Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MIKE PAPANTONIO: Decades ago, the Republican Party figured out that they don't have to
win every election to be powerful. They learned that they can simply pack our court system
with Republican hack judges that would serve on the bench for a lifetime. And because Democrats
have been too slow to realize how important our courts are, we now have a judiciary that's
skewed enormously to the right. Joining me now to talk about the Republican court packing
scam is attorney Howard Nations. Howard, our president in the news this week saying that
he has to do something about the lower courts and the Supreme Court, he has to do something
about the Republican court packing that's taken place over the last few decades. Is
it too little, too late? HOWARD NATIONS: Well, better late than never,
Mike, because this is an issue that direly needs to be addressed by this president. The
presidential appointments are far more than just that occasional vacancy you get on the
United States Supreme Court. There are 874 Federal judges, and as vacancies become available
in that judiciary, the United States Supreme Court has to give their advice and consent
to appointments by the president. Presidential appointments have consequences.
PAPANTONIO: Well, isn't part of the problem Howard that there's almost been -- I remember
Rahm Emanuel coming out and saying and unbelievable statement, during Obama's first term, saying,
you know what, progressives really don't care that much about judicial appointments. Really,
when he said that, it's a startling statement, because isn't the real problem that a president
and a congress can write all the rules and laws they want, but a court can take them
away over night. NATIONS: Well, the Chief Justice of the United
States Supreme Court was quoted as saying, you can have all the best players in the world,
but if you have the umpires, they're going to win.
PAPANTONIO: And at this point, Howard, what we see is -- at this point, Clinton, I think,
had to fight cloture, had to fight the filibuster one time where he had to ask for a vote on
cloture, I think Bush had to do it one time, Obama, I think, the numbers are something
like 20 times, he's had to call for a cloture vote, where it comes to actually getting some
of these appointees pushed through, and at first blush, you might say, that's a Republican
problem, but it's not. It has to do with this president's desire to actually be an activist
where it comes to appointing some of these judges that are destroying labor, destroying
the environment, destroying women's rights, destroying political process, we're going
to see them destroy voting rights here before long, and this president has sat back and
acted like this just wasn't important. NATIONS: Well, Mike, the important points
you just made was this. President Clinton, as much as he was at war with the Republican
party for his entire eight years, particularly those last four years, President Clinton had
to face cloture only once, because he got in there and he got the United States Senate,
he put pressure where it had to be applied, and he got the United States Senate to move
on his nominees. This president has not done so.
PAPANTONIO: Howard, talk about -- people don't understand, it's not just making Supreme Court
appointments. You see, that's what gets the headlines. But the point is, if you make appointments
at the lower courts like the Republicans have completely -- you and I always appear in front
of judges and the lower courts that have been appointed by Republicans, and you know what,
it is always disaster for consumers. So it's not just about the Supreme Court, talk about
what the president of this country does as far as judicial inertia, just changing the
court system. NATIONS: Well, even if you and I go to court
and we get a fair trial before a trial judge, we still have to take those cases up to the
circuit courts, and the president of the United States appoints circuit court judges, he fills
vacancies on trial courts, and he appoints to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The circuit courts in our jurisdiction, for example, where I am, the fifth circuit, if
you have a consumer, a plaintive, an injured party, forget about it on appeal, because
you are destined to lose. But you know, there's something else that the president of the United
States does with respect to the Supreme Court. Elections have consequences, and imagine the
president of the United States also selects the cases that the United States of America
will present, bring before the Supreme Court. And then, on those cases that come up in the
normal course before the Supreme Court, the president threw the Solicitor General of the
United States can file an amicus curiae brief, and put the position of the United States
of America before the court even on cases where they're not directly involved. So it's
a powerful position, and it's one that you have to be actively and very proactively pursuing.
