Draining the Swamp: Federal Judge Exposes Anti-Republican Bias at the FEC

As the agency that regulates and enforces campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a remarkably powerful entity. For this reason, instances of bias against one political party by the FEC should not be taken lightly. Thankfully, one recently appointed federal judge is doing his part in exposing this corruption. The Washington Examiner reports:

A federal judge has blown the whistle on a secret Federal Election Commission scheme to punish some Republican groups and their donors, the latest sign of an anti-GOP bias at the elections watchdog.

In a newly released decision, Trump-appointed District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden shined a spotlight on the FEC’s general counsel who recommended action against four Republican groups but dismissal of similar charges against supporters of a Democratic group, “Black Men Vote.”

This bombshell report is not even the first piece evidence of anti-GOP bias at the FEC. The article goes on to say:

The decision follows an amazing admission by a former Democratic FEC chairwoman and frequent critic of Republicans and President Trump that the agency is biased against the GOP.

Asked if the cases before the FEC are biased, Ann Ravel said, “Absolutely. The cases have come primarily from watchdog groups, and most of those groups are on the liberal side.”

She was one of the Democratic commissioners who led the effort to target conservative media, like the Drudge Report.

Thankfully, there are checks and balances to the FEC. In order to find a violation, the agency must have bipartisan support with a minimum of four of six commissioner votes. While left-wing groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have tried to get around this government check by suing the FEC for any decision they don’t like, the D.C. Circuit Court recently struck down this political tactic.

Agency enforcement decisions, to the extent they are committed to agency discretion, are not subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion. It follows that CREW is not entitled to have the court evaluate for abuse of discretion the individual considerations the controlling Commissioners gave in support of their vote not to initiate enforcement proceedings.

The Court made the right decision in blocking politically-calculated lawsuits in an attempt to circumvent the FEC process. The Executive branch and the Senate have the duty of appointing and confirming qualified individuals to the FEC, and their decisions should not face constant litigation from politically charged organizations.

Judge McFadden is commended for having the courage to stand up and expose these abuses of the system, which otherwise corrupts the process as set up by Congress with the clear goal of undermining the FEC. 

President Obama’s Most Extreme Nominee?!?

President Obama has nominated to the DC Circuit arguable his most extreme judicial nominee yet, Professor Cornelia Pillard.  A quick example of this is her views on social issues.  As legal expert Ed Whelan describes:

In a single sentence, Pillard contends that for “sex education conservatives” (i.e., supporters of abstinence-only sex education), “[1] females’ chastity is more important than males’; … [2] marriage is the only proper venue for sexual intimacy; [and] [3] men’s sex drive and sexual satisfaction is privileged while women’s is demonized [!] or ignored” (p. 953). But the second proposition contradicts or undercuts the other two. If abstinence-only advocates regard marriage as the “only proper venue for sexual intimacy,” it is difficult to see how they regard male chastity as less important than female chastity. In the free-for-all sexual culture in which we live, it is at most a very limited “privilege” for a man’s “sexual satisfaction” to be reserved to marriage. And if Pillard has any evidence that even remotely supports her assertion that women’s “sex drive and sexual satisfaction … [are] demonized” by abstinence-only curricula, I missed it.

You don’t have to take the word of a legal expert like Whelan, the entire Supreme Court including its most liberal Justices have rejected Pillard’s views. 

[In the] case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC. Among other things, Pillard (according to her prepared text) said that the case “strikes [her] as a strong case for the employee” and that “the big news will be if the Court decides it for the Church.” She labeled the Lutheran Church’s position “a substantial threat to the American rule of law.”

As it turned out, of course, on the fundamental question of religious liberty at stake in that case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the church entity. So that’s further confirmation that Pillard is well to the left of all nine justices.

What makes her nomination even more troubling is there no need.  The DC Circuit does notneed additional judges. 

The thing is, virtually everyone agrees that the D.C. Circuit — with the lowest number of appeals filed annually — does not need more judges because it is already significantly under-worked. According to legal expert Ed Whelan, the D.C. Circuit’s total pending appeals dropped around 10% since 2005, falling from 1,463 to 1,315from September 2005 to September 2012, while pending appeals per active judge increased by only one case. The Circuit’s judges, including the contributions of senior judges, now have around two-thirds the workload of their colleagues in 1995-96.

