We recommend reading People For the American Way's editiorial memorandum on the case against Judge Charles Pickering's confirmation to the Court of Appeals. [link via Atrios, who as we predicted, would be covering this issue with as much gusto as he did the case against Trent Lott.]

John Carroll has some Tips for Preventing a Dem Wimp-Out in today's Madison Capital Times.

The 108th Congress sworn in this week is the most conservative since the 1929 Congress that helped Herbert Hoover guide the United States into the Great Depression. I hope history will not repeat itself - even if the Bush camp's economic policies appear to have been borrowed from the most discredited of the old Republican playbooks. Opposing this administration's wrong-minded policies would be easy - and effective - if the Democratic Party had anything akin to a coherent set of progressive values. But, as the 107th Congress illustrated, the Democrats have a hard time being coherent or progressive - let alone effective.

Among his tips for Democrats seeking to reverse the Administration's policies is this one:

Challenge more than just judicial appointments: Bush will probably nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice in 2003, and the fight against that nominee is likely to be a defining moment. But congressional Democrats make a mistake when they limit nomination challenges to the judicial sphere.

Bush is packing federal positions with extremists on everything from abortion rights to environmental protection, and well-chosen battles to block nominees offer opportunities not just to block bad picks but to highlight bad policies. Bush's treasury secretary pick, CSX Corp. CEO John Snow, was just guaranteed a pension of $2.4 million a year for life, yet the administration wants to undermine pension regulations so corporations can reduce payments to retirees by as much as 50 percent. Why not oppose Snow unless he pledges to protect pensions for all Americans?

Confirmation hearings for Snow, a supposed critic of corporate wrongdoing, also provide a terrific opportunity to revisit the corporate corruption scandals that Democrats failed to exploit as an issue in 2002.

George W. Bush has governed for two years without opposition. As the 108th Congress convenes, Democrats must either mount an effective challenge to him, or they will find themselves in an even worse position when the 109th convenes.

Nathan Newman says Bush Judicial Re-Nominee Charles Pickering is " milking false kudos for "courage" in testifying in an anti-Klan trial in the 1960s." Nathan says the case "involved a town where WHITES were being attacked by the Klan as a series of bombings threatened the white establishment. And it was interlaced with violent labor struggle in the primary employer." Here is the source article.

MediaWhoresOnline has more, and says Pickering lied not once, but twice.

Joe Conason gets the goods on Bush Judicial Re-nominee Charles Pickering. Atrios has a lot more--we hope Atrios will lock onto this story the way he did with Trent Lott--we want him to have the same success.

Don't forget that Bush Re-Nominee Priscilla Owens needs to be rejected as well-- here are our reasons why.

President Bush's renomination of Charles Pickering for an appellate judgeship has Democrats steaming:

"Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said today that he was astonished that Mr. Bush had renominated Judge Pickering."

"If they want to force us to filibuster and have that debate on the floor of the United States Senate, so be it," Mr. Schumer said. "We're ready." With Republicans in control of the Senate, 51-48-1, the Democrats do not have enough votes to defeat the nomination, but they do have the 41 votes needed to block any effort to break a filibuster."

Start talking, Senators. We're counting on you.

D'Accord: The New York Times has an editorial today on Pickering's re-nomination titled The Revenge of Trent Lott:

During last month's firestorm over Mr. Lott, Republicans tried to have it both ways on race. They appeased the majority of Americans, who were outraged at Mr. Lott's sympathetic words about segregation, by pressing him to resign as the Senate Republican leader. At the same time they winked at Mr. Lott's supporters by having prominent party members stand by him. More recently, they announced plans to award Mr. Lott a new position of honor by making him chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. Throughout the zigging and zagging it still seemed possible that the party would heed the advice of Bill Frist, the Senate's new G.O.P. leader, who said one of his priorities would be "ensuring that our agenda is inclusive of all Americans." That hope evaporated with the renomination of Judge Pickering and several other jurists with dubious records on racial issues. Senator Charles Schumer of New York, among others, has declared that he will use every weapon at his disposal to defeat Judge Pickering. Other Democrats should join in, as should moderate Republican senators, who insisted last month that Mr. Lott's views had no place in their party.

Yesterday we posted part of a press release from People for American Way sharply rebuking the Bush Administration for renominating Judges who failed to survive the confirmation process--particularly, Priscilla Owens and Charles Pickering who were defeated in Committee. We agree with Neas.

Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice astutely wrote the following when she was guest-blogging for Eric Alterman's Altercation a few months ago.

In light of the election results, there has been some speculation that the president will renominate those already defeated by the Committee. This would be an insult to the institution of the Senate, which has already performed its constitutional duty. The president has insisted he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. The morning after the election, President Bush continued to reinforce his “uniter” message by saying, “I’ve talked to leaders of both parties and assured them I want to work with them.” We take him at his word; however, we will most certainly watch his deeds. To force the Senate to reconsider these nominees after it has done its work would be an ultimate politicization of the process.

We also think the New York Times proposed a good plan of action for the Democrats, a portion of which bears repeating:

Senate Democrats must insist on two things going forward: consultation and consensus. Senator Patrick Leahy, who will be the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, should ask to meet with the administration in advance to head off unacceptable candidates before they are nominated. Consultation of this kind occurred in the Clinton years, and it should be the norm for judicial selections, no matter which party holds the White House.

Senate Democrats should also make it clear that they will not accept extremist nominees. They must draw a line in the sand and say that those whose politics cross it will not be confirmed.

Democrats in the Senate no longer control the Judiciary Committee, which has until now been screening out the worst nominees, and cannot win party-line votes. But they should reach out to moderate Republican senators and build a mainstream coalition. And when a judicial nominee is unacceptable, they should not be afraid to mount a filibuster, which Republicans would need 60 votes to overcome.

Rumors have been swirling around Washington that there could be one or more Supreme Court vacancies in the next few months, making the stakes as high as can be. With the White House representing the far right in the nominating process, it remains up to the Senate — even in its new configuration — to represent the rest of the country.

We maintain, as we have said before, that the President does not have a right to flood the judiciary with far right-wing ideologists, particularly if there is any indication that they will become judicial activists--deciding cases based upon their conservative views rather than the law. What's so bad about a conservative judiciary? As we explained here, in response to a Fox News column Instapundit wrote on the subject:

We cannot support a right-wing, conservative judiciary. They are more of a menace than a positive force. Anyone concerned with criminal justice issues cannot realistically view a conservative court in a positive light, even though, in addition to the issues set out by Glenn, we appreciate conservative judges' support of privacy rights, opposition to laws providing increased punishment for hate crimes, and views on matters pertaining to asset forfeiture.

Looking at the big picture, a conservative court will not issue an opinion requiring: the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses; a moratorium on the death penalty; abolition of the death penalty; the elimination of racial disparities in sentencing; fair procedures (as exist in many states) regarding discovery, guilty plea colloquy, jury selection, and judicial disqualification; grand jury reform; adequate funding for indigent defense; restoration of full habeas corpus rights that were taken away by the "The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"; meaningful checks and balances and oversight of law enforcement powers through increased scrutiny of requests for even more powers and resources; fair treatment of juveniles as juveniles, not adults; fair treatment of immigrants and restoration of discretionary relief from deportation.

Conservative judges only support some constitutional rights for some people. By and large they do not support constitutional rights for the citizen accused or convicted of crime. Thus, while Prof. Reynolds is correct that we should appreciate a conservative judiciary for the positive effect it will have on issues involving intrusions into privacy and federalism, we think any such benefit is far outweighed by the detrimental effect it will have on our principles of justice and on what until now has been the best and fairest criminal justice system in the world

Our advice to the Democrats, therefore, is different from that of Professor Reynolds and Mr. Benning.Instead of capitulate and embrace, and hold the conservative jurists to their promise of more great rulings restricting Congress and the federal courts, we advise the democrats to filibuster, early, loud and often. The only way to prevent these right wing jurists from imposing their narrow and unjust views on the rest of us is to keep them from attaining the bench in the first place. Take note of political action alerts, write your elected officials and tell them to oppose the nomination, and remember, grass roots efforts can be successful. A Senator can serve his or her constitutents only if he or she knows their position on issues. By writing to them, you become heard, and your opinion counts. We neither need nor want another Scalia, Kennedy or Clarence Thomas. Do you?

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct Tuesday ruled that a Judge should be dismissed for exhibiting "an impermissible bias toward authorities and against criminal defendants by his statements and campaign literature in 1999.

''A judge's election is tarnished when the judge's campaign activity flouts not only the ethical rules, but fundamental standards of honesty and fairness,'' the commission said."

In Watson's case, the commission said he intentionally used misleading local arrest figures to try to show that his predecessor was soft on crime. He also made several statements during the campaign such as promising to ''work with the police'' to help them in ''cleaning up our city streets.''

Judicial candidates are not supposed to say how they would rule on cases that might come before them as judges, nor are they allowed to show biases, such as against defendants and in favor of police.

The Commission also found that the Judge showed no remorse--until he realized his job was on the line. The Judge is Lockport City Court Judge William Watson of Niagara County.

From a press release just received from People For the American Way:

"President Bush today sent the Senate 30 nominations for lifetime positions on the federal district and circuit courts, including 14 candidates for crucial appeals court judgeships, as well as several other judicial nominations."

"Among the nominees are Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen - both rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee - and a number of other judges with troubling records on civil rights and other issues, some of whom are opposed by local, state and national civil rights, women's rights, and other organizations. Today's district and circuit court nominees had all been nominated for judgeships in the last Congress; new nominees are expected in the near future."

" "President Bush is choosing confrontation over consultation and cooperation when it comes to federal judges," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. "For two years, he has steadfastly refused to engage in bipartisan dialogue about judicial nominees. Now that he has Republicans in control of the Senate, he's counting on a rubber stamp for his far-right nominees, even judges like Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, who were defeated after open hearings on their troubling public records."

Don't miss PFAW's editorial by Ralph Nees on the approaching Judicial Armageddon.

