Townhall.com, Ken Blackwell, December 12, 2008
Reagan Coalition Must Unite
The Reagan Coalition has been key to Republican victories for a generation. And although the issue of judges and the Supreme Court has been thought of as an issue for social conservatives, recent developments should now make it a top priority for the other major GOP constituencies. If effectively communicated, this issue may help fuel a Republican resurgence. ... Read More...

Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2008
Obama's Judges and the Senate
Bipartisan hope springs eternal, even among Washington lawyers. That was the message at the Federalist Society's annual convention last week. After years of obstruction by Senate Democrats, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered President-elect Obama a roadmap for ending the political war over judicial nominations. What Mr. Obama does in his early days in office will reveal a lot about the next four years....
Read More...

CNSNews.com, November 24, 2008
Judicial Nominees under Obama Must Keep 'Oath' to Execute the Law, McConnell Says
At the Federalist meeting, Wendy Long, chief counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, told CNSNews.com that the question of possible nominees to the Supreme Court unfortunately did not figure prominently in the 2008 campaign.

However, polls showed that a substantial majority of the Americans do not share Obama's view that judges should align themselves with politically correct interests or causes, Long said.

Senators who must go on record as supporting or opposing a particular nomination could be subject to pressure from constituents who favor judicial restraint, she said.
Read More...

Jennifer Mesko, Citizen Link, November 19, 2008
Scalia Warns Judges against Relying on Foreign Law: He says the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.
"We must cry 'foul' whenever the court dabbles in its fondness for the use of foreign law to justify its own excesses."

Wendy Long, legal counsel at the Judicial Confirmation Network, agreed.

"The whole idea of America was that we were going to be a nation built on the consent of the governed," she told Family News in Focus. "That means we're only governed by laws that a majority of us have assented to — that includes the Constitution." Read More...

Michael Falcone, The Caucus, The New York Times Political Blog, November 14, 2008
Conservatives Plan Offensive on Obama's Judicial Nominees
Wendy Long, counsel at the right-leaning Judicial Confirmation Network, distributed a memo this week to groups that plan to be active in the push in which she suggested that post-election polling showed that most Americans favor judicial restraint. And that's where the conservatives see an opening. The memo also provided a glimpse of the pressure the coalition intends to place on lawmakers.

"Careful scrutiny by the Senate is certainly called for, and all of us can help in that task," Ms. Long wrote. "We must ourselves scrutinize Obama nominees very carefully, and let the American people know what they are getting. We should view the votes on Obama judges as great opportunities. Far from preventing such votes, we should welcome them. Senators will be accountable for those votes in their home states." Read More...

Thursday, November 13, 2008
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION NETWORK MEMORANDUM

TO: JCN Members, Allies, and Interested Persons
FROM: Wendy Long, JCN Counsel

RE: Obama Judicial Nominations

Like many of you, we at JCN were disappointed that the federal courts received so little attention during the presidential campaign.

But here is the good news. We remain very bullish on the judges issue. Four essential points:

1. Post-election polling shows Americans care about judges.

The Polling Company did a nationwide survey of 600 actual voters in the election last week. It shows that 45% of actual voters said the kind of judges the next President would nominate to the Supreme Court and other federal courts was their "top issue" or "one of my top five issues" that they care about. Another 24% identified it as "one of my top ten issues." So 69% of actual voters care and will pay attention to messages about the courts. The question isn't whether judges are a voter's #1 issue (in most cases, that's always the economy), but whether judges are in their basket of top concerns.

2. Actual voters favor judicial restraint by more than 2-1.

The same survey shows that actual voters prefer the President to nominate Justices and judges who "believe that their role as judges is solely to evaluate whether a law or lower court ruling is in line with the Constitution" (67%) instead of jurists who "take into account their own viewpoints and experiences" (24%).

3. Barack Obama has made some serious mis-steps on judges.

Senator Obama stated during the campaign that his criteria for selecting judges would be: "somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage Mom . . . to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." This is not a mode of judicial decision-making; it is political judging, completely untethered from the law, based upon the passions and personal views of the judge himself. Candidate Obama has made an unprecedented departure from what past Presidents Democrat and Republican alike have said about the enterprise of judging and the kind of nominees they would seek.

The Obama model of judging is the exact opposite of the American model of impartial and dispassionate judging on which our Constitution is premised. And a majority of actual voters recognize this: 53% said judges should "apply the law the same to each person regardless of an individual's background or cultural or economic circumstances."

Actual voters do not share the Obama view that judges should "side with" politically correct interests or with anyone. Judges are supposed to be impartial and uphold the law, period.

4. Senators can be held accountable for votes on Obama nominees.

When Obama nominees come through the Senate for confirmation votes, we can work hard to make the nominees' records and the Senators' positions and votes on them known to the American people, enhancing transparency and accountability on judicial nominations.

Republicans have never stooped to the tactics the Democrats have used, like obstructing and filibustering nominees, refusing to vote on their merits, or making unfounded personal attacks and smears on their character and records.

