Jewish World Review March 18, 2003 / 14 Adar II, 5763

Terry Eastland

Eastland
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Dems misunderstand judge's job


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Whatever else happens in the life of Priscilla Owen, the Texas Supreme Court justice has made history. Of a sort. Two years ago, President Bush nominated her for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate Judiciary Committee finally gave her a hearing in July and then - on a party-line, 10-to-9 vote - rejected her nomination. In January, Mr. Bush resubmitted her name, and last week she sat for a second time before the Judiciary Committee.

Justice Owen thus became the first judicial nominee ever to be defeated in committee only to see her name resubmitted and then to be given another hearing. The resurrection of her nomination obviously was made possible by the midterm elections. Had Senate control not shifted to the Republicans - had the Senate remained Democratic - Justice Owen probably wouldn't have been renominated.

At the start of last week's hearing, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, now the Judiciary Committee chairman, remarked that Justice Owen "is perhaps the best sitting judge I have ever seen nominated." Senators, it is fair to say, have a gene that inclines them to hyperbole. But Justice Owen is a good state judge and remains an excellent nominee for the 5th Circuit.

Not that committee Democrats can be expected finally to grasp that. As can be seen from last week's hearing, they remain wedded to wrong ideas about judging, not least that judging is best understood in terms of actual results.

Take, for example, Sen. Edward Kennedy, who (as he did in July) faulted Justice Owen for failing to achieve "balance" in her votes on cases involving worker rights, environmental rights and civil rights. Properly understood, however, judging is about the process a judge uses to decide cases, not about making sure the outcomes or results "balance." Justice Owen argued against "balanced" judging in her exchange with Mr. Kennedy:

"I can assure you that I do not ever try to achieve a result. I don't look at whether I want one side to win or the other side, or one segment of the population to be favored over another. That is not my job. And I certainly don't keep score and say, 'OK, you know ... 50 percent of this side has to win 50 percent of the time, and every six months or so we've got to even the score here.' That's not what judging is about. That is not what I do."

Later, Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin asked Justice Owen to identify opinions of hers "that aren't popular with the established power structure in Texas." For Mr. Durbin, apparently, judging is at least to some extent about its popularity or lack thereof.

Justice Owen politely asked Mr. Durbin to define what he meant by the "established power structure," whereupon he moved to other matters. But if Mr. Durbin had listened to Justice Owen's answer to Mr. Kennedy, he would have known that, for her, judging isn't about trying to favor "one segment of the population" over another. He also would have heard her say what judging properly is:

"What I try to do as a judge is to put aside personal feelings. ... The question is what does the law say, what does the law require. ... I judge cases by what is right, not by what is politically correct."

Notably, Mr. Durbin showed little interest when, in answer to his question, "where would you place yourself on the spectrum between judicial activism and strict construction," Justice Owen discussed the process she uses in interpreting the state's constitution and statutes. As she explained it, that process starts with a reading of the text itself but also may require looking at related texts, pertinent history and case law. For Mr. Durbin and too many Democratic senators, process is, well, boring. Yet process is what judging intensely involves.

The Judiciary Committee will vote on the Owen nomination - perhaps as early as this week. You can assume the Democrats, claiming that Justice Owen favors business and is hostile to abortion rights, again will vote "no." Because they constitute a minority, however, they won't be able to stop her nomination in committee. It will go to the Senate floor, where, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison says, "I hope it won't be filibustered."

If it is, expect Mr. Durbin and his colleagues to speak of Justice Owen's "bias" against the causes they hold dear, notwithstanding that it is her bias in favor of trying fairly to interpret the law that is her most compelling qualification.

Appreciate this writer's work? Why not sign-up for JWR's daily update. It's free. Just click here.




JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.

03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less

© 2002, Terry Eastland