It now appears that Thomas Griffith will not be confirmed,
at least until next year. As stated
before, I think he should not be confirmed to the bench because I believe he
engaged in unauthorized practice of law for three years while in Washington. I also believe his current conduct in Utah constitutes unauthorized practice of law. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Griffith ran into trouble on two fronts. Some opposed
his confirmation for reasons like those mentioned above.
But others opposed his confirmation because of views
expressed as a member of the Task Force on enforcement of Title IX. There is something sad, and wrong-headed,
about opposition on those grounds. Unless his view was that Title IX was unconstitutional, it is hard to
see how the subject is relevant to his confirmation. (If he believes Title IX is unconstitutional,
his views on the legal question are way out in left field, sufficiently far to
raise question of competency. But I
assume that is not the case, or it would have been in the news report. So his views about Title IX are not to the
point.) It is sad because he is faced
with opposition on grounds unrelated to the office or his qualifications, which
really are political in the order partisan sense. It adds to unnecessary and improper
politicizing of judicial appointments. His
views hardly suggest an inability or disinclination to separate his quotidian
political views from performance of the judicial office. It ultimately undermines the legitimacy of
opposition grounded in more basic political issues, like reproductive rights. The opposition on this ground is pointless in
a practical sense. This is not a topic
on which a significant group of senators will block Griffith’s
nomination. It trivializes other reasons
for opposing other nominees. It wastes
capital. I suspect such impractical and
ill-thought out attacks end up impairing the credibility of advocates. In fact, it sometimes seems to me that such ‘campaigns’
are run by the RNC because they are self-defeating for feminist and allied
views.
It is worth noting that Hatch’s nominees in Utah have turned out to be pretty good and interesting judges. One example is Paul Cassell whose decisions on
mandatory sentencing are quite interesting.
Recent Comments