We should never engage in the kind of behavior that Democrats have directed at honorable and highly qualified nominees. And we must respect the discretion inherent in the important task that the Constitution commits to the President of nominating federal judges.

But because candidate Obama announced a dramatic and unprecedented departure from the historic, commonly understood criteria for judicial nominees, he has shifted the burden of proof somewhat: it is now incumbent upon him and his administration, and the nominees themselves, to demonstrate to the American people that they will interpret the Constitution as it is written and not make it up as they go along, based on their own personal views.

Careful scrutiny by the Senate is certainly called for, and all of us can help in that task. We must ourselves scrutinize Obama nominees very carefully, and let the American people know what they are getting. We should view the votes on Obama judges as great opportunities. Far from preventing such votes, we should welcome them. Senators will be accountable for those votes in their home states.

All of us who have worked so successfully in the past as part of this judicial coalition should embrace this new opportunity to focus attention on an issue that has been inadequately covered in the public eye and that Americans nonetheless care deeply about: a limited judiciary, democratic self-government, and judicial restraint.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION NETWORK MEMORANDUM

To: JCN members and supporters
From: Wendy E. Long, Counsel

Subject: Last Night's Election Win in the State Supreme Courts

Anyone looking for a silver lining in this election cycle should consider the ringing endorsement for the principle of judicial restraint among the millions of voters who actually cast a ballot.

In Ohio, where a Democratic tide favored judges with activist tendencies, the restrained incumbent Justices O'Connor and Stratton won landslide victories.

In Louisiana, despite an extremely well funded trial lawyer effort, Judge Greg Guidry beat back Judge Jimmy Kuhn in a remarkable 59-41% win to flip Lousiana's supreme court in the direction of restraint.

In Texas all three Supreme Court incumbents were re-elected despite massive late expenditures by the trial bar.

In Alabama, where one of the nation's preeminent Supreme Court judges, Harold See, retired, it looks like Judge Greg Shaw will narrowly defeat trial attorney favorite Judge Deborah Paseur.

In Mississippi, restrained Justice Ann Lamar and restrained Judge Randy Pierce both won, while incumbent Jim Smith lost to the popular former prosecutor Jim Kitchens.

The worst news of the night was from Michigan. Chief Justice Cliff Taylor could not withstand a barrage of extremely dishonest last minute ads by the Democratic Party that earlier this year tried to take over the state through the much talked about Reform Michigan Government Now proposal. The 16-point Obama landslide helped Judge Diana Hathaway put the final nail in Taylor's bid for re-election.

Overall, it was a strong night for state courts, confirming what internal polling has long shown: Americans strongly prefer judges who practice judicial restraint and resist the temptation to rule based on "empathy" or other passions -- that is, to legislate from the bench. Last night's election results must not be misinterpreted as a mandate for judicial activism in our courts. The principles of constitutionally limited government have been a hallmark of our system since our Founding. These results prove that those principles, far from being abandoned, enjoy broad support among the American people.

Thank you for your ongoing efforts on behalf of judicial restraint and respect for the Constitution in our state and federal courts.

Monday, October 27, 2008
Statement by Wendy Long, Judicial Confirmation Network, on Obama 2001 Interview About Using Court to Redistribute Wealth
Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, today issued the following statement on the 2001 WBEZ Chicago radio interview ( available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck and here http://www.drudgereport.com) in which Barack Obama said that one of the "failures of the civil rights movement" was that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society":

"In this very revealing 2001 Chicago radio interview, Senator Obama lamented that he was 'not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change by the courts' -- but not because Obama didn't want to. Rather, he said that the Warren Court 'didn't break free from the essential constraints' in the Constitution -- 'at least as it's been interpreted' -- that do not allow such judicial activism on the part of the Court. But he said that he -- unlike the Warren Court -- could 'craft theoretical justifications' for 'legally . . . bringing about economic legal change through the courts."

"Presumably, an Obama administration would try to interpret the Constitution to advance those radical legal arguments -- and an Obama Supreme Court would presumably uphold them -- that would bring about 'economic legal change through the courts.'"

"To ice the cake, Obama said in the same interview that the Warren Court 'wasn't that radical' ... I think most Americans would certainly disagree with that view of a Court that drastically undermined democracy, expanded rights for criminals with no justification in the Constitution, and implemented the social mores of the 1960s as though they were part of the text of the Constitution."

Thursday, October 23, 2008
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION NETWORK LAUNCHES NEW SUPREME COURT AD IN OHIO AND PITTSBURGH
Washington, DC - The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) today extended its nationwide public education and membership campaign with a new $250,000 television ad buy in Ohio and Pennsylvania, including Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, and Pittsburgh as well as northern West Virginia. The ad will also be featured on the Drudge Report website. The campaign has now exceeded $1.3 million. Read More...

Updated: October 30, 2008
Media Highlights On JCN's New Ad: Just One Vote

Read More >>>