Manhattan Right to Life Committee Judicial Review Page
To follow up happening developments, please check out MRLC's blog.
One down . . . and one tottering.
Barack Hussein Obama has made his nominations for the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 9th and 10th circuits.
To the surprise of no one, these nominees, Goodwin Liu and Stephen Six, are pro-abortion ideologues whose qualifications to be judges are just short of nil.
Goodwin Liu has never served a judge of any kind at any level -- not even in traffic court. He has been the Associate Dean and a law professor at the University of California, in Berkeley. Liu also comes up short as a lawyer, having argued only one (1) case at the appellate court level!
Despite Liu's lack of qualifications, on February 24, 2010, Barack Hussein Obama nominated him to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For more than a year, Liu's nomination went nowhere, with significant opposition from Republicans in the U.S. Senate. This was due, in part, to Liu's vicious attacks on Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito.
On May 17, 2011, Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, filed a cloture motion to end debate on Liu's nomination. Two days later, the Senate rejected cloture by a vote of 52-43. Thus, Liu became the first Obama judicial nominee to be successfully filibustered in the Senate.
On May 25, 2011, Liu asked Obama to withdraw his nomination.
Obama's nominee for the 10th circuit, Stephen N. Six, did have some judicial experience in Kansas, sort of. He served as a county court judge. Six was appointed -- not elected -- a county judge by pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius in January 2005.
Six stayed in that position until appointed -- not elected -- as Attorney General by Sebelius in 2008. Six stayed on as Kansas Attorney General until the next election when the voters sent him packing. In short and once again, Six was not elected.
During his unelected time as Attorney General, it was alleged that Six had misused that office to the benefit of Planned Parenthood in various ways. Click here for a summary.
Relatedly, Kansans for Life provides a precise overview as to why Six should not be confirmed. Click here for that precise overview.
Another meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee took place on July 14th, without a vote on Six. This clearly shows that his nomination is tottering. When will Six do the right thing, as Liu did, and withdraw his name from consideration?
John Paul Stevens replacement: Elena Kagan.
In a gushing article, The New York Times reported, on May 10th, that Barack Hussein Obama had nominated his hyper pro-abortion Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
Pro-abortion Senator Patrick Lahey, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, began hearings in re Kagan's nomination on June 28.
Obama has chosen Kagan despite her total lack of judicial experience -- she has never served as a judge, not even in traffic court. This is in addition to her controversial ties to embattled wall Street giant, Goldman Sachs, whose top managament was grilled by Congress about their role in the financial meltdown.
It also goes without saying that Kagan has been active in promoting abortion and the careers of various pro-abortion leaders.
Last April 20th, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens turned ninety. Having been appointed to the Supreme Court by Gerald R. Ford, in December of 1975, Stevens has served more than thirty four years. Also last April, Stevens indicated his intention to resign at the end of the Supreme Court's current term.
A number of replacements were supposedly under consideration by Barack Hussein Obama, including Diane Wood, Merrick Garland, Sidney Thomas, Leah Ward Sears, Jennifer Granholm and, not least, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; these in addition to eventual nominee, Elena Kagan. Not surprisingly, all of these are pro-abortion.
The new Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, summed up his opposition to Kagan when he said:
I believe nominees to the Supreme Court should have previously served on the bench. Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience to compensate for the absence of prior judicial experience. In Elena Kagan’s case, she is missing both. When it comes to the Supreme Court, experience matters. No classroom can substitute for the courtroom itself, where decisions are made that affect the day-to-day lives of American citizens, and where one’s judicial character and temperament is shaped in favor of the fair and just application of the law. The best umpires, to use the popular analogy, must not only call balls and strikes, but also have spent enough time on the playing field to know the strike zone. Therefore, I cannot support Elena Kagan’s nomination.
Action was taken on this nomination in August. National Right to Life addressed this development.
Sonia Sotomayor
On May 26, 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Barack Hussein Obama for appointment to the Supreme Court, to replace pro-abortion Justice David Souter.Writing in the "Washington Post”, Robert Barnes and Michael Shear reported that: “Abortion Rights Backers Get Reassurances on Nominee.” They stated, despite Sotomayor's scant record on “abortion rights,” that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs asserted “the White House is nonetheless sure she agrees with the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, which . . . provided abortion rights nationwide.”
NARAL Pro-Choice America promptly issued a statement which characterized Sotomayor as “a nominee with a distinguished record of professional accomplishments as a judge, prosecutor, and community leader,” adding that the organization was “encouraged by the strong support she receives from her peers and other legal scholars.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings for this nomination on July 13th. The following week, NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Sotomayor; citing that Sotomayor "articulated several times throughout the hearing that the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to choose," namely the right to choose abortion.
This nomination was confirmed.
David Hamilton
Just two months after taking office, Barack Hussein Obama was able to make his first appeals court appointment, David F. Hamilton of Indiana.
Hamilton has served as a member of the board of the Indiana branch of the pro-abortion ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], as well as its vice president for litigation. Hamilton also was a fundraiser for the notorious radical group ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now], which has substantial ties to Barack Hussein Obama.
Hamilton achieved fame, as a judge, with a number of on-going multi-year rulings to prevent the state of Indiana's implementation of its informed consent for abortion law. That obstruction on Hamilton's part was eventually overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court - the same circuit to which Barack Hussein Obama now wishes to appoint Hamilton.
Hamilton further achieved notoriety with his "Christ, No! Allah, Yes!" decision, writing: "The injunction orders the Speaker . . . that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal . . . . If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah' . . . the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others."
Commentator Wendy Long put it this way:
Hamilton has a history as a hard-left political activist, and his choice signals that Obama does intend to push extreme liberals onto the bench and politicize the courts as we've never seen before.
Hamilton was a fundraiser for ACORN (nice ACORN payback, Mr. President) and served as vice president for litigation and a board member of the Indiana ACLU. In 1994, when President Clinton nominated him to the district court, the ABA rated him as 'not qualified,' apparently because of his almost purely political (as opposed to legal and judicial) experience.
Interestingly, he is also the brother-in-law of perhaps the hardest left radical Obama nominee to the Department of Justice, Dawn Johnsen.
Beginning to notice a pattern here?
In a straight party line vote, on June 4, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-7 to report Hamilton favorably and advance him to a full Senate vote.
Hamilton won that vote, also a straight party line vote.