Wash. Times Declares Judicial Nominee With Majority GOP Support A “Radical”

Written by Adam Shah

Published

The Washington Times editorial board still cannot find another adjective to describe President Obama's judicial nominees besides “radical.” The paper's latest target is appellate court nominee Susan Carney, whom the paper attacks in an editorial headlined “Obama's injudicious nominees” and subheadlined “Radical choices for federal judgeships deserve close Senate scrutiny.” The Times does not note, however, that the supposedly “radical” Carney received the votes of six of the eight Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans.

Carney, a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was approved by a 16-2 vote in the Judiciary Committee. According to the Legal Times' blog, the only committee members to vote against Carney were Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions (AL) and Tom Coburn (OK). That means Carney received the support of the ranking Republican member on the committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), as well as tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John Cornyn (R-TX).

How radical could she be?

The Times editorial also contains the following previously debunked attacks on other Obama judicial nominees:

  • The baseless claim that appellate court nominee Caitlin Halligan has a “particularly troubling” record on the Second Amendment. The Times bases this claim on a “brief” she signed as New York solicitor general. In fact, Halligan was simply fulfilling her duty as New York solicitor general by representing New York state in appellate proceedings, and the decision in the case did not even mention the Second Amendment.
  • The false claim that trial court nominee Ed Chen “approved the idea of a judge's 'ethnic and racial background' being allowed to affect courtroom decisions.” In fact, Chen explicitly advocated for judges to “administer the law equally.”
  • The tired and debunked claims that appellate court nominee Goodwin Liu is “radical” (there's that word again) because of his views on welfare, the courts' duty to rely on “interpretation of social meanings,” and the role of foreign law in U.S. courts.