Conservative Double Standards: J. Harvie Wilkinson III on Judicial Appointments
I quote Chait, who quotes Wilkinson:
In today’s Washington Post, conservative judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III appeals for an ideological truce in appointments that just happens to coincide with the exact moment Democrats have retaken the nominating power:
So the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is set for a takeover. Popular commentary has it that the court, on which I serve, is a fortress or bastion or citadel of conservatism. Discussion of coming changes suggests more the fruits of a successful military campaign than the result of an election giving our new president the right to nominate members to a judicial body. … With the new numbers in the Senate, the temptation is there to go for an ideological makeover. Yet the tempting course would prove a misguided one.
If you’re wondering whether Wilkinson wrote a similar op-ed at the start of, or any time during, the Bush administration, the answer is no, he didn’t.
Wilkinson also writes, “ideology should not be the foremost criterion for selecting a judge. Many people may not believe it, but judges are not politicians in robes.” Tell that to the five justices who decided to be Republican precinct captains in 2000.
Exactly. There are no partisan judges quite like conservative partisan judges, and Republicans, including Bush, have been all about appointing rigidly ideological and unabashedly partisan judges. What happened in 2000 was just the most prominent example of partisan conservative judicial activism.
Perhaps this isn’t crazy so much as typical. As in, the typical conservative double standard: do one thing when in power, say the opposite when not.
Coming out of this past presidential election, for example, many conservatives claimed that Obama did not have a mandate to govern other than from the center-right, and certainly not to enact liberal-progressive policies, despite his decisive victory over McCain and his decidedly liberal-progressive policy platform. Regardless of this victory, they claimed, America remains a “center-right” nation. And yet, back in 2004, following a much closer election, many conservatives claimed that Bush, in winning re-election, had a mandate to implement pretty much whatever he wanted, including social security reform, and not just a “center-right” agenda but, with the exception of immigration, a far-right one.
And here they are again — one of them, anyway, a prominent member of theirs swollen judicial ranks — arguing, in stark contrast to how they conducted themselves when Bush was president, that Obama and the Democrats should take ideology and partisanship out of the judicial appointment process, or, to put it another way, that Obama and the Democrats should not act like Bush and the Republicans.
How convenient indeed. Whether Wilkinson actually believes his newfound post-partisan rhetoric or not, that is, whether he can write drivel like this with a straight face, I’m not sure. Perhaps he really is that self-delusional and perhaps, enveloped in his own partisan bubble, he really is that cluelessly hypocritical. Whatever the case — and as earnest and as focused on the common good as he wants us to believe he is — he’s crazy.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
4 Responses to “Conservative Double Standards: J. Harvie Wilkinson III on Judicial Appointments”
Oh yes how dare the bastard say the bench should be about the law rather than politics. Did you even read the article? Might as well say there are no partisan writers like hack democratic bloggers.
We remember J. Harvie Wilkinson from his days on the Virginian-Pilot editorial board. For him to claim that judges are not ideological is beyond ridiculous. It is insulting. That is what he was sent there to do. The Bush administration judge shops by sending cases to the Fourth Circuit. Now he is essentially asking that the Obama administration continue to appoint right wing ideologues, rather than the many objective jurists who can be easily found if only one looks.
Has the Federalist Society suddenly gone out of business? Has Pat Robertson given up on his dream of remaking the Supreme Court by any means necessary?
Chief Justice Carrico is also a very nice man, as anyone from Richmond will be quick to tell you. That did not stop him from ruling that blacks cannot marry whites, and that they can be convicted of a crime for doing so.
Like Bush, these judges are the friendly face of some very, very ugly people. Stop them, now, please.
Republicians are for the most part Authoritarians. Rigid thinkers who are broken down into 3 categories. Authoritarian Leaders, AL; Authoritarian Followers or AF-the vast majority of republicians; and Authoritarian Leader/Followers.
A massive number of studies, some multigenerational have taken place starting in 1947 when the US wanted to attempt to understand how a law abiding people-Germans- could follow and be taken in by a charismatic leader.(Hitler)
Current studies believe that about 25-30% of the US population are AFs. This number has been growing in recent years and flourished under President GW Bush. A large number of AFs can be found in the evangelical movement which is where the republician party is strongest. Children who are raised in these households mostly join the ranks of AFs when they become adults.
Authoritarianism is a continuing and rising problem within the US, because they will believe everything that their chosen AL tells them and will follow that leader anywhere.
Just because the republicians were defeated in 2008-with only 65% of voters actually voting- it is assumed that many of the AFs did not vote because McCain is not an AL figure as GW Bush was. If an AL rises to the top is is quite possible that that person could win a national election. This is not the time to be thinking that the republician brand has shrunk to just a regional brand, if they find a really charismatic AL they could take over the govt and finally turn it into what they want. A very rigid Authoritarian society in which the govt is always right and anyone who does not agree goes to jail.-warrentless wiretapping, spying on amcits, jailing without charges of amcits for years without trials, politicizing of the DoJ, all are symptoms of an authoritarian govt.
None of you even bothered to read the article, either that are you ran out of tinfoil and as such couldn't stop all the BS from being transmitted right into your brains. Sheesh!