The Casey-Toomey Porter Deal Hits The News

A scant 2 full weeks after I blogged on it, the P-G is reporting on the deal:

Pennsylvania progressives are looking to scuttle an apparent backroom deal on judicial nominations that the state's two senators are negotiating.

The arrangement would have Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., sign off on Pittsburgh lawyer David J. Porter's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In exchange, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., would defer to Mr. Casey on at least three of Pennsylvania's other eight judicial vacancies, according to opponents of the deal.

By the way, all those petitions?

33,000 people signed them.

Why would they?  Perhaps here's the reason:

In a post on its website, Keystone Progress characterized Mr. Porter as an extreme conservative who opposes abortion rights, gay marriage and restrictions on gun ownership. It notes that Mr. Porter leads the Lawyers Chapter of the Pittsburgh Federalist Society, that he opposed the 2009 nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that he wrote a Post-Gazette opinion piece asserting that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and that he is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

The writer of the P-G piece, Tracie Mauriello, gets another side of the story - the local attorneys who believe Porter's not the ideologue that all those 33,000 petition signers believe him to be.  Take a look:

"He's a brilliant lawyer and he's fair-minded," said attorney Tina O. Miller, who has known Mr. Porter for several years. "I have never found David to be overly political. Whether it's as a lawyer advocating for his client or in bar association and community activities, he has always been willing to listen to everyone's viewpoint and give consideration to everyone's viewpoint and to be fair. "Those are exactly the qualities I would want in a judge."

Mary Austin, a health care attorney in Pittsburgh who considers herself a liberal, said she has never seen ideology influence Mr. Porter's legal work in the decade she has known him.

"I really don't know [his politics]. We've never discussed it," she said. What she does know is, "David is a very good lawyer and has shown very good sense."

That may well be the case.  It may well be the case that he's a brilliant lawyer and that whatever his politics, the people of Pennsylvania should set aside them aside and simply judge him by the quality of his legal work.

Yea, tell that to Debo Adegbile.

Toomey, Casey And Porter (A Petition Update)

Hey, remember this?

That was a blog post where I ask my Senator, Senator Bob Casey, what he's thinking making a deal with my other Senator, Senator Pat Toomey, to get David J. Porter a judgeship.  The thing is, while I am sure David Porter's a fine attorney, his politics lean heavily right ward.  That in itself should not disqualify him for a judgeship, the fact that a Democratic senator is looking to get him onto the bench is somewhat troubling.

Huffingtonpost wrote about it a few days ago (and, uh, a few days after I wrote about it - just sayin').

Well a few petitions have been set up (here, here and here) and guess what?

From Huffingtonpost:

Progressives in Pennsylvania have been working for weeks to derail an apparent deal between their U.S. senators to submit a conservative Republican judicial nominee to the White House -- and it looks like they're gaining momentum.

More than 20,000 people have signed a petition urging Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) not to recommend corporate lawyer David J. Porter to President Barack Obama for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. A coalition of state lawyers, advocates and community members collected the signatures and plans to deliver them to Casey on Monday, according to the Pennsylvania Coalition for Constitutional Values.

So what, again, is the problem:

"The coalition isn't just opposing Porter because he's a right-winger," said Michael Morrill of Keystone Progress, a statewide progressive advocacy group. "He is a radical right-wing activist and leader in anti-choice, anti-marriage equality, anti-environmental movements in Pennsylvania who is so far out of the mainstream that he can't adequately represent everyday Pennsylvanians."

And Rick Bloomingdale, the president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO had some issues as well:

Bloomingdale said he plans to personally talk to Casey about Porter next Monday when the senator is in Pittsburgh for an annual AFL-CIO convention. He said he understands that, in a state with a senator in each party, there are deals that have to be made on judicial nominees. But it's "troubling" to him that Toomey is pushing a nominee like Porter after holding up some of Casey's labor-friendly nominees in the Senate.

"So if he's going to play the ideological game, we certainly ask Sen. Casey to say [Porter] is too extreme for Pennsylvania," said Bloomingdale. "He's not going to be impartial on the bench."

Toomey blocked some of Casey's nominees and STILL Casey makes this sort of deal?

That is troubling.

Senator Casey needs has to ask himself this question:  If the GOP controlled the Senate and White House would Senator Toomey make a similar deal for a union friendly judicial nominee in exchange for three Porters?

I would think not.  I would think that if that were the case, the GOP would demand "bipartisanship" and then quietly redefine "bipartisanship" into "do what I tell you and we'll call that bipartisan."

Senator, if this is a deal as described above we need to know the details.  Your constituents and more importantly the people who voted for you have a right to know what you're getting in exchange for David J. Porter.

