The Senate confirmed the first of Pres. Bush's beleagured judicial nominees on May 25, 2005. She had been a lightning rod of supercharged debate. It was a classic fire storm of special interests. How can one know- who is not caught up in partisan politics- what makes her good or bad? There were referrals to facts in past cases but by necessity they were brief and taken out of context of other facts.
Here are two discriptions of Judge Owen. One was pro and one was con. Let's examine the arguments.
Professor of Law, Linda Eads at Southern Methodist University described Judge Owen," She represents a part of Texas culture that is basically a frontier mentality. You don't cry about your hardships, you just keep moving forward. It's a very empowering philosophy..."
Well that sounds reasonable.
Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York said, " Someone (Owen) will be put on the bench who puts the rights of employers over employees, who takes no consideration of environmental rights, women's rights or just average people".
Serious allegations that smack of a poor loser. Schumer should remember that part of his constituency are employers who also have basic rights. With respect to predicting that Judge Owen will take no consideration of women's rights is proven untrue by Owen's very existence. I have no knowledge of Judge Owen's record of environmental cases. "Average people" losing out? Judge Owen came from a modest background and worked her way up. She can relate to real people. Of course "average people" in Texas are different from" average people" in Manhattan. The care and feeding of the average New Yorker requires more active redistribution of wealth which if reined in would explain why Schumer feels threatened.
No comments:
Post a Comment