Judicial Nominee Ammo
Democrats are drawing a line in the sand over the handful of wingnuts that President Bush re-nominated as lifetime judicial appointments and warning Republicans against using the "nuclear option" (via the Seattle P-I):

In an unusual event staged on the steps of the Capitol, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada delivered a message to Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and the GOP: If they change the rules and ban the use of filibusters on judicial nominations, Democrats will use their power to make even "routine matters" difficult for Republicans. Reid, who appeared with about 35 of his party colleagues, said President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress "have grown drunk with power" and want to give Bush unchecked authority to "hand out lifetime jobs to judges whose rulings last forever." Invoking the Founding Fathers, Reid said the filibuster rule is intended to balance power and give rights to the minority party.

So who are these controversial nominees? I found some interesting dirt on three of the nominees from Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark

Priscilla Owens Enron's political action committee gave Owen $8,600 for her successful Supreme Court bid in 1994. Two years later, Owen wrote the majority opinion that reversed a lower court order and reduced Enron's school taxes by $15 million. Since 1993, Enron contributed $134,058 -- more than any other corporation -- to Owen and other members of the Texas Supreme Court. A study by Texans for Public Justice found that the court ruled in Enron's favor in five out of six cases involving the company since 1993. Supported the elimination and narrowing of buffer zones around reproductive health care clinics in Houston. In every judicial bypass case that came before the Texas Supreme Court last spring (bypass allows a young woman to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents if she proves her maturity to a judge), Owen voted against granting the young woman a bypass. Owen's actions in two cases raise serious concerns about the priority she places on the government's responsibility to protect the environment and the health and safety of its citizens. In FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, Justice Owen strongly dissented from the court's decision to strike down a state law that had been tailored to allow a particular developer to bypass the city of Austin's municipal water-quality laws.9 The majority pointed out that the law illegally delegated a basic right - the right to pollute - to a private property owner. Owen's dissent was dismissed by the majority as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric" thus merit[ing] no response. Parties affiliated with the developer contributed more than $47,000 to Owen's campaign. William Haynes Supports the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the Executive Branch without legal counsel or meaningful judicial review. Signed off on the legality of withholding Geneva Conventions protections from hundreds of persons detained at Guantanamo, defined as prisoners of war. Haynes, as the Pentagon's top lawyer, oversaw a working group that argued that President Bush, in exercising his powers as commander in chief during times of war, is under no obligation to adhere to any rule of law - international or domestic - that bars the use of torture. Has been nominated to one of the most influential appellate courts in the country, but he has almost no in-court trial experience, and no direct appellate experience at all. Janice Rogers Brