Thursday, October 27, 2005

Why I hope it's Judge Priscilla Owen.

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

I hope President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is Appellate Court Judge Priscilla Owen.

Legal scholars who believe judges should judge and legislators should legislate say Owen's an outstanding jurist.

Just five months ago, Owen won Senate confirmation for an appellate court seat. Her background was checked then. There'll now be a need for a further background check, but it won't have to be extensive and most likely won't turn up a "smoking gun."

So the case for prompt confirmation hearings and a Senate vote is very strong. With Owen, there's no reason why the hearings and a Senate vote can occur before the Christmas recess.

During the almost four years Senate Democrats denied Owen an up or down nomination vote, they hit her with personal attacks (Remember Sen. Tom Harkin calling her “a wacko?”) and hostile questioning.

Throughout it all, Owen was civil, informed and articulate. She'll do very well during confirmation hearings, however partisan they become.

When nominated for the appellate court, the American Bar Association awarded Owen its highest recommendation for federal judicial nominees, Well Qualified. The vote by the ABA’s nomination review committee was unanimous.

It’s very probable the ABA would again find Owen Well Qualified, something that will carry weight with a great many Americans. If the ABA doesn't, it will have to convince an awful lot of people it hasn't morphed into just another left-leaning advocacy group

The case for not nominating Owen can be stated in one sentence: Her nomination will be fiercely opposed by almost all Senate Democrats, and their allies in MSM news organizations and liberal and leftist advocacy groups.

That’s true. But given Owen's outstanding record, it’s no reason not to nominate her, especially as any other similarly well qualified nominee will also be fiercely opposed by those same people.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, let Owen's opponents do their worst; as long as her supporters do their best, she'll be confirmed.

No doubt the vote will be close. But a win is a win, and for Presidents, winning close votes usually adds to their power to lead.

When President Bush took office in Jan. 2001, many doubted he could effectively lead given the close and disputed 2000 election. But in April 2001, Bush won a 53 – 47 Senate vote that assured passage of his $1.35 trillion tax cut. Thereafter, no one doubted he could lead, save those who'll forever wave “the Florida shirt.”

With Owen as his nominee, the President can soon and with confidence present to the American people an outstanding jurist he first helped vet and then place on the appellate court bench. That can only be good for him and the country.

You can "vote" for Owen in an online poll at Reasoned Audacity. You'll have to "write her in" because it appears that as of 10/28 Reasoned Audacity "election officials" have yet to place Owen's name and photo on "the ballot."

But don't be discouraged. "Vote" Owen and keep your fingers crossed.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Owen would be fine. However, many of your arguments apply equally to Janice Rogers Brown. I'd love to see her nominated just for the hearings. She'll stand toe to toe with any of them. She's a female Bork.

Anonymous said...

Hate to shock you but traveling the bloggersphere before the Miers pick and many were against Owen, because she didn't attend Harvard or Yale.

JWM said...

David,

I agree that much I say about Owen can be said of Brown.

Yes, the hearings would be something with Brown. I've not heard her characterized as a "female Bork." It fits.

Thanks for commenting.

John

JWM said...

jbw,

I didn't mean to pass by your comment.

I don't think the Ivy factor would mean much in Owen's case.

I hope we get to find out.

Thank you for commenting.

John