Saturday, and I'm speechless

I probably have a post in me somewhere. I mean, I even had yesterday off of school to think of stuff to write.

So, I'll just post some information, from Harry Reid's office, for those of you who can't fathom why Democrats would want to filibuster Priscilla Owen. It has nothing to do with being contrary or mere Bush-hate; it has everything to do with her bing a bad judge:

PRISCILLA OWEN ­ NOMINEE TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FROM TEXAS

PRISCILLA OWEN IS AN ENDS-ORIENTED JUDICIAL ACTIVIST SHOWING BIAS AGAINST CONSUMERS, VICTIMS, INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
In case after case involving a variety of legal issues, the judicial record of Justice Priscilla Owen shows her to be a judicial activist, willing to make law from the bench rather than follow the language and intent of the legislature. 

She has demonstrated this tendency most clearly in a series of dissents in cases involving a Texas law providing for a judicial bypass of parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions.  She sought to erect barriers that did not exist in the statute.

In addition to cases dealing with parental notification, Justice Owen¹s activism and extremism is noteworthy in a variety of cases, including those dealing with business interests, malpractice, access to public information, employment discrimination and Texas Supreme Court jurisdiction, in which she rules against individual plaintiffs time and time again.

THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY'S CRITICISM OF JUSTICE OWEN IS DISTURBING AND HIGHLIGHTS HER ACTIVISM
Priscilla Owen's position as a frequent dissenter on the Texas Supreme Court filled with Republican appointees highlights her activist bent, showing how far from the language of the statute she strays in her attempts to push the law beyond what the legislature intended.

Criticisms of her dissents by the majority include the following, unusual in legal writing for their harsh tone:

• In FM Properties v. City of Austin, the majority calls her dissent, "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric."
  
• In Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, the majority (which included Alberto Gonzales and two other Bush appointees) is quite explicit about its view that Owen's position disregards the law, saying that "nothing in the statute requires" what she says it does, and that, "the dissenting opinion's misconception . . . stems from its disregard of the procedural elements the Legislature established," and that the, "dissenting opinion not only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a position even more extreme than that argued for by the board. . ."
  
• In In re Jane Doe, the majority includes an extremely unusual section explaining its view of the proper role of judges, admonishing the dissent joined by Justice Owen for going beyond its duty to interpret the law in an attempt to fashion policy, and in a separate concurrence, Justice Alberto Gonzales says that to the construe law as the dissent did, "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
  
• In Weiner v. Wasson, in what reads as a lecture to the dissent, then-Justice John Cornyn (now Senator Cornyn) explains stare decisis on behalf of the majority, in language that would be used with a beginning law student.
  
• In In re Jane Doe 3, Justice Enoch writes specifically to rebuke Owen and her follow dissenters for misconstruing the legislature's definition of the sort of abuse that may occur when parents are notified of a minor's intent to have an abortion, saying, "abuse is abuse; it is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second guessed."

PRISCILLA OWEN SHOWS INSUFFICIENT CONCERN OVER ETHICAL ISSUES
Priscilla Owen's record on money-related ethical issues is more troubling than her colleagues' (who also receive campaign contributions) because her money comes from a small group of special business interests, who advance clear anti-consumer and anti-choice agendas, and her record has shows that her donors enjoy greater success before her than before the majority of the Court.

She has repeatedly presided over cases involving law firms or litigants who contributed substantially to her election campaigns, failing to either disclose such contributions to the parties before her or disqualify herself. Although disclosure or recusal is not required under controlling Texas law, Owen's failure to disclose indicates that she lacks the moral and ethical commitment to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

She made dismissive comments on an important ethical issue, the "clerk perk" scandal, again indicating a lack of concern for ethical issues and the independence of the judiciary.  She dismissed the important ethical and criminal misconduct issues raised by the fact that the Court's law clerks were receiving bonuses from their future law firm employers, who regularly argue cases before the Court, as merely "a political issue that is being dressed up as a good government issue" and urged the legislature to make these unethical bonuses legal.

Is this worth going "nuclear" over? I say, yes.