The Scary Radical Republicans Are Keeping Off the D.C. Circuit

Earlier this week, the Republican minority in the Senate blocked the nomination of Nina Pillard. The stated reasons included her participation in the litigation of some cases that ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court. And, in fairness, her positions were so radical that they were ultimately adopted by that well-known Trotskyite Chief Justice Comrade William Rehnquist:

It’s hard to imagine evidence of “radicalism” being much more feeble. You don’t exactly have to be Catharine MacKinnon to believe that states denying women the same educational opportunities as men violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Indeed, Pillard’s position won at the Supreme Court 7-1. Similarly, arguing that the FMLA—which passed the Senate 71-27—was applicable against state employers is not exactly revolutionary. The Supreme Court agreed in a 6-3 opinion authored by noted left-wing fanatic William Rehnquist (who also voted with the majority in the VMI case.)

The evidence that Pillard is a radical, in other words, is that she worked to advance views about women’s constitutional rights that have won the support of one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices of the last century. To call this argument “self-refuting” is putting it mildly. And Pillard is considered the most liberal of the D.C. Circuit nominees being filibustered.

Obama is not nominating judges who are the left-wing equivalents of Janice Rogers Brown, and Republicans are still rejecting in principle his right to make any further nominations to the D.C. Circuit. It’s time to blow up the filibuster.

…Amanda has much more on the dangerous subversive Nina Pillard.