PAPANTONIO: Well, that's what I find so incredible. You have one third, this is a startling number,
it's actually a little higher than one third, but at least one third of all of the federal
judges that are serving right now have been appointed by George Bush. Now, how scary is
that? If you're a consumer, and you're going to court against a corporation, maybe Exxon,
Dow Chemical, any of the big corporations, with this kind of balance in the court. The
chances of a consumer actually winning, and all you have to do is look at the empirical
data right now. Consumers lose most of the time with these new political -- they're really
more political appointments than they are judge appointments, but consumers lose. Why
can't -- he is a constitutional professor, he taught con law for god's sake. Why can't
he see the importance of making these appointments? NATIONS: Well, actually, last August, I was
in a small group that met with the President, and we discussed this precise issue with him,
and his answer was, well, I just simply can't get anything through the United States Senate,
and he said, I've been told, don't bother to send anything over, this was August last
year, don't bother to send anything over before the election, because it's not going to be
processed, it won't be handled, it will go nowhere. That's the point at which Clinton,
who got only one cloture vote, Clinton would push and push and push. This president has
not, and the result is that the conservative base is much more energized and aggressive
about the court than the progressive base. Rahm Emanuel, who is the right hand man to
the president of the United States for his first couple of years in office, said that
we do not hold, we, being the progressives, do not hold our elected officials responsible,
we don't hold them accountable for their just not doing anything about judges through the
Senate. PAPANTONIO: In other words, it's okay, according
to Rahm Emanuel, apparently this president, as far as progressives are concerned, it's
okay to have the Republicans pack the court in a way that woman can't get a fair trial
where it comes to her rights on things like fair pay, or we can't get a fair trial where
it comes to fixing the environment, or we can't get a fair trial when a corporation
makes a product that kills somebody, it's okay with progressives that we don't get a
fair trial, because really, when you drill down on it, that's exactly what's at stake
here. The best example I can give Howard, is here you have a president that worked and
worked to pass healthcare reform. Where is it being disassembled? Not at the Supreme
-- partially at the Supreme Court, but also at the Federal level, the Federal appellate
courts are disassembling it, aren't they? NATIONS: They absolutely are disassembling
that, but also consider, progressive judicial inertia versus the conservative activism.
On the conservative side, you've had Citizens United, created completely out of whole cloth
by Republican appointed judges, conservatives. The Civil Rights Act of 1966, section five,
that you just mentioned, we're revisiting that, unbelievable, but we're revisiting that
at this point, because of the extreme activism of the conservative judges. So progressives
have got to stop tolerating judicial inertia, because it works to our extreme detriment.
PAPANTONIO: Howard, is it one thing -- again, I'm not very forgiving where it comes to these
appointments. First of all, the appointments that Obama is -- the ones he's making are
coming from corporate America. Yes, they may be minority, they may be women, but they're
silk stocking lawyers that worked for corporations and have worked for corporations their entire
career, who do you think they're beholden to when a consumer appears in front of them?
All they've ever known, all they've ever done is made money by being paid through a corporation.
Yes, they may vote liberal on issues like race or other issues like that, but where
it comes to really important issues, they are still corporate lawyers that have just
been moved into those seats. I think where we're left is A, Obama is not going to be
able to make any appointments, or B, the appointments that he makes, they're going to be basically
corporate toadies, and that's what we're seeing. In a minute, what's your thought about that,
Howard? NATIONS: Well, my thought is this. We pay
a lot of attention right now to how many women are on the court, how many African-Americans,
how many Asians, how many gay, lesbians are being appointed to the court. The one thing
that I've heard not mentioned, except from you, and we raised this with the president
is, how many people are being appointed to the court regardless of those factors who
are truly consumer oriented judges? We have the white shoe corporate lawyers being appointed,
and nobody seems to be concerned about that fact. We raised that with the president in
our conversation with him, and he said, well, I can't agree with that, because my wife was
a white shoe was a corporate lawyer, and I guarantee you, she would be a great judge
for the consumers. I said, okay, that's one, but what about any others? And that's a big
issue that we need to move forward in the progressive movement towards getting real
people who understand and represent the best interest of the consumer and the individual
in America, because those are the people whose rights are being jeopardized and are being
taken away by the Federal judiciary. PAPANTONIO: Howard Nations, always out there
fighting for the consumers. Honestly, one of the best trial lawyers in this country.
Howard, thanks for joining me, next week, we'll pick up, I think we ought to pick this
topic up a little more next week, because it is a topic that is causing huge problems
for this democracy.