Now that the Democrats are supposedly the majority in the Senate, one would think that body's Judiciary Committee would call a halt to approving Bush's unqualified nominees for Senate confirmation to life time federal judgeships.

However, that isn't the reality. 

As People for the American Way states, "In response to today's Senate vote to confirm Catharina Haynes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, People For the American Way president Kathryn Kolbert released the following statement: 'George W. Bush is in the twilight of his presidency and his approval ratings are scraping bottom, yet the Senate confirmed another controversial Bush nominee to a lifetime seat on the federal bench. Bush wants to remake the judiciary as part of his legacy, and the Senate must not continue to aid and abet his efforts.'

“Despite President Bush’s brazen rejection of compromise and consultation over judicial nominations, his nominees have fared far better under the Senate Democrats than President Clinton’s did under Republican control.

“Now is the time for Senate leaders to say ‘enough’ to nominees who would undermine Americans’ rights and liberties..."

Why then is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, head of the Judiciary Committee, and other Democrats caving to Bush and confirming another unqualified, Republican, Bushite, politicized nominee who could do a lifetime of damage on the federal court?

The most recent nominee, Catharina Haynes, a partner in Baker Botts law firm (that James Baker, Bush family consigliere) had no written opinions from her time as a state judge in the Dallas area for six years; thus there was no written record from which the Senate Judiciary Committee could have scrutinized her experience and judicial philosophy.  Her appearance before the Judiciary Committee did not put to rest concerns about the paucity of her judicial record. Nonetheless, she was confirmed as a life time federal judge. 

Does the Senate have so little respect for the judiciary that they would confirm such a questionable nominee?

What kind of extremist nominees has King George nominated?  According to the NYTimes, "...One, an Arkansas anti-abortion activist, has written that women should be subordinate to men. Another argued, as a Justice Department lawyer, that Bob Jones University should keep its tax-exempt status even though it discriminated against blacks..."

The following unqualified, extremist nominee, for example, was confirmed to the federal appeals court in 2005 during the Republican controlled Congress, just one of many like her.

"Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was rated “unqualified” for a seat on the California Supreme Court by the state bar’s commission on judicial nominees. The commission rated her “unqualified” because of Brown’s lack of experience and her tendency to inject her personal views into her judicial opinions. Since then, she has authored many confrontational and harsh opinions—often in dissent—that would seriously undermine civil rights, workers’ rights, and the environment. In one speech, Justice Brown compared the New Deal (when important labor legislation like minimum wages laws were passed) to a “socialist revolution,” and even went so far as to say, 'Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.'

And just as egregious, of 10 Bush nominees for the federal bench only three were rated qualified by the American Bar Association; the rest were rated unqualified.

However, Republicans persist in lying about the comparison of vacancies on the federal bench between the Bush administration and Clinton's.

According to Media Matters, "Most of the current vacant federal judgeships are vacant because Bush has nominated candidates to fill only about one-third of the vacancies. There were never fewer district and appellate court vacancies during the Clinton administration than the 45 vacancies that presently exist, according to Congressional Research Service data obtained from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In other words, there were actually more judicial vacancies when Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees than there are right now."

Bush has tried to pack the federal courts with right wing, reactionary, anti-Constitution judges, just as he succeeded doing with his right wing Supreme Court appointments turning the high court of the land into a corporatist protector ignoring the common good.

No more of Bush's unqualified, right wing nominees on the federal bench to continue inflicting anti-Constitution harm on the American people even after Bush has left.  No more confirmations of Bush judicial nominees, especially during these last months of his terrible presidency. Stop. Bush has done enough damage to this country.