COM­MEN­TARY

A rad­i­cal ap­proach to re­mak­ing the courts Obama’s choice for the D.C. Cir­cuit threat­ens women of faith

The Washington Times Daily - - Nation - By Jan­ice Shaw Crouse and Mario Diaz

It seems Pres­i­dent Obama’s cred­i­bil­ity is at an all-time low these days. His Oba­macare sales pitch, “If you like your health care, you can keep it,” stands ex­posed. The White House has been in dam­age con­trol mode for weeks, but only be­cause the pow­er­ful me­dia gate­keep­ers have fi­nally de­cided to press on this one is­sue.

The ques­tions be­ing asked today could have been asked long ago. Oba­macare is not the only is­sue in which Mr. Obama’s ac­tions and state­ments strain credulity. Scan­dals over Beng­hazi, the Na­tional Se­cu­rity Agency and the In­ter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice are other ar­eas in which the left-lean­ing me­dia has de­cided not to ask too many ques­tions.

Here is an­other area: Pres­i­dent Obama’s

ob­sti­nate push for judges on the U.S. Court of Ap­peals for the Dis­trict of Columbia Cir­cuit. “We’re re­mak­ing the courts,” he boasted at a re­cent fundraiser. His cred­i­bil­ity shat­tered, the only hope the pres­i­dent has of ad­vanc­ing his agenda is through ex­ec­u­tive ac­tion. Be­cause ad­min­is­tra­tive ac­tions are re­viewed by the judges on the D.C. Cir­cuit, the pres­i­dent seeks to pack the court with left-wing ide­o­logues who will up­hold his agenda.

Most re­veal­ing is the type of nom­i­nee Mr. Obama is ad­vanc­ing. One of par­tic­u­lar con­cern to women of faith is Cor­nelia Pil­lard. A clo­ture vote on her nom­i­na­tion is ex­pected in the Se­nate on Tues­day. In an age where the tra­di­tional val­ues of women of faith are un­der con­stant at­tack and ridicule by the lib­eral elite, Miss Pil­lard’s dis­dain for con­ser­va­tive women is uniquely of­fen­sive.

In an eye-open­ing piece, “Our Other Re­pro­duc­tive Choices: Equal­ity in Sex Ed­u­ca­tion, Con­tra­cep­tive Ac­cess, and Work-Fam­ily,” Miss Pil­lard not only dis­agrees with ab­sti­nence ed­u­ca­tion, which women can dis­agree on, but she ac­tu­ally sug­gests it is un­con­sti­tu­tional. She writes: “The ab­sti­nence-only ap­proach is per­me­ated with stereo­typed mes­sages and sex-based dou­ble stan­dards about ac­cept­able male and fe­male sex­ual be­hav­ior and ap­pro­pri­ate so­cial roles. Pub­lic school teach­ing of gender stereo­types vi­o­lates the con­sti­tu­tional bar against sex stereo­typ­ing and is vul­ner­a­ble to equal-pro­tec­tion chal­lenge.” This is not a pol­icy opin­ion, but a le­gal opin­ion, show­ing her rad­i­cal ju­di­cial tem­per­a­ment.

She also wrote, “Anti-abor­tion laws and other re­straints on re­pro­duc­tive free­dom not only en­force women’s in­cu­ba­tion of un­wanted preg­nan­cies, but also pre­scribe a ‘vi­sion of the woman’s role’ as mother and care­taker of chil­dren in a way that is at odds with equal pro­tec­tion.”

Her pro-abor­tion, fem­i­nist rad­i­cal­ism has led her to dis­cuss some bizarre le­gal the­o­ries con­cen­trated on what she calls a right to “re­pro­duc­tive self-de­ter­mi­na­tion” and the idea that the right to abor­tion comes from the con­cept of equal pro­tec­tion, which is not at all what the U.S. Supreme Court has found.

That mil­i­tant be­lief led her to push for the ap­pli­ca­tion to pro-life groups of the Rack­e­teer Influenced and Cor­rupt Or­ga­ni­za­tions Act (RICO) leg­is­la­tion mainly de­signed to deal with mob­sters. The con­cept is so rad­i­cal it was re­jected by a unan­i­mous Supreme Court in Schei­dler v. NOW.

Miss Pil­lard holds a sim­i­larly ex­treme view of re­li­gious lib­erty. In dis­cussing the re­cent Hosanna-Ta­bor Evan­gel­i­cal Lutheran Church v. EEOC case, she said the church’s ex­er­cise of its re­li­gious free­dom pre­sented “a sub­stan­tial threat to the Amer­i­can rule of law.” Again, a unan­i­mous Supreme Court re­jected her dis­turb­ing le­gal the­ory.

Sen. Or­rin G. Hatch, Utah Repub­li­can, had this to say at the com­mit­tee hear­ing: “[Miss Pil­lard’s] ide­ol­ogy shapes and mo­ti­vates how she sees both the law and the facts in such cases.” This is the type of nom­i­nee Mr. Obama is try­ing to un­nec­es­sar­ily el­e­vate to the D.C. Cir­cuit. Aside from his po­lit­i­cal games­man­ship, there is no need for these judges. The D.C. Cir­cuit is un­der­worked — so much so that Sen. Chuck Grass­ley, Iowa Repub­li­can, has in­tro­duced the Court Ef­fi­ciency Act of 2013, which would elim­i­nate three un­nec­es­sary seats on the court. Mr. Grass­ley’s ev­i­dence to sup­port the leg­is­la­tion is ir­refutable. “In terms of raw num­bers, the D.C. Cir­cuit has the low­est num­ber of to­tal ap­peals filed an­nu­ally among all the cir­cuit court of ap­peals,” he re­vealed in Se­nate tes­ti­mony.

The cur­rent D.C. Cir­cuit judges them­selves agree. One of them even re­sponded to Mr. Grass­ley’s in­quiry with the comment, “If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

Still, Mr. Obama has nom­i­nated three judges to the three va­can­cies avail­able. Con­trast that with the 11th Cir­cuit, where there are four va­can­cies, yet the pres­i­dent has only nom­i­nated one judge for the po­si­tions. The pres­i­dent knows how im­por­tant it is to pack the D.C. Cir­cuit to get his agenda im­ple­mented.

That is why Se­nate Ma­jor­ity Leader Harry Reid has made the D.C. Cir­cuit a pri­or­ity, say­ing they need “one more” to “switch the ma­jor­ity.”

Amer­i­cans, es­pe­cially women, should not stand for it. We must urge our se­na­tors to ex­er­cise their con­sti­tu­tion­ally man­dated role of “ad­vise and con­sent” on ju­di­cial nominees to stop Mr. Obama’s rad­i­cal­iza­tion of the D.C. Cir­cuit.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.