O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch"
On his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted that "the Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch." In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents: Republican presidents have appointed a majority of the currently active federal judges, including six of the eight current Supreme Court justices and majorities on 10 of the 13 federal courts of appeals. According to a database maintained by the progressive, nonprofit Alliance for Justice, Republican appointees occupy 99 of the 167 currently filled appellate judgeships (59 percent). They also occupy 449 of the 815 currently filled circuit and district court seats (55 percent).
The following listing by circuit court further demonstrates the extent to which Republican appointees control the appellate courts:
Court | Active circuit court judges appointed by | Circuit court | |
Republican | Democrat | ||
D.C. Circuit | 7 | 4 | 0 |
1st Circuit | 4 | 2 | 0 |
2nd Circuit | 6 | 7 | 0 |
3rd Circuit | 6 | 6 | 2 |
4th Circuit | 9 | 4 | 2 |
5th Circuit | 12 | 4 | 1 |
6th Circuit | 8 | 6 | 2 |
7th Circuit | 8 | 3 | 0 |
8th Circuit | 9 | 2 | 0 |
9th Circuit | 8 | 16 | 4 |
10th Circuit | 7 | 5 | 0 |
11th Circuit | 7 | 5 | 0 |
Federal Circuit | 8 | 4 | 0 |
Circuit court total | 99 | 68 | 11 |
Gray shading indicates circuits with a majority of Republican appointees.
From the September 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER: I'm the son of a card-carrying, union member, steel mill worker. My dad was a steel mill worker. A Democrat. However, I've always -- I'm 47 years old. I have always been a conservative Republican, but I'm not very comfortable with the Republicans being in control of everything -- the executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. And I wish the Democrats would come up with somebody a little bit better than what they have. It's like -- you know, sometimes I've -- I would like to see a change, but if I say I'm for a Democratic contender, then people will say well, oh, you're for gay marriages? Which, I'm not. I'm a God-fearing man. Are you for killing unborn babies? No, I'm not. But I wish -- you know, why do they bring moral issues in? Why can't they just --
O'REILLY: Well, here's -- here's --
CALLER: -- get with the program and fix our country? I mean, look out for the common good.
O'REILLY: I can't -- I can't -- right. I can't answer -- I can't answer your broad question other than to say, number one, the Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch. All right? They don't have control of that. That secular progressives have made a lot of progress in the courts. The reason Republicans have control of the presidency and the legislature -- House and Senate -- is because the Democrats can't come up with anybody with any solutions. And John Kerry had no solutions to any problem, which is why he lost. And the far left is the money machine for the Democratic Party. They pour the money in. The Hollywood crew. The George Soros crew. They're pouring the money in. So they're calling the shots.
CALLER: " I have always been a conservative Republican, but I'm not very comfortable with the Republicans being in control of everything -- the executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. And I wish the Democrats would come up with somebody a little bit better than what they have."
===============
Ok before I get to O'Reilly's "claim", let me just say I AGREE with this caller... even though I'm a Republican/Conservative, I think our government has ALWAYS run better when there's MORE balance between the TWO parties. Personally, I wouldn't mind a Democrat in the White House...
I don't LOATH O'Reilly like a LOT of you here do, and I AGREE with him on SOME issues...BUT this guy has shown BEFORE that he is lacking in some BASIC knowledge, when caught OFF-GUARD. Considering "his line of work" he SHOULD be better informed on Politics/Government. IF he has the info in front of him, he does fine...BUT when he has to "adlib" he has, on occasion been prone to "bloviating" faulty "facts".
Agree jeter,
Gridlock in our federal government seems to be the preferable way to go for me as well. It enforces the checks and balances that each party needs so they don't become too intoxicated on power - besides we are often spared more silly and useless laws we don't need because they can't agree on anything.
Split it up, it works better for us all.
"Even though I'm a Republican/Conservative, I think our government has ALWAYS run better when there's MORE balance between the TWO parties." -- jeter2
It's reasonable to conclude that you and I wouldn't see eye to eye on many things, given that I'm a Liberal/Democrat -- but you certainly won't have any argument from me here!
