The Washington Post: What The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You About Paul Watford

[David Powers]

 

What The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You About Paul Watford

Why the media, liberal commentators, and Democrats are quick to use Paul Watford's race to ice-out criticisms.

by David J. Stewart

 

 

From the beginning of Paul Watford's nomination to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, the mainstream media and liberal Twitter warriors have trumpeted Watford like never before. Most conservatives began the opposition to Watford with the idea that we cannot take up a nomination from a term-limited, lame-duck administration and that any consideration will have to wait until after the election. While Watford basked in the glow of the left-leaning media shine and conservatives focused on the election, no one has really understood why Paul Watford may not be the best choice to sit on the highest court in our land.

 

What's ironic about the hoopla regarding one of my Senate colleague's comments about affirmative action is that instead of defending affirmative action, the liberal peanut gallery immediately rushed to use Paul Watford's race as a defense mechanism. To immediately jump to conclusions, pin someone as racist and use race as a shield is a rather lazy way to defend a candidate at least and a dangerous and divisive political strategy at most. Far be it from me to defend liberal judicial activism, either, but I think that kind of divisiveness does no good for proponents of affirmative action or any other legal theory. Perhaps the real reason liberal commentators, political hacks, and the new administration would rely on racial division to boost Paul Watford is to muddy the waters and prevent Americans from learning about the activist Judge's true record.

 

While on paper Judge Watford seems to be a qualified candidate, weaving in and out of private practice and public service, a peak behind the veneer of his career reveal a man hellbent on using the judicial system to activate extremist ideals. Take the year 2010, for example. Arizonians, motivated by the sensible idea of containing an overwhelming crisis at its Southern border, passed a law that would require cities and police departments to work with federal law enforcement in carrying out immigration laws already on the books. A legal activist and college creature of the west coast bay area and streets of LA, parachuted into Arizona to use his legal experience to fight the law. Representing the notoriously liberal ACLU, an organization that literally exists to use the judicial system to advance extremist liberal ideas, he argued before the same court bench of which he seeks a seat today, that states have no say in protecting their borders or stemming the tide of illegal immigration invasions of their cities and towns. Using the same kind of race-baiting and racial defense mechanisms we're seeing today, Judge Watford repeatedly used the idea of 'racial profiling' to advance his arguments. Before that, Watford involved himself in another ACLU-backed case defending cop-killing murderous savages from being subject to death penalty laws.

 

After using his legal activism to garner the attention of another liberal legal activist, Barack Obama, now with presidential appointment powers, Paul Watford cashed in his chips, securing a spot on the Ninth Circuit Court. This court has typically been a haven for liberal activist judges in the past, and this time it was no different. Judge Watford used his new seat on the court bench to rule against another Arizona law that would've allowed law enforcement to keep apprehended illegal immigrants from fleeing responsibility through bail. Instead, Judge Watford argued, they should be allowed re-entry into our communities. Now, once again, Judge Watford is cashing in his chips.

 

Democrat presidents have made clear that if you use a law degree to fight for liberal causes in court, you can find a permanent job with the cushion taxpayer-funded salaries and pensions on the Supreme Court, with the stroke of a pin. Fortunately for the American people, checks and balances come into play, with the job of the United States Senate to question nominations. Conservatives, and Americans in general, will not allow an extremist to glide-path to the Supreme Court. It is our job to ask the important questions, yes, even about affirmative actions, whether the candidate is a minority or not.

 

David J. Stewart is a United States Senator, representing the state of Pennsylvania. Senator Stewart is the chairman of the Senate Freedom Caucus.

[Tuna]

Confirm Watford: A Respectful Rebuttal to David J. Stewart

By Doug Murphy

Q1, 2017

 

The Vice Presidency is a unique thing. 

 

Safe to say, my daily routine has changed. My days are mostly consumed by attending briefings, offering my advice to the President, and filling the First Pet's bowl with chow when the need arises. Earlier this week over breakfast, I read the op-ed by Senator David J. Stewart titled "What The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You About Paul Watford."

 

Having reviewed my former colleague's remarks, I wish to offer the following thoughts and rebuttal as I write while seated in my living room with a pint of Spotted Cow to round out my evening.

 

As a former member of the prestigious legislative body, I can say without hesitation that it is the right and responsibility of every member of the United States Senate to duly consider and make their honest appraisal of the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees. Even if colleagues may reach different conclusions, all we can ask is that they reach their opinions in a responsible and consistent manner.

 

Our courts are to be bastions of wise judgment, sound reasoning, and firm precedent. But these values are not exclusive to the judicial branch. Especially so, they must be practiced by the U.S. Senate when considering appointments to our highest court.

 

With respect to my friend Senator Stewart, his op-ed fails to do so.

 

Senator Stewart's criticisms of Paul Watford's nomination to the United States Supreme Court can be boiled down to three categories: affirmative action, cop-killers, and border security.

 

Let us start with the first of these, the question of affirmative action.

 

In his op-ed, Senator Stewart accuses his colleagues across the aisle of calling him and other Republicans racist for opposing affirmative action. While I personally cannot speak to any personal interactions he has had with my fellow Democrats in the Senate, it also does not take an Einstein-level mind to grasp that Senator Stewart is being disinegenous with his assertion that Democrats are calling his colleagues racist simply for being at odds over affirmative action.

