whitehouse, it’s not about cre­den­tials but agen­das — and only nom­i­nees with left-wing agen­das are ac­cept­able.

Not Brett Tal­ley. Last Thurs­day, Tal­ley won Se­nate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee ap­proval to serve on an Alabama district court de­spite the ABA’s claim that Tal­ley lacks “req­ui­site trial ex­pe­ri­ence” and is “un­qual­i­fied.”

In truth, Tal­ley is su­perbly qual­i­fied — with a law de­gree from Har­vard, clerk­ships at the trial and ap­peals court level, lit­i­ga­tion ex­pe­ri­ence in the 11th Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals and a stint as Alabama’s deputy so­lic­i­tor gen­eral. He’s got about as much trial ex­pe­ri­ence as Jus­tice Elena Ka­gan, who got a “well qual­i­fied” rat­ing when Pres­i­dent Barack Obama nom­i­nated her to the high­est court.

What’s Tal­ley’s real prob­lem? His po­lit­i­cal views and Trump con­nec­tions. (His wife is chief of staff to the White House coun­sel, a fact he should have dis­closed sooner.) Sen. Dianne Fe­in­stein (D-Calif.) grilled Tal­ley about abor­tion, gun con­trol, gay mar­riage and his dis­dain for Hil­lary Clin­ton — whom he once dubbed “Hil­lary Rot­ten Clin­ton” on Twit­ter.

Im­pru­dent maybe, but hardly in the same league as Jus­tice Ruth Bader Gins­burg’s com­ment that she couldn’t “imag­ine what the coun­try would be — with Don­ald Trump as our pres­i­dent.”

Tal­ley as­sured sen­a­tors he would “never al­low per­sonal opin­ions or ex­pe­ri­ences to jus­tify a de­par­ture from the law.” When Whitehouse said courts need judges who em­pathize with what it’s like to be a teenage mom, African-Amer­i­can, gay or poor, Tal­ley shot back that every­one ap­pear­ing in front of a judge de­serves em­pa­thy.

Back in 2013, Sen. El­iz­a­beth War­ren (DMass.) chas­tised Se­nate Repub­li­cans for op­pos­ing Obama’s fe­male nom­i­nees, ar­gu­ing the court needs more women. Hypocrisy is on full dis­play now, with War­ren and fel­low Democrats at­tack­ing Trump’s fe­male nom­i­nees.

Amy Bar­rett, nom­i­nated to the 7th Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, got ham­mered for her Catholi­cism. Fe­in­stein sug­gested Bar­rett’s re­li­gion “lives loudly within” her, mak­ing her un­fit. The Univer­sity of Notre Dame’s pres­i­dent warned that “it is chill­ing to hear from a United States sen­a­tor that this might now dis­qual­ify some­one from ser­vice as a fed­eral judge.”

Mil­lions voted for Trump be­cause he pledged to ap­point judges who would up­hold the Con­sti­tu­tion, not in­vent law to ad­vance a so­cial agenda. But the ABA and other ac­tivists aren’t sur­ren­der­ing their grip on the courts with­out a fight. Re­mem­ber that when you hear the smears about “un­fit” nom­i­nees.

Comments

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.