UPDATE: Thinkprogress is reporting this now.

Senator Casey, What ARE You Thinking?

Received this from Keystone Progress last night:

Keystone Progress has learned that a backroom deal by Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey may result in President Obama appointing a Tea Party lawyer to serve as judge on the Western Pennsylvania District Court in Pittsburgh.

The nomination of David J. Porter is working its way to the White House as part of a deal between Pennsylvania’s two United States Senators. Senators Casey and Toomey are expected to jointly present Porter to President Obama any day now as part of a deal that will allow Casey to nominate people for 3 other vacancies.

Senator Casey, is this true?  But before we go any farther, who's David J Porter?

Well, he's a shareholder at Buchanan, Ingersoll and Rooney.  No big deal there, but he's also a trustee of the (let's be honest - right wing) Grove City College and a contributor to college's Center for Vision and Values.

Let's all take a moment to remember what the center is all about (from their own webpage):

Herein lies the difference between our approach to the pursuit of personal, political, economic, and religious freedom and the reigning viewpoint in higher education. We believe that God is sovereign. We believe that man is made in His image. We believe the Bible is indispensable to understanding the truth about our relationship to God, to our world, and to each other. These core beliefs ground human dignity and freedom in God’s revealed truth, a truth that animates our mission as we affirm the eternal relevance of Jesus’ challenge in John’s gospel, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

That's John 8:32, by the way.

Then there's the membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association and the Pittsburgh chapter of the rightwing Federalist Society.

None of which would actually disqualify him to a judgeship but we're not talking about that.  We're talking about the deal supposedly set by the Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, to get this guy on the bench.

By the way, Porter was then-Senator Rick Santorum's attorney when lil Ricky was facing all that trouble with his residency.  From Scaife's Trib:

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum lives with his family at a Virginia house when Congress is in session, but state and federal laws allow him to keep his official voting residence in Pennsylvania, his lawyer wrote in a letter to Allegheny County.

Wasn't Santorum running for office then? And wasn't his opponent a guy named BOB CASEY?

I realize there's a tradition in legal circles not to criticize an attorney for who his/her client is.  Everyone's entitled to a vigorous defense.

But didn't both Senators Casey and Toomey vote against Debo Adegbile precisely because they didn't like his client (the Mumia Abu-Jamal)?

So my questions for Senator Casey:

• Who are your three candidates for those 3 vacancies?
• What happens if, when you propose any or all of them, the other republicans in the Senate filibuster them?
• Why would you make such a deal anyway?

Feel free to email me with anything on this.

If you feel strongly about this, feel free to sign the petition.

Senator Toomey Defends His (Shameful) Vote

First, his video:


Transcript:

Today was a good day for Pennsylvania and for the United States and for anybody who cares about our criminal justice system and the integrity of that system.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was a cold blooded murderer who shot and killed Danny Faulkner when Danny Faulkner lie helpless, wounded, and unarmed on his back on a street in Philadelphia.

What later happened was sickening. A campaign to turn Mumia Abu-Jamal somehow into a victim, to make him a celebrity and to use him to run a political campaign that would attack America, condemn America as a racist society and indict our criminal justice system.

It made a mockery of what this country stands for and our justice system and the fact that Debo Adegbile would participate in this campaign through his supervision of the LDF attorneys who were actively participating in it, in my view, disqualified him from such an important post as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Today a majority of my senate colleagues agreed with me, including seven Democrats and all the Republicans. I appreciate the bipartisan support and the support of the FOP, across Pennsylvania especially, the Philadelphia FOP. I appreciate the support of Seth Williams, the District Attorney of Philadelphia.

And I am very pleased with the outcome of this vote.

Now, let's take a look at the facts.  The Washington Post has a good summary:

It's the cop-killing that won't go away.

More than 30 years have passed since the Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. But the case remains an internationally-known political lightning rod. And, this week, lightning is striking in D.C.

The latest incarnation of the Abu-Jamal trial comes as it threatens to derail the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile, President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. He previously worked as legal counsel to the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, which helped Abu-Jamal get his death sentenced overturned and has represented him at various points since.

So it wasn't about guilt or innocence of Abu-Jamal, was it?  It was about his death sentence and whether the decision to impose it was reached fairly.  Turns out it wasn't.

But before we go on, let's take a look at the Post's very next paragraph:

While Adegbile's involvement with the Abu-Jamal case was limited -- and came well after the death sentence was tossed -- Faulkner's widow, the Fraternal Order of Police, and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have mounted a crusade to block the nomination. And recent development suggest they might prevail.

And they did, of course.  Despite the fact that Adegbile's involvement was limited and came well after the death sentence was tossed.

