One of the many reasons the judiciary is full of post-constitutionalist Leftists is because the entire legal profession is saturated with them. It’s not just the judges; it’s the law schools, public defenders, law clerks, etc. Thus, it’s often those who work for a liberal judge or pro-criminal law firm that are nominated to be judges on the federal bench. The latest example is Paula Xinis who is slated to be confirmed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland unless 41 Republicans in the Senate block her nomination on Monday.
Xinis served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Maryland from 1998 to 2011. She was a law clerk for Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, the liberal lioness of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and according to Democrats at Xinis’s confirmation hearing last July, she was specifically recommended by Motz. She also served as a hearing officer for complaints against D.C. cops for years and her law firm represents the family of Freddie Gray in their persecution of the Baltimore City police. Her past statements clearly paint the picture of a liberal sympathetic to criminal defendants.
There is nothing wrong or unethical with any of this; in fact, her resume reads like a typical “impressive” legal career. Yet, this is exactly why the judiciary is irrevocably against the Constitution as written. The legal profession is by and large against the Constitution as adopted. For years, Republicans have failed to return the favor to Democrats who oppose conservative nominees and block left-wing nominees simply because they have “impressive credentials.” They have confirmed scores of liberal judges on the lower courts, even those nominated by GOP presidents, for years under this justification. The problem is those impressive credentials are usually in the field of public and criminal advocacy. I’ve yet to see a career criminal defender placed on the bench who upholds the Constitution instead of their bleeding heart social justice agenda.
What is particularly jarring is that she would preside over cases in Baltimore. As we’ve noted before, the state courts in Maryland have gone to unprecedented lengths to infringe upon the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of the cops involved in the Freddie Gray arrest. The prosecution, cheered on by Xinis’s law firm, is in the process of testing out “new legal theories,” which will ostensibly criminalize basic police work. There are enough judges in Maryland who are willing to change the Constitution in order to turn cops into criminals and criminals into saints. We certainly don’t need another anti-cop judge on the federal bench, especially if the state courts ultimately exonerate the cops and the DOJ files a civil rights lawsuit in federal court. The fact that they are voting on Xinis during National Police Week further adds insult to injury.
Besides, Obama has already appointed 265 federal district judges, almost all of them extreme liberals, remaking 40 percent of the trial court bench in the country. There is no reason a GOP Senate should nominate a single new judge. And remember, these “impressive” legal eagles that are easily confirmed to district judgeships go on to earn promotions to the appellate courts.
Finally, even aside from the problems with the judiciary itself, Republicans should be blocking all judicial nominees as leverage against Obama’s latest lawless and vile policy of forcing local schools to eradicate gender differences when it comes to bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.
If there is indeed a rationale for voting Republican this November, the existing members of the Senate certainly have not demonstrated one.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.