 

As Vice President of the United States and a proud progressive Democrat, I unreservedly support affirmative action. But while I believe opponents of affirmative action unintentionally risk undoing years of progress and racial reconciliation, bad policy does not inherently make one a racist or bigot. Any colleague of mine who accuses a fellow American of being a racist simply on the basis of disagreeing about affirmative action needs to unplug from the Internet and interact with people beyond their cutesy social bubble. However, the truth is no one on my side of the aisle in the Senate or the White House has publicly called Republicans racist for disagreeing with Paul Watford on affirmative action.

 

It is also equally disingenuous of Senator Stewart and some of his colleagues to assert affirmative action is a historically left-wing idea. It was President Richard Nixon who was primarily responsible for establishing affirmative action throughout the federal government with Executive Order 11478. Archconservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was able to capitalize on his potential thanks in part to affirmative action. Finally, the two most recent Republican Secretaries of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, are both supporters of promoting equality in employment opportunities and the like. 

 

All this is to say that good people can disagree with one another on these issues and still recognize their immense value to the public's interest. George W. Bush still nominated Powell and Rice to serve as our nation's top diplomat, despite his opposition to affirmative action. Republicans were tripping over themselves in 1996 to try and convince Powell to run as their standard bearer in the presidential election. And Richard Nixon, for all of his enormous errors and sins, still saw the worth of ideas outside right-wing orthodoxy. 

 

Senator Stewart also cites Watford's previous work on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union opposing the controversial Arizona S.B. 1070 on the grounds of racial discrimination. Because by his logic, God forbid we judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. 

 

The fact of the matter is Senator Stewart's attack rests on a thinly veiled insinuation that securing the border is impossible without assuming criminal intent based solely on race or ethnicity. Not only does this demean Hispanic Americans, but Senator Stewart insults the intelligence and character of his own fellow Republicans who are rightly concerned about border security and harbor no racist attitudes or aims against their fellow citizens. 

 

Furthermore, even Republican legal scholars agree there is a worthwhile debate to be had about the constitutionality of Arizona S.B. 1070.  When Arizona v. United States was brought before the Supreme Court in 2012, two of the five Republican-appointed justices ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of the Arizona law were unconstitutional. This nuanced appraisal produced a 5-3 ruling.

 

Senator Stewart continued onward to present Watford as a defender of "cop-killing murderous savages."

 

Setting aside the fact that is beneath Senator Stewart to shortchange be shortchanging his own intelligence and the reading audience of The Washington Post with vicious ad hominem attacks like this, this accusation completely misrepresents Watford's amicus brief. The 2007 filing by Watford was on behalf of physicians in Kentucky alarmed with the lack of proper supervision and standards for lethal injections. In no briefing did Watford ever challenge the guilty verdict or need for the harshest just punishment possible for cop-killers. His amicus brief on behalf of the Bluegrass doctors rested solely on concerns of poor protocol. Even the National Review has admitted this to be fact.

 

Let us do a thought experiment for a moment. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, a young rising attorney in the Ford Administration pushed the new President to veto the Freedom of Information Act. Despite the lingering aftermath of Richard Nixon's abuses and the rising public distrust of their government, this newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel urged Gerald Ford to reject FOIA because it would weaken the executive branch. That man's name was Antonin Scalia.

 

While I and many other Democrats strongly disagree with Scalia's opinion, it is undeniable that his concerns were rooted in legitimate, albeit subjectively flawed, reasoning. And even though most Americans would agree with my colleagues and I that need for an honest and transparent government outweighed the concerns Scalia raised about the executive branch's authority, no one then or today can deny that differing ideas were not inherently illegitimate or disqualifying. Scalia's time in the Ford Administration did not stop Senate from unanimously confirming him 98-0. And neither Paul Watford's service with the ACLU to oppose a thorny and controversial state law deny him his due confirmation.

 

That ultimately leads to the final two questions facing Senate Republicans. Do you still believe in the Supreme Court as an institution free of political litmus tests and favoritism? And does your word as a public servant matter? 

 

If Senate Republicans were to reject Watford's nomination, it would tear down the constitutional ramparts essential for an independent and functioning judiciary branch. Prospective Supreme Court candidates in the future would no longer rely on sound judgment but rather on political pandering and theatrics to advance their careers. A sacred body of legal giants would instead be reduced to a coterie of political cronies, nine hacky stooges with little capacity for anything beyond returning favors and cashing government checks.

 

What's more, it would destroy public faith and trust in the Republican Party. And as much as it pains this lifelong Democrat from Wisconsin to admit (and at this point of the night it may be the beer talking), we need a strong and contributive Republican Party. 

 

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the current Republican Senate Minority Leader Cliff Fleming declared, "Senate Republicans have said repeatedly that we want to give the American people a say" in regard to who picks the next Supreme Court justice.

 

Well, the American people have spoken. After more than a year of campaigning and intensive scrutiny of Paul Watford's record, voters elected Xiomara de la Cruz to the presidency and flipped the Senate to the Democrats. My colleagues and I respected the Senator Fleming's demands and left it to the voters to decide. And President de la Cruz honored the trust of the electorate by carrying on the Watford nomination.

 

Now, the ball is in the Republican Party's court. Does their word mean anything? Or does only one party in Washington still have ears to hear and listen to the will of the American people? And is there still a will and desire in both parties for a wise and impartial Supreme Court? We will have to wait and see.