Daily Kos brings us the unsettling news reported on Political Wire that ultra-conservative Utah Senator Orin Hatch is seeking a Supreme Court nomination from President Bush. And that Bush is leaning towards appointing Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice. Taegan Goddard reports:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orin Hatch ® "has been spreading the word" that "perhaps it's time his name should be sent to" his committee as the next Supreme Court nominee, the Washingtonian reports. "Hatch has surfaced in the past as a potential Supreme Court nominee. If anything works against him now, it will be his age -- 68." But his "renewed interest in the court has confounded judge pickers at the White House. They worry that if they choose someone else, the powerful chairman might not be helpful."

"There's more: "It now looks like Clarence Thomas, and not Antonin Scalia, would replace" Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "The juxtaposition of Thomas's breaking his usual silence to deliver an impassioned lecture against cross-burning and Senator Trent Lott's remarks on the virtues of the 1948 segregationist Dixiecrats was not lost on President Bush. He now believes that elevating Thomas would be the most dramatic way to return his party to being the party of Lincoln and not the party of Lott."

For more, go to the Washingtonian and scroll down the left-side column.

[Thanks to SK Bubba for noticing we mispelled "Court" in the title, it's fixed."

What a chilling thought:Expecting a Vacancy, Bush Aides Weigh Supreme Court Contenders.

Bush aides already are having discussions about replacements for Chief Justice Rehnquist in the event he retires at the end of this term. They are also preparing for the possibility of more than one vacancy: John Paul Stevens is 82, Chief Justice Rehnquist is 78, and Justice O'Connor is 72.

Who's on deck right now?

In almost all of the possibilities, officials said, Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel and a longtime legal adviser to Mr. Bush from Texas, would be a candidate. Mr. Gonzales would be the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court. Mr. Bush's top aides, notably Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, are described as keenly aware that this would provide a political bonus for both him and the Republican Party, which has been aggressively courting Hispanic voters. "I don't think there's any question the president would turn to him," said a senior administration official who knew details of the informal but high-level discussions.

Also under discussion is Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the chief judge of the very conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va., and Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., a federal appeals court judge in Newark, who used to clerk for Scalia and is referred to as "Scalito." Here are some of the other possibilities:

Judge J. Michael Luttig who also sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court. Justice Brown, a black woman, wrote the majority opinion in 2000 interpreting the state's referendum against affirmative action in a way that delighted conservatives. Another candidate is Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans who is noted for sharp conservative opinions. ....Also mentioned has been Larry D. Thompson, the deputy attorney general, who would give the court two black members.

Packing the Supreme Court with conservatives will be one of Bush's longest lasting legacies. The judicial and criminal justice systems will change markedly. Protections we have taken for granted since childhood will disappear.

There will be no reason for every child over the age of 9 to be able to recite Miranda warnings or know a cop has to have a warrant if they want to come in the house or search. They won't know these things because they won't have seen them a hundred times on tv on the cop shows. They won't be referred to on the cop shows since there won't be any more Miranda or 4th Amendment rights to speak of--the exceptions to these principles will become the rule. Exigent circumstances, good-fath exceptions, the inevitable discovery doctrine, just wait till you see what they will think of next.

Since the Justices are appointed for life, we fear we won't see the pendulum swing back again in our lifetimes. What a legacy to leave our children.

If there is one reason not to back a third party candidate who can't possibly win over a Democrat who can, this is surely it.

The New York Times is thinking a step ahead today in its editorial Judicial Selection After Trent Lott:

"Now that Trent Lott has reminded the nation that ugly, antiquated racial attitudes still exist in this country, even in the highest ranks of government, the Bush administration needs to pay even more attention to civil rights concerns regarding several of its judicial nominees. It seems clearer than ever that the White House and the Senate should conduct a more rigorous review of current and future judicial nominees' records on race, and disqualify any whose commitment to equal rights is at all in doubt."

President Bush has set his sights on changing the ideological balance on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most influential appeals court in the nation.

Bush plans to add two judges to the court in the next few months. Vacancies have existed for years, but the Republicans precluded Clinton from making appointments claiming there wasn't enough of a workload to justify more judges.

Now that the Republicans have control of the Senate, they are abandoning that position, and Bush is going to nominate the 12th and 13 judges to the Court.

"The nominations, together with those of two conservative Washington lawyers chosen by the White House last year, give Bush an opportunity to tilt the ideological balance of a court that is surpassed in influence only by the Supreme Court."

"The last two seats on the D.C. Circuit have been empty -- one of them for more than a decade -- because Senate Republicans repeatedly through the 1990s blocked efforts by President Bill Clinton to fill them by contending that the judges would be a waste of taxpayers' money."

"A White House official said Bush considers filling those seats to be part of a revised selection method the president announced this fall to try to accelerate the placement of judges on the federal bench."

This is totally disingenous. Why doesn't he come out and tell the truth, that he's in power and so is his party, and he's going to use that power to overload the federal courts in this country with ultra-conservatives who will be on the bench for the rest of their lifetimes, perhaps 30 years or more, and the rest of us just have to eat it. And that he intends for this to be his legacy.

Read your copies of the Constitution now. Five years from now, although the words may be the same, they most likely won't mean the same thing.