Senate Democrats once agreed. In 2006, every Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee member, including Sen. Schumer and then-Sen. Joe Biden, wrote a letter opposing the nomination of Peter Keisler because the court was underworked.

Ms. Pillard is a liberal extremist nominee to placate the President’s far left base for a position that is not needed. 

 

Is DC Circuit Nominee Nina Pillard Obama's Newest Attack on the 1st Amendment?

Today there is a hearing for Nina Pillard to the second most powerful court in the land, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.  There are issues whether her nomination is necessary as President Obama nominated three people to the DC Circuit, a court that does not have the case load of other circuits and for years has not had a full complement of members under both Republican and Democrat Presidents. 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy(D-VT) seems to be rushing this nomination.  There has not even been time to review all Ms. Pillard’s documents.  Putting all that aside, there are still serious questions about Ms. Pillard. 

One of those is the issue of free speech.  Regardless of how one feels on the issues of life, Ms. Pillard’s positions on the issue are extremely troubling. 

·         Ms. Pillard believes that abstinence education is “Unconstitutional.”  In Our Other Reproductive Choices:  Equality in Sex Education, Contraceptive Access, and Work-Family Policy, 56 Emory L.J. 941, 948 (2007) she wrote: “The abstinence-only approach is permeated with stereotyped messages and sex-based double standards about acceptable male and female sexual behavior and appropriate social roles. Public school teaching of gender stereotypes violates the constitutional bar against sex stereotyping and is vulnerable to equal protection challenge.”

·         Ms. Pillard likens Pro-Life groups to the Ku Klux Klan.  “Congress originally enacted [the] Ku Klux Klan [Act to bar] … violence that terrorized black people and Reconstruction supporters and impeded local officials from protecting them.  …  The act applies … also to private groups like the Klan or Operation Rescue ….”[16]  Pillard continued:  “Additionally, in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the Supreme Court upheld state-law buffer zones and other restrictions around abortion clinics against free speech challenges.  While relief from antiabortion protestors under RICO initially seemed promising, the Court held in Scheidler v. NOW that abortion protesters’ interference with or shutting down of clinics did not amount to the RICO predicate act of ‘extortion,’ such that RICO did not apply.”

As a judge Ms. Pillard needs to respect the political views of those she disagrees with.  However, her writings call into question her ability to do that. 

The Obama Administration has long had a war on free speech.  The Senate needs to ask difficult questions of Ms. Pillard to ensure that she is not the Administration’s latest effort to stop the speech of those that they disagree with.  (H/T to the Judicial Action Group for the research above.)

Obomination: The Audacity of Renominating a Failed Nominee

Caitlin Halligan has been nominated by President Obama for the D.C. Circuit.  Sound familiar?  It should, because Obama already did it in 2010.  That nomination failed to get through the Senate in 2011, but that doesn’t seem to stop Obama in 2013.  The 44^th President is thumbing his nose at the many Senators who expressed legitimate concerns about this nominee. 

The Republican National Lawyers Association sent the Senate a formal letter of opposition to Caitlin Halligan when she nominated the first time.  The second time around, the nomination is still problematic and these concerns remain. 

According to CNN, here’s why she was opposed the first time:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had said Halligan met the "extraordinary circumstances" standard for a filibuster under a 2005 Senate agreement that allowed filibusters of judicial nominees only in extreme cases. McConnell complained about Halligan's legal positions on gun rights, detainee rights, and immigration and said she would bring an activist agenda to the court.

In 2011, Senator Chuck Grassley said of Halligan, “Based on her record, I simply do not believe she will be able to put aside her long record of liberal advocacy and be a fair and impartial jurist.”

Halligan’s nomination was a circumstance that many considered “extraordinary.”  Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona and Olympia Snowe of Maine – were members of the “Gang of 14” that agreed back in 2005 that they would not support any filibuster except under “extraordinary circumstances.”  They all voted no on Halligan.

High scrutiny is appropriate for a nomination to the D.C. Circuit, which is often a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court.  To try to ram through a nominee which failed the test of Senate scrutiny, shows the audacity of the 44^th President.  And that’s an Obomination.

* * *

Read more Obominations.