On June 4th, President Obama announced three new hand-chosen nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps attempting to reassure Americans of his decision, the President made very clear that he was not "court packing" and that he isn't filling the "Second Highest Court in the Country" with "hacks."
JAG's Executive Director, James Christophersen writes on National Review Online's Bench Memos blog about President Obama's apparent continued dedication to nominating "judges who rely on widely varying personal views to reach subjective, and thus uneven, interpretations of the United States’ laws." One of the most recent examples of this "empathy standard" is Judge Michael McShane.
President Obama nominated Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 29th, 2010, but neither Democrats nor Republicans have reacted positively to this radical nomination. On December 6th, 2011, Halligan’s nomination failed a Senate cloture vote, falling well short of the 60 votes required to proceed. Nevertheless, President Obama has re-nominated Halligan four times, marking a total of five times her nomination has been submitted to the Senate, and five times it has gone unapproved.
Click the link below to read Judicial Action Group's six-page research paper detailing Halligan's concerning positions on Gun Rights, War Crimes of Terrorists, Marriage, Judicial Pay, and even Constitutional Amendments.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accidentally drew back the curtain on fabricated tales of Republican obstructionism and revealed the dark secret of Democrats who have been promoting “gridlock” in the U.S. Senate for nearly a full four years. It happened so quickly anyone who blinked missed it. While proclaiming the need for filibuster “reform” and complaining of its over use by the minority, Senator Reid continues to apply his own obstructionis tactics, limiting debate and preventing Senators of both parties from submitting their own ideas through amendments.
Click the button below to read the full article in its original publication on Red Alert Politics.
Last week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and long-time Senator, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), took to the floor of the Senate demanding minority party Senators immediately acquiesce to confirmation of numerous judicial nominees who, he suggests, face no objections or opposition by any Senators. Unfortunately for Senator Leahy, his privileged positions on this highly regarded committee for the past thirty-three consecutive years appears to have distorted his ability to differentiate between the 100-member United States Senate, and the 19-member Judiciary Committee, which is selected to perform a preliminary review of these nominees.
Part of our mission here at JAG is to pray for judicial renewal and spiritual renewal for America. Toward that end, we have launched the Lamb of Hope Campaign 2012. We invite you to be a part of this campaign by taking 30 seconds of your time right now to join thousands of others in prayer for America. Also, please share the message by getting your Lamb of Hope t-shirt.
We believe that in order for America truly to change, two things must happen:
There has been much speculation about the electoral impact of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion and whether it was really a clever political move mirroring the legendary Chief Justice John Marshall from more than two centuries ago. These are all interesting topics – but they raise a broader question about whether a judge – even a Chief Justice – should be concerned about anything other than honestly deciding a case. To be sure, they should not.
Today, Judicial Action Group delivered a letter co-signed by the leaders of more than 50 conservative and pro-life organizations to Senator Jon Kyl questioning the Senator’s support for President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Andrew David Hurwitz. Hurwitz has been recognized by many as the “architect” of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court opinion renowned for “legalizing” abortion in the United States and decried by nearly all legal experts as a textbook example of judicial activism.
Follow the button below to read the Tale of Two Nominees recently nominated by President Obama to two vacant seats on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both are young legal professionals with similar educations and career experiences - they both even attended the same law school a mere three years apart.
However, a few key differences in the records of these nominees led to the confirmation of one, and should lead to the defeat of the other.
When high-ranking White House and Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, met with “citizen lobbyists” from across the country last week, the invitation list revealed much about the President’s intentions on nominees. Cast as a “strategy session” to encourage reduction of judicial vacancies throughout the Federal Judiciary, the meeting and joint effort to lobby on behalf of radical nominees pending before the Senate reinforced the President’s unwavering determination to force unqualified nominees through the Senate rather than appoint better judges.
Four years ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, argued that certain judicial nominees of President Bush should not be confirmed during the last six months of his presidency. Just as a baseball coach cannot change the special ground rules of a particular game when his team comes to bat, Chairman Leahy must apply the same rule to President Obama’s judicial nominees that Leahy applied to President Bush’s judicial nominees.
The Awakening 2012 will be an in-depth Prayer and Patriotism event where people are united by our love for our country's freedom and our faith in Christ. You can choose breakout sessions with topics from Israel to immigration, from our families to our nation's future. Click below to get more information about speakers, tickets, and the schedule for this exciting event!
In November, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that whenever discussion in his conference room turned to ObamaCare, they physically removed Elena Kagan (then Solicitor General) from the room. Holder seemed almost proud of the fact that he and his deputies physically removed their own chief appellate lawyer from the room, as though it was the honorable or ethical thing to do. However, as is explained below, neither ethics nor honor required Kagan’s removal from the room. Why then was she removed?
Memo for the Movement: On January 4, President Obama purported to single-handedly appoint four individuals to Executive Branch positions which require confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Today, JAG President Phillip Jauregui, joined thirty-two prominent Americans, representing a broad cross section of the Conservative movement, in condemning the President's Unconsitutional installments of Richard Cordray, and three others.
Click the button below to read their objections and reasoning in full, and for helpful links to learn more.
Nomination of Steve Six Will Not Move Forward
Steve Six, nominated by President Obama to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, was a troubling judicial nominee from the start. What ultimately prevented his confirmation, however, was his lack of candor when answering questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Leahy said on Thursday that he had received a letter from Senators Roberts and Moran reiterating the opposition to Six they had stated more than a month ago, and that, “…in deference to the objections of the Kansas Senators to our proceedings on the nomination of Six to the 10th Circuit, we will not go forward.”
Recently, voters in Kansas dumped Six from his position as Attorney General, but President Obama has wasted no time trying to find him a new job on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals – a job where Six will NOT be accountable to voters. Steve Six’s confirmation must be stopped, and NOW is our best opportunity. The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Six’s nomination THIS THURSDAY – so Please ask members of the Senate judiciary committee to vote “no” on Steve Six. Click below to learn a little about Steve Six's record.
Cloture Invoked on the McConnell Nomination
Today’s cloture vote initiated by Senate Democrats clearly indicates that the numerous ethical concerns raised about judicial Rhode Island District Court nominee John McConnell will not be afforded serious consideration. While Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid praised the vote as one which “will make the atmosphere around here so much more pleasant,” his filing for cloture actually ignores substantial concerns raised by Republican lawmakers. Through this vote, Democrats have pushed to confirm a politically motivated nomination instead of working to improve the 'atmosphere' surrounding confirmations.
Why the Proper Judicial Function is to Side with The Constitution Over ObamaCare
Liberal defenders of judicial activism have developed some interesting talking points in recent months, especially in light of two recent District Court rulings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka “ObamaCare”). As these courts have rightly recognized the unconstitutional overreaches of ObamaCare’s individual mandate, liberal voices have suddenly risen in chorus decrying these decisions as cases of “conservative judicial activism” and “judicial overreach.” While it is true that “activism” can occur in favor any political philosophy, the measure of activism is based on constitutional criteria not political criteria.