Achange in control of Congress cuts in many directions, and the federal courts are one of them. Hence, we presume, the withdrawal of William G. Myers as a nominee for a spot on the bench of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 William Myers |
You could understand if exhaustion of patience alone were responsible. But there was more to it: Myers was just one of four nominees, all proposed for the bench on courts of appeals, who today withdrew their names. There was no indication at least publicly that the Bush Administration asked them to drop out (and one had indiced his intent last month). It seems more like a commonly-accepted understanding that these nominations were not destined to fly.
It’s been a long time coming for a nomination that originally dates back to 2003 (renewed since then), and has been the focus of some intense controversy.
Although the 9th Circuit judges cover most of the west and Myers is a native of Wyoming, the story has centered around Idaho, since the retiring judge Myers would have replaced – Thomas Nelson – has been an Idahoan. (All of which in turn has generated its own controversy with California, but that’s another matter.) Myers is a former Interior Department solicitor, now a partner at Holland & Hart.
The two senators from Idaho, Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, who have backed him solidly from the start, said today that he is “a well-qualified legal talent who would have served America with distinction on the federal bench.” He has gotten widespread Republican support, but not that exclusively. Former Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus went on record in support of him, saying he has “the necessary personal integrity, judicial temperament, and legal experience” and “ability to act fairly on matters of law that will come before him on the court.”
Critics have blasted mainly, not exclusively, on environmental grounds. One report argued, “Myers has exhibited open hostility to EPA standards, the Endangered Species Act, and has publicly disagreed with the rights expressed in the Supreme Court Cases Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. He has also stated his agreement with the Supreme Court Case Bowers v Hardwicke, even though that decision had recently been reversed in Lawrence v. Texas. Myers private practice experience has primarily been as a lobbyist for mining interests and cattle ranchers. He has very limited actual litigation experience, has never argued a case in front of a jury and has never been a judge.”
Just missed conformation before – he has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee – but his chances now are too slight to be realistic. The changes an election can make.
Share on Facebook
