|
Instead of Writing Editorials that Could Have Been (May Have Been Written) by Karl Rove, the Washington Post Should be Calling for an Investigation of Judge Silberman
BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
(See: http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/02/18.html and this must read on Judge Silberman, http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/21news.html)
The Washington Post is nauseating in its incessant tub thumping for Bush judicial nominees. They have not hesitated to gleefully carry water for this administration on the issue of judicial appointments, ostensibly to help ensure that as many rabid right wing judges as possible will pollute the federal bench for the next thirty years or better. This is surprising given their alleged editorial concern for the Bush Administration's war on the constitution.
Right wing judges have little respect for the Bill of Rights. To them it is a nuisance to be brushed aside as an impediment to the maximal empowerment of the "authorities" to intrude on an individual citizen's life. No matter the intellectual inconsistency in these two positions, the Post pushes doggedly onward in their crusade to have the Senate quickly rubber stamp every questionable nominee sent to them for confirmation.
As much as it may pain the Post, the simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats in the Senate have a legitimate right, and, indeed, a duty to thoroughly scrutinize the background of every judicial nominee in order to insure that he is not a partisan hack ideologue who will place the dictates of his party above the duty to defend the constitution and serve the needs of the country as a whole. Rather than recognize and appreciate the Democrats for performing this very worthy oversight role, the Post shrieks like a shrinking violet in a Boris Karloff thriller on the very rare occasion, such as this, when Democrats oppose a grossly partisan nominee who is being less than forthcoming about salient details of his legal record. I noted no such similar caterwauling from the Post whenever Orrin Hatch single-handedly performed gymnastic legislative somersaults worthy of Olga Korbut in order to block numerous well-qualified Clinton appointees to the bench who had no such glaring "black holes" in their legal backgrounds. Indeed Hatch's legacy of obstruction the last time he was Senate Judiciary chair resulted in the record levels of judicial vacancies which the Post now so vehemently decries.
Rather than chastising the Democrats in the Senate for faithfully executing their constitutional duty to advise and consent, the Post ought to be conducting an investigation into the extra-judicial activities of Judge Silberman revealed in BuzzFlash's interview with David Brock. If what Mr. Brock told BuzzFlash is true, namely that Judge Silberman, while a sitting judge, was his political mentor who gave both he and the Wall Street Journal political advice on how best to attack President Clinton, that is quite disturbing, in and of itself. However, if he then proceeded to rule on cases involving President Clinton's assertions of executive privilege and other matters relating to his impeachment then Judge Silberman was potentially in serious violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Canon 7 of the Code of Conduct For United States Judges expressly forbids a sitting judge from engaging in partisan political activity, and Canon 3 (C)(1)(a) of the same code specifically requires the judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which "the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." (http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judges_code.html#7)
Clearly if Judge Silberman was in fact giving advice to both Mr. Brock and the Wall Street Journal editorial page regarding how best to attack President Clinton, then this demonstrated clear bias which precluded Judge Silberman from ruling on any cases involving President Clinton as a party.
If Brock's allegations are true, Silberman most definitely should have recused himself. If the Post still maintained the level of journalistic ethics for which it was previously so highly respected whenever Katherine Graham was the publisher, it would be investigating this matter instead of acting as court courtiers attempting to curry favor with this mendacious administration by licking its boots.
The Post should act like the guardian of democracy it purports to be and not as an adjunct of the White House Press Office.
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
* * *
BUZZFLASH NOTE: Here is more information on the radical right wing bias of Judge Silberman who the Washington Post holds up as a role model for federal court of appeals appointees:
From Salon Letters to the Editor in 1998
(See: http://www.salon.com/letters/1998/07/24letters.html)
Conservative U.S. Judge Laurence H. Silberman may choose not to recuse himself from legal judgments regarding President Clinton. He has already shown, though, that he can't be depended on for nonpartisan opinions or even reasonable ones.
Silberman's declaration that, by resisting Ken Starr's extremist investigation into a still-alleged sexual relationship between Clinton and a White House intern, the president is "declaring war on the United States" is patently ridiculous. But it is consistent with the hate-filled and over-the-top rhetoric spouted by Republicans since they assumed control of Congress in 1994. While members of the GOP's moderate minority have held their tongues and their noses, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Jesse Helms and their fellow flame-throwers of the radical right have engaged in a shameful war of invective and insult designed to damage the president's standing and legacy. If these people were children, their mothers might thrash them for their disrespectful behavior. Since they're elected officials, however, they seem to believe that they no longer have need to be civil or even sensible. While their performance may please their hard-core constituencies, it reduces the entire American political process to the level of schoolyard name-calling.
President Clinton has done much to ensure this country's economic discipline and growth, help middle-class Americans (through minimum-wage increases) and the poor (through hikes in the earned income tax credit), strengthen our educational institutions and cool international tensions. All of this, while Republicans have run around like spoiled, mean-spirited brats, most of their energy spent on belittling Democrats. If conservative officials hope to play any role in this country's future, isn't it time that they shut up and started actually doing something for all of the people (not just the wealthy few) they were elected to represent?
-- Jeff Pierce, Seattle
If there's one good thing about Ken Starr it's that he has highlighted the effect of Reagan-appointed jurists. Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about it other than not allowing more such judges to be appointed in the future.
Laurence Silberman's comments regarding the Clinton administration ("Can it be said that the president of the United States has declared war on the United States?") shouldn't surprise anyone. Again we see yet another Reagan-appointed right-winger with an agenda showing the true impact that the Reagan/Bush years had on the U.S. judicial system.
Silberman, once undersecretary of labor in the Nixon administration, gets his views frequently spread by such organizations as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Besides working on the Reagan-Bush campaign and transition team, Silberman is even mentioned as attending a meeting at the L'Enfant Plaza hotel in the fall of 1980 as part of the rumored "October Surprise" effort. Silberman later stated that the Iranians' offers were rejected. Silberman also led the vote that overturned Oliver North's Iran-contra conviction. I'll bet Lawrence Walsh dearly wished that he could have had him recused as another judge, Abner Mikva, was recused for once being a congressman who voted for the original independent counsel law.
Yes, it is certainly comforting to know that justice is blind and that Clinton is getting a fair and impartial hearing.
-- Bill Faulk, St. Paul, Minn
From a 1998 David Broder article:
(See: http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/21news.html)
The roster of combatants in the brawl between Kenneth Starr and President Clinton has now expanded to include a conservative federal judge and friend of Starr who has stunned even battle-weary Washington insiders with his intemperate attack on Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno.
As part of the federal appellate panel that refused to hear the administration's arguments to prevent Secret Service agents from testifying last week, U.S. Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote a scathing opinion that accused Reno of acting not on behalf of the U.S. government, but in the personal interests of President Clinton. Then, using language seldom seen in the federal judiciary, Silberman questioned whether Clinton himself, by allowing his aides to attack Starr, was "declaring war on the United States.
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.
