Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review July 26, 2002 / 17 Menachem-Av, 5762

Michael Long

Mike Long
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
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Where's Honest Debate on Judge Owen?

NOW members should demand better of President Kim Gandy | In politics, the utopian vision is to win within a framework of honest debate, and not just by any means necessary. Yet any pretense of that notion is now long lost in the case against Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, President Bush's nominee for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Justice Owen's record is politically conservative. For that reason alone, the usual suspects oppose her, including People for the American Way, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and Planned Parenthood. But political opinions within the range of common judicial disagreement are not grounds to reject a nominee. The left knows this, which is why they're attacking Judge Owen by misrepresenting her record instead.

Particularly offensive is the innuendo from NOW President Kim Gandy.

In a NOW press release of July 19, Ms. Gandy blurred the line between her distaste for Justice Owen's politics and the nominee's judicial philosophy. Commenting on a 2000 case in Texas, Ms. Gandy observes first that Justice Owen supports a stricter interpretation of parental consent laws on abortion. Then she juxtaposes the statement with the fact that Justice Owen voted to uphold a lower court ruling rejecting one particular young girl's appeal for a consent bypass.

That alone is a shaky enough claim of cause and effect, but the deception goes deeper, as her two statements turn out to be unrelated. If she had argued honestly, Ms. Gandy would have spelled out what she as a lawyer knows-and what she herself said in a December speech: superior courts are courts of review. Justice Owen explained this for even non-lawyers in her published decision: "The question … is not whether this court would have ruled differently [than the lower court]. The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer … is yes."

Similarly, Ms. Gandy has suppressed facts about Justice Owen's record on campaign contributions (even the Washington Post dismantled her argument on that one); and, in the spirit of the old Smathers smear (with its "salubrious" places and a "thespian" wife), vilified the judge for membership in the "ultra-conservative" Federalist Society, a legal group praised by such "ultra-conservatives" as law professor Alan Dershowitz, ACLU head Nadine Strossen, and Clinton White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum.

Or consider this slap at the U.S. Supreme Court. In her National Press Club speech, she runs down a list of matters she claims are, despite the reams of caselaw on them, simply "knocked out" by the courts: "gun control, environment, civil rights, disability rights, age discrimination, women's rights, sexual orientation, the whole range of issues…."

Then, as she did before, she follows up that provocation with an unrelated statement, that the U.S. Supreme Court "reverse[d] part of the Violence Against Women Act."

The implication is clear: a conservative Supreme Court will be lax on all those issues, right down to punishing wife beaters!

But consider how her implication compares with the facts: In the case in question, the Court overturned a portion of the 1994 anti-crime bill that failed on technical grounds; specifically, because legislators codified the dubious notion that rape is a factor in interstate commerce. The Court said that Congress couldn't interpret the commerce clause that way-and, contrary to what Ms. Gandy says, the court decided nothing about rape, or the goal of the statute in question.

Finally, one of her most condescending shots came when, again in her Press Club speech, she misrepresented the most basic role of the Supreme Court: to decide the whether or not a law is constitutional. She said, "The court is simply declaring, well, the Congress didn't have the authority, under the Constitution, to pass that law. What? The Congress didn't have the authority to pass that law? That's what they're saying."

Yet surely the president of NOW knows that legislation on, as she put it, "gun control, environment, civil rights," et al. was made possible almost entirely by the Court's ruling that "Congress didn't have the authority to pass" this or that law.

It would be a breath of fresh air if members of NOW called on Kim Gandy to clean up her act-she is, after all, speaking for them. And even opponents of NOW believe that most members of the group are a lot more careful with the facts than she has been.

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

JWR contributor Michael Long is a a director of the White House Writers Group. Comment by clicking here.


07/19/02: A Secret No One Can Keep: Why Osama bin Laden is still alive
07/09/02: Don't forget why Bush was elected
06/28/02: The bravest pop culture icon in the war on terror
06/14/02: Five Thoughts On Father's Day: Personal Stuff
06/06/02: Stay Awake, Grads, I'm Almost Done Talking: Life, and How to Live It
05/31/02: See This Movie: "The Sum of All Fears" is a wake-up call
05/24/02: Richard Simmons for President? What really motivates the fat-taxers
05/13/02: The Carnival at the FAIR: "Unbiased" acquires a new definition
04/22/02: Bottled And Sold: Economic Confidence Under a Screw-top
04/12/02: McGovern's Respectful Dissent
04/02/02: The Right to Do Wrong: The Creator, A Clockwork Orange, and war
03/26/02: The Big Story No One Talks About: Why isn't Washington serious about airport security?
03/18/02: Worlds Away: A snapshot of anti-Semitism in the Moslem world
03/08/02: The safest place in the world --- for now
03/05/02: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others
02/22/02: And Then What?: Fear and Loathing Around the Corner
02/15/02: Al Gore and the real root cause of terrorism
02/08/02: A few thoughts on the news
02/01/02: Ready, Aim, Cloud The Issue: An irresponsible report on "terrorism" from the Brady Center
01/28/02: Discretion and Art, Part 2
01/16/02: Discretion and Art
01/08/02: Desperate Dems
12/18/01: Politics and Holidays
12/07/01: A war bigger than we know: Changing the future, slowly and surely
11/28/01: A Mid-Winter Night's Dream: A play in one fun act
11/20/01: A Lot of War Left To Fight
11/13/01: Guess who Clinton's apologizing for now: I'll bet you guessed right
11/02/01: Rules for Wartime: Rule Number One: Remember what's true
10/26/01: The Moral Case For Torture: Dirty hands don't always mean dirty souls
10/19/01: Questions for the Anti-War Crowd, Part II: What if someone took them seriously?
10/16/01: Questions for the anti-war crowd: If they question you, ask these back
10/12/01: The Jason Problem: Sometimes they only look dead
10/08/01: A little hindsight: A letter for readers in the future
09/28/01: Calling Bono: A plea to the pop culture elite to speak out
09/20/01: Encouragement from the Heartland, by mail
09/13/01: Bleeding time
09/07/01: The trailer-park taste of the public radio catalog
09/04/01: BRAVE NEW FREUD: Internet-based psychiatry may mean relief for those who have shunned treatment
08/17/01: First Amendment: Chickens home to roost
07/27/01: Dispatch From The Front: The Gun Control War
07/20/01: Summer song
07/03/01: It's a Wonderful Recount

© 2001, Michael Long