Washington Post

Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein write "Political Appointees No Longer to Pick Justice Interns" in Saturday's Washington Post.

They say: According to a former deputy chief in the civil rights division, one honors hire was a University of Mississippi law school graduate who had been a clerk for U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. about the time the judge's nomination by President Bush to a federal appeals court provoked opposition by congressional Democrats, who contended that Pickering was hostile to civil rights. A few months after he arrived, that lawyer was given a cash award by the department, after he was the only member of a four-person team in the civil rights division who sided with a Georgia voter-identification law that was later struck down by the courts as discriminatory to minorities, according to two former Justice lawyers.

Their story gains meat and interest by throwing Judge Pickering's name in it, but in reality this person was not a clerk, but an intern who got his position at DoJ without reference from or even knowledge of Judge Pickering.

They say, "According to a former deputy chief in the civil rights division" so the writers didn't get it wrong because presumably that former deputy chief DID tell the Wash Post that information...it just turns out he was wrong; the source provided bad information. Without inside knowledge of the rest of the story, I wonder what else was wrong.

This isn't a defense or criticism of the issue of the story or the person mentioned, just wondering what Judge Pickering had to do with it at all...

It's the Judiciary, Stupid

Robert Bluey writes All Is Not Lost for Conservatives in "Human Events" and discussed David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend Conference where he spoke with several others including Charles Pickering.

Three Stories

Judge Pickering is mentioned in three stories about the ongoing issue of judicial confirmations.

Manuel Miranda writes in Human Events: Why the GOP should Emphasize Judges. He says, "In 2002, Republicans won three new Senate seats by the barest margins, giving them control of the Senate. The voter plurality that in 2004 would rank first and be called the “moral issues voter” ranked nationwide in 2002 only fourth. But in Georgia, Missouri, and Minnesota that year, in a midterm election where the President campaigned chiefly on taxes and terror, something unusual happened: self-identified single issue, pro-life voters came out to vote in a non-presidential year, who normally do not. The margin of their vote was larger than the margin of Republican victory. How? After Democrats blocked a then-obscure judge from Mississippi, Charles Pickering, Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) began polling over the judge issue. He discovered it impacted poorly on the Democrats’ image. He then found ways to expose the increasing obstruction, finishing, just two weeks before the 2002 election, with the ultimate spotlight: an East Room speech by the President."

Jeffrey Lord writes a review of the Borking Rebellion in The American Spectator: Borking Rush. He says, "The Borking Rebellion was designed to serve two purposes. First, it was a behind-the-scenes story of the confirmation battle over a Bush judicial nominee, Judge D. Brooks Smith -- a longtime best friend of mine -- who was overwhelmingly well thought of in Western Pennsylvania legal circles. Then his nomination arrived in Washington. The real-life story takes place in the middle of the liberal interest-group borking-mania that defeated Judge Charles Pickering and nominee Miguel Estrada while stiffing nominees Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and others. Smith unexpectedly won in a harrowing fight against opponents who were interested not in defeating his arguments but destroying his life. The book told the insiders tale of just how that victory happened and why, naming names of the bad guys in the episode, a number of them household names." [BTW - If you like the Borking Rebellion you'll love Judge Pickering's second book scheduled to come out next year.]

Judge Pickering discusses the nomination of Mike Wallace in this story in the Biloxi Sun Herald: ABA: Wallace is not qualified. Pickering says, "Mike Wallace is one of the brightest lawyers anywhere. To find Mike Wallace unqualified is absolutely ludicrous."

Ed Meese

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, who wrote the foreword to Supreme Chaos, spoke recently at Campbell University's Federalist Society and discussed the politicization of the federal courts.

Two Things

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America has a piece in Human Events about judges and mentions Pickering among others: Winning the War Requires Winning on Judges.

President Bush chooses the son of a Turkish immigrant for the federal bench in Mississippi - we'll see if the left thinks that qualifies as diversity.

A few recent posts

Sean Rushton writes a column for National Review Online mentioning Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Judge Pickering and titled: "Remember Judges? The GOP ignores judicial nominations at their peril."

Judge Pickering will be the keynot speaker at the annual DeSoto County Republican Women event on December 4.

Judge Pickering sits on the board of trustees of William Carey University and introduced the keynote speaker at their recent celebration.