Back to the case.  This is from the LDF:

Mr. Abu-Jamal is on death row in Pennsylvania for the 1981 murder of a police officer in Philadelphia. His death sentence was vacated in 2001 after the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found constitutional error in the jury instructions and verdict form used in his 1982 penalty phase. That decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2008 but then sent back to the Third Circuit by the United States Supreme Court in 2010 for further review.

By the way, the Judge who issued that ruling, William Yohn, was appointed by George H. W. Bush (a Republican President of the United States).  The (H. W.) Bush-appointed Yohn was the one who tossed the death sentence and sent it to the Third Circuit for review.

The three judge panel of the Third Circuit that affirmed the Yohn's judgement included Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica (who wrote the opinion) and Judge Robert Cowen, who were both appointed by Ronald Wilson Reagan (another Republican President of the United States).

That same (mostly Reagan-appointed) three judge panel reaffirmed its earlier decision in 2011.  It is about this time is when the Adegbile supervised LDF got involved in this case:

On January 28, 2011, Mumia Abu-Jamal retained the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) to represent him in the ongoing appeal of his capital murder conviction and death sentence. LDF will serve as co-counsel in the case with Judy Ritter, Esq., of Widener Law School in Wilmington, Delaware, who has represented Mr. Abu-Jamal since 2003.

So what was Adegbile's sin according to Senator Toomey?  Defending (or whatever attorneys call it) the 2008 decision by a mostly Republican-appointed panel of judges that this mostly Republican appointed panel then reaffirmed a few months later.  It was about protecting the constitutional rights of someone found guilty of murder.

Even those found guilty of murder have constitutional rights, you know.

But punishing the attorneys who defend that idea is "protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system" to Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.  You're wrong, Senator.  This was not a good day for those who believe in the criminal justice system.  Shame on you.

And we can not forget the other Pennsylvania Senator, Bob Casey (a Democrat), who also voted against his party and against his President in voting against Debo Adegbile's confirmation. 

Good going, Senator.  When you're on the same side as Pat Toomey, you're almost always on the wrong side of an issue.  Without a doubt.  Shame on you, too.

Thank you for standing up for all Americans, Senator Casey!

 

Casey Statement on Same-Sex Marriage

 

Washington, DC- Today U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement on same-sex marriage:

“When the Respect for Marriage Act (the legislation that repeals the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]) was first introduced and debated in the Senate in 2011, I began to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage much more intensely than I had before. As a candidate for the Senate in 2006 and 2012, and as a Senator, I have supported civil unions. I also supported strongly the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), was a leading co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and had stated publicly that I opposed efforts to enact constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage. In the six years I have been in the Senate, there have not been any floor votes to repeal DOMA or to legalize same-sex marriage. Both questions have now been argued before the Supreme Court and are being debated across our country. After much deliberation and after reviewing the legal, public policy, and civil rights questions presented, I support marriage equality for same-sex couples and believe that DOMA should be repealed.

As part of my consideration of these issues, I read letters written to me by LGBT Pennsylvanians and their families. These letters included deeply personal statements from people across our Commonwealth and the questions they posed challenged me directly. These stories had a substantial impact on my position on this issue. If two people of the same sex fall in love and want to marry, why would our government stand in their way? At a time when many Americans lament a lack of commitment in our society between married men and women, why would we want less commitment and fewer strong marriages? If two people of the same sex want to raise children, why would our government prevent them from doing so, especially when so many children have only one parent, or none at all? A letter I received from a woman in Southeastern Pennsylvania was particularly compelling:

‘My partner and I are both college educated. I am a stay-at-home mom and part-time kindergarten assistant teacher. I left a full-time position…when my partner gave birth to our twins to be a stay-at-home mom. We went through the process of second parent adoption and are both legal parents to our kids. My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for 18 years. We attend church every Sunday and we own a house, cars, and are truly blessed by our [two children]. As I do a rough calculation and add up the additional money we have paid in taxes compared to a financially similar heterosexual married couple over the last ten years, that amount approaches $100,000! $100,000 dollars would go a long way towards future retirement or in the college education of my kids. More important than the financial inequality to me is the message I send to my kids. My kids have two proud and loving parents who are honest [and] work hard. I want my kids to know they are equal and our family is equal . . . I just want my family to be treated equally and with respect by my state and federal government.’

As a Senator and as a citizen, I can no longer in good conscience take a position that denies her and her family the full measure of equality and respect.

I understand that many Americans of good will have strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I believe elected public officials have an abiding obligation to refrain from demonizing and dividing people for partisan or political gain. Rather, Democrats and Republicans should come together and find areas of agreement to do what’s best for the country, including lesbian and gay Americans.”

Now it's the Supreme's turn: