Federalists Decry Democrats’ Methods of Blocking Judicial Nominees

WASHINGTON – At a conservative lawyers’ convention held here over the weekend, the most popular fashion accessory was a button whose meaning might be lost on those who are not among the capital’s true cognoscenti. The lapel pin features the number 60 with a thick red slash through it.Members of the Federalist Society helpfully explained that the buttons are a protest against the filibusters Senate Democrats have maintained against 10 of President Bush’s judicial nominees. The votes of 60 senators are required to overcome such a filibuster. The recent election increased the number of Republicans in the Senate from 51 to 55, but still left them five votes short of being able to break the procedural logjam created by the opposition.“To me, it’s one of the most dangerous things I’ve ever seen – to have a small group that can block things,” said a member of the legal association, Frank Schellace of Long Island.The group’s ire toward the filibuster was stirred up by Senate Majority Leader Frist, who decried the practice in a speech to the convention last week.“It is radical, it is dangerous and it must be overcome,” Dr. Frist said. “The minority seeks nothing less than to realign the relationship between our three branches of government.”Talk of meddling with the separation of powers is enough to rile up a gathering of the Federalist Society, which stresses adherence to the original meaning and literal text of the Constitution. The organization uses as its logo a silhouette of James Madison.The Senate leader played to those sentiments as he painted the Democrats’ roadblock as a dire affront to America’s founding principles.“They want to require a supermajority of 60 votes for confirmation, and this would establish a new threshold that would defy the clear intent of the framers,” Dr. Frist said. “At the most fundamental level, this filibuster is about our legacy as the leaders of the greatest people and nation on the face of the earth.”Members of the conservative legal organization also have a more self-interested reason to oppose the Democratic tactic: many of Mr. Bush’s judicial appointees have come from the group’s ranks. The organization’s influence in Washington has become legendary since Mr. Bush swept into town in 2001. Leaders of the group say such claims are wildly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the Federalists draw high-ranking speakers such as Justice Scalia and Attorney General Ashcroft.In his remarks on Friday, delivered with the aid of a teleprompter, Mr. Ashcroft attacked another of the conservative group’s bugbears, wayward federal judges.“Despite centuries of constitutional and judicial precedent, judicial activists refuse to acknowledge the constitutional design of our government,” Mr. Ashcroft warned. “Courts have disregarded and dismissed the president’s evaluations of foreign policy concerns in favor of theories generated by academic elites, foreign bodies, and judicial imagination.”Mr. Ashcroft, who recently announced his resignation, did not say precisely which court rulings he was denouncing. However, it appeared that he was referring to a decision last week in which a federal judge, James Robertson, found that procedures set up to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay violated the Geneva Conventions. The government is appealing the ruling.The American Civil Liberties Union said Mr. Ashcroft appeared to be calling for Mr. Bush’s wartime actions to be immune from judicial review. In a written statement, the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony Romero, urged the Bush administration to repudiate Mr. Ashcroft’s remarks and accused the attorney general of demonstrating “his clear disdain for the rule of law.”Few at the Federalist Society meeting appeared to have any quibble with the comments from Messrs. Frist and Ashcroft. However, some subjects, such as a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, bitterly divided the conservative group. Some speakers said the proposal, which has been endorsed by Mr. Bush and is popular among Republicans, runs counter to the principles of federalism on which the country was founded.“Federalism is not just for conservatives,” said a law professor at Boston University, Randy Barnett. “The issue of marital relations and family law has historically been a state court matter.”A law professor from Chapman University in California, John Eastman, said the amendment was necessary because without it all states would eventually be compelled to recognize gay marriages. “What the Massachusetts decision means is the federalism option is off the table,” he said.Other legal experts said it was far from clear that other states would be obliged to recognize gay unions from Massachusetts.After several speakers endorsed the amendment, which would undercut state’s rights, Mr. Barnett caused the crowd to break into laughter by declaring, “I should think I was in the meeting of the American Constitution Society.” That is a rival organization of liberal lawyers. Some at the meeting seemed to favor a compromise constitutional amendment that would prevent federal courts from finding a right to gay marriage, while still allowing the states to experiment with the practice.At another discussion, the Justice Department came under fire for continuing to press a federal racketeering lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers.“The Bush administration needs to understand that civil justice reform begins at home,” said a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Robert Levy.

Federalists Decry Democrats’ Methods of Blocking Judicial Nominees

More from the New York Sun

Florida Freeze Prompts Roundup of Cold-Stunned Iguanas as Thousands Fall From Trees

The 50,000 Dow

The Dow 50,000 Prosperity Rocket Ship

More from the New York Sun

Florida Freeze Prompts Roundup of Cold-Stunned Iguanas as Thousands Fall From Trees

The 50,000 Dow

The Dow 50,000 Prosperity Rocket Ship

Luigi Mangione’s Jeopardy

Will the Navy End Iran’s Ability To Export Oil?

Algebra, English, and Activism: Teachers at Middle and High School Instruct Students How To Protest ICE

Ex-CNN Star Ashleigh Banfield, Savannah Guthrie’s Former Coworker, Doubles Down on Her Reporting About Brother-in-Law

Economical Horror Indie ‘The Arborist’ Outshines Ryan Coogler’s ‘Sinners,’ in Many Respects