Letter to the Editor:
She admits that “perception of a judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal is, of course, horribly unfair to Matheson, who seems more than qualified for the position.” But Malkin then lays “full blame” on the White House for underestimating how irresponsible critics would create this “horribly unfair” perception.
“The Obama Way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe” (Mar. 7) spreads baseless rumors and blames victims of a smear. Michelle Malkin details vicious, unfounded suggestions that Scott Matheson’s announced appellate court nomination was somehow tied to a potential health care vote by his brother, Utah Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson.
Her column hinges on the claim that “for nearly a year,” while this judgeship was vacant, “there was no action.” But, every judicial nominee selection triggers months of FBI and American Bar Association vetting before a public announcement.
Utah Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett debunked this conspiratorial fantasy and The Salt Lake Tribune “laughed the … suggestion off the table.”
Paul Cassell, a very conservative former U.S. District Judge appointed by President George W. Bush wrote: “Given that the ABA was evaluating Scott in roughly January, one would expect an announcement roughly six weeks later – exactly as happened here.” He concluded: "Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, the facts show that the Scott Matheson nomination has nothing to with the health care debate. ... Scott Matheson is precisely the kind of restrained, consensus choice that conservatives should join Senator Hatch in applauding.”
[Since 2001 I have headed the environmental community's Judging the Environment project which focuses on federal judicial nominations.]
Judging the Environment