I'm reminded of a cartoon that I sent my uncle not long after the Presidential election. My uncle is a retired USAF fighter pilot now flying for a commercial service -- I don't know if he fits all the criteria for a neoconservative, but he comes pretty darned close. I felt that the cartoon encapsulated a lot of my concerns about the Republican Party trifecta (White House, Senate, House of Representatives) -- and I knew he would get my point immediately, being a pilot. The cartoon in question is a drawing of Air Force One in preparation for takeoff following a modification which has mysteriously resulted in both wings being placed on the right side of the fuselage...
Jeter,
I think it's more than just bloviating and having faulty facts on occassion. I have a book "The Oh Really Factor", its a compilation of O'rielly's many many many prevarications. Hey, they filled a whole book. Isn't it too coincidental that his erroneous reports and statistics always support whatever position he's asserting? I also think it happens way too frequently to be unintentional, IMO.
"I think it's more than just bloviating and having faulty facts on occasion. I have a book "The Oh Really Factor", its a compilation of O'rielly's many many many prevarications. Hey, they filled a whole book. Isn't it too coincidental that his erroneous reports and statistics always support whatever position he's asserting? I also think it happens way too frequently to be unintentional, IMO."...by Lynn
Good morning Lynn, I have heard of the book you mentioned, and just did a quick google search to refresh my memory. The author, Peter Hart is "the activism director at FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), the national media watch group. He is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated weekly radio show CounterSpin ."...FAIR is a "PROGRESSIVE" aka Liberal media watchdog group. Nothing WRONG with that, but to be "fair" ;-) their OPINION may be slightly skewed (biased) when writing about O'Reilly.
No doubt O'Reilly is FAR from perfect, and as I said in my previous post --'prone to occasionally bloviating faulty facts'--BUT I would be DUBIOUS about taking everything written about him in that book as ABSOLUTE&FACTUAL ...ONLY because the author likely HAS an agenda.
Agenda? You think he'd have to stretch the truth to demonstrate that O'Lielly is a whirlwind of disinformation?
Come on. If you have to make stuff about O'Reilly, you're not really trying that hard. The facts are plenty entertaining on their own.
There is no such thing as conservative scholarship or liberal scholarship. There is no such thing as conservative reporting or liberal reporting. There is only good scholarship/reporting and bad scholarship/reporting. If the book is good/accurate, it doesn't matter if it's written by communists drug dealers, it's still a good/accurate book. And writing about O'Reilly's errors/fabrications can easily be done in a scholarly manner. The evidence is clearly out there.
Sketer:Likely? May be?My goodness!Such definitive proclamations!Tell me more,ALL KNOWING one.Just as soon as you gather up some substantiation.You know what they say about opinions and a**holes,don't you?
Jeter,
The book took O'rielly's quotes directly from The Factor's transcripts, they were all dated and all of the statements were verbatim. One focus was on O'reilly's constant screwing with statistics. It juxtaposed O'Rielly's statistics against the real government or official statistics that are readily accessible through a google search. O'Rielly didn't sue the authors and I am sure it’s because the facts were indisputable. I know you are busy, but before you judge the book because of the political leaning of the authors, I wish you would read the book. I read the entire book on a train ride from Baltimore to NYC. The premise is so simple.... this is what O’rielly reported and this is what the source documents actually said.
"O'Rielly didn't sue the authors and I am sure it’s because the facts were indisputable. I know you are busy, but before you judge the book because of the political leaning of the authors, I wish you would read the book."...by Lynn
Well Lynn, it's NOT a book I would have ordinarily picked out to read...BUT I have a Gift Certificate from Barnes&Noble that's been "burning a hole" in my pocket...IF I see it, I'll pick it up. I'm USUALLY wary of books of THIS type, whether written by someone on the LEFT or RIGHT (figuring it'll be one-sided&biased)...for instance I'd NEVER bother with Dick Morris's book about Hillary...that guy definitely has an agenda.
I'm USUALLY wary of books of THIS type, whether written by someone on the LEFT or RIGHT (figuring it'll be one-sided&biased)...for instance I'd NEVER bother with Dick Morris's book about Hillary...that guy definitely has an agenda.
Morris type of books are full of innuenda, unnamed sources, and rumor. So it's a waste of time to read them. But a book full of easily verified quotes and references to readily available data that shows those quotes are wrong is worthwhile.
almost everyone has an agenda. it's how you try to accomplish that agenda that's the difference. people like morris and o'reilly and limbaugh lie and make it up.
"almost everyone has an agenda. it's how you try to accomplish that agenda that's the difference. people like morris and o'reilly and limbaugh lie and make it up."...by mefirst
I see YOU failed to INCLUDE any Liberals on your list...Mmmmmm I guess I know YOUR agenda ;-)
jeter, i didn't say there are no liberals that make things up. i quite rightly pointed out that it's a regular practice by a lot of commentators on the right, including things where they know better, o'reilly and jeremy glick, for example. if you want to list some liars on the left feel free.
"Morris type of books are full of innuenda, unnamed sources, and rumor. So it's a waste of time to read them. But a book full of easily verified quotes and references to readily available data that shows those quotes are wrong is worthwhile."...by kwinters79
Have you read the book? Well, I HAVEN'T. All I KNOW about it is what Lynn has told me...and that it's AUTHOR is associated with a Progressive/Liberal Group. THAT doesn't mean it's NOT truthful or accurate....HOWEVER if I suggested YOU read a book written by a CONSERVATIVE author about Al Franken...wouldn't you at least WONDER if it was biased?
Am I to assume that BO has NO agenda?
"Am I to assume that BO has NO agenda?"...by therick
Well IF you did...YOU'D be WRONG.
Is this such an INCREDIBLE idea that people in POLITICS have an AGENDA????
While it would be NICE if ALL journalists were UNBIASED...it's just NOT the way it is. Journalists, pundits, politicians, radio/tv commentators...MOST (if not all) have an agenda.
Did David Brock have an AGENDA when he wrote 'The Real Anita Hill' ??? Of course he did.
Does Brock have an AGENDA with MMFA? Do I really need to ANSWER that for you?
It stands to reason that with Republicans occupying the White House in 5 of the last 7 terms that they would have more of the Judicial appointments as well. OReilly should know better. Perhaps his opinion stems from the fact that the cases that make the news, the controversial ones, (like the pledge of allegiance) are many times decided in the 9th circuit, by far the largest circuit court which has a 2-1 Democratic nominated tilt.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Media Matters went down the wrong street.
Just because more judges have been appointed by Republicans does not mean all the appointees are Republican.
By "control" he means that conservatives would simply due to overwhelming numbers.
A Republican nominated David Souter. Media Matters would count him on the conservative side of the ledger. Most of us wouldn't.
Agreed. Media Matters is chasing its tail on this one.
I tend to agree that MMFA is being a little misleading on this one in the same way people like Rush are a lot of the time. Although, one can argue that by appointing the majority of current federal judges, Republicans _have_ had more control over the makeup of the judicial branch. Still, the implication of the article (almost certainly incorrect) of that is that republicans only appoint republican judges.
It depends on what you mean by control. To extreme conservatives, it probably does seem like the other side has control of the courts. But that probably has more to do with the legal feasibility of some of the causes they support than it does with the ideology of any of the judges.
So while the right may not control what the judicial branch does in the way they control the other two branches of government, they've technically still had the opportunity to exert more control over the judiciary than their opponents have. Although I think MMFA should strive to be more than just 'technically' right.
Yeah, Damn that Souter for doing his job and enforcing the constitution instead of doing whatever his Republican masters say. What an ingrate.
leather,
By the same token, you've also potentially gone down a poor path by implication.
Although you can certainly cite an example of a Republican appointed judge making liberal decisions, do you really think that the reverse doesn't exist?
I don't have any detailed knowledge on this subject, but the odds are in favor of MMFA not being too far off the mark with a 99 to 68 ratio of Republican appointed to Democratic appointed judges.
You do realize that in order for a "liberal" bias of the courts (which is the only way for O'Reilly to claim they don't control the courts), 16% of the Republican appointments would have to become liberal leaning while none of the Democratic appointments can become conservative. And that's to achieve a liberal bias of 1 judge out of 167...not much of a bias.
Sorry, but the odds are MMFA's side on this one...even if they didn't dig deeper to determine the actual decisions handed down by the appointed judges.
This appears to be another C- post. If the Repubs had control of the Judiciary, many of the issues that the right had (assuming Repub=rightwing) concerns about (Roe v. Wade, etc) would have been overturned. The Repubs have had more opportunities, as pointed out earlier, winning an overwhelming majority of Presidential elections over the past 10 elections (7 - 3), but the Judiciary for the most part appears to be fairly impartial, as it should be.
"but the Judiciary for the most part appears to be fairly impartial, as it should be."
************************************************************** Oscar,
I don't think I have ever agreed with you about anything, but we're in full agreement here.
--- but the Judiciary for the most part appears to be fairly impartial, as it should be. ---
If you truly believe this (as I do) then how do you reconcile the right's position that the judiciary branch is controlled by liberal "activist" judges?
We all know that only the right campaigns on this idea of judicial bias.
I don't have to reconcile the "Right's" position, I only have to reconcile my own. Each of us is responsible for our own position and pointing that out to others. If they accept it, we have a convert, if they don't, then that's the way it is. I don't agree with every decision that comes from the Judiciary and that is my right. And it is also my (and your) right if we don't agree, to work within the system to "lobby" for changes.
I think you make a good point, but I'm not sure the Republican leaders necessarily want what they tell their support base. Making a lot of noise about pro-life fuels the support base and gets voters out for GOP candidates, but that doesn't mean the GOP candidates really want Roe V Wade overturned. So it's very possible that the Judges they appoint are conservative, but simply not as conservative as the public presented GOP platform.
Hey,Nagurski:Who's this ephemeral"us" that you've anointed yourself the spokesman of? Why don't you simply stand on your own two feet by using the word "I" and I'll(not we'll)do the same.
Hey Media Matters folks, you might save yourself a lot of time and bandwidth if you only posted when O'Lielly gets something correct.
Wow, This guy has had a busy week on this "creepy" MMFA website
MMFA is dead wrong on this. Just because most of the justices were appointed by Republicans, that doesn't mean that they all ended up being conservatives. For example, David Souter ended up being one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, and Kennedy and O'Conner ended up being moderates. Once these Republican appointed justices get to D.C. they end up moving to the left because of the culture up there. Some of these Republican appointed justices want to get praised by the liberal media, so they rule the way the liberal media wants them to. And also, can you name a justice appointed by a Democrat that moved to the right after they were confirmed?
"can you name a justice appointed by a democrat that moved to the right". byron white, appointed by kennedy.
O'Reilly didn't say "conservative." He said "Republican." That's what we were addressing, and that was false. That being said, just as there are Republican appointees who don't necessarily reflect the politics of the president appointing them, similarly there are Democratic appointees who are far more conservative than the president appointing them. Bill Clinton, for one, nominated several people, strongly opposed by liberals, in order to appease Congressional Republicans. In at least one case, he made a nomination as an explicit quid pro quo to get the Senate Judiciary Committee moving again on his nominees.
gerald ford called his appointment of justice stevens one of his finest presidential actions. doesn't sound like he was disappointed about steven's supposed drift to the left.
I believe Ford was a little more moderate than the recent Republican Presidents.
"supposed drift to the left."
Supposed drift to the left? Stevens is one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme court. I suppose that you think Ginsburg is a moderate too.
Lord help us if Souter and Ginsberg are not considered moderate. Have we moved so far to the right that moderation is now "liberal"? Does this mean that Tom DeLay, James Dobson and Pat Buchanan -- people who I believe hold rather extreme positions -- are now moderates?
Changed to correct: I meant Stevens
John Kerry did have many plans and many solutions to problems. If O'Reilly wanted to find out what Kerry wanted to do, all he had to do is go to johnkerry.com and look up "Our Plan for America" where he bulletpoints what he intended to do and showed what he stood for. It's not on his main website anymore (there was a link to it right from the main page) but it can still be found here:
[link to www.independentsforkerry.org]
From what I have read, I also recognize that I have heard John Kerry articulate many of these solutions in his speeches and debates last year and even before the campaign. But instead of investigating what Kerry had proposed, the talkers simply told their audiences, "I don't know what Kerry stands for" or "Kerry has no solutions," etc.
Now that I think about it, maybe the Republicans don't have control of the judiciary -- not the way they have complete and utter control over congress. Remember the arm-twisting and vote-buying they used to get CAFTA through?
Obviously Rove and Delay haven't been efficient about getting this kind of control over the Judiciary. They're too used to thinking in terms of PACs and campaign contributions. They need to get busy. Get a few judges hooked on smack, a few embarassing photos of them with Jeff Gannon, some gambling debts -- THEN they'll have the same level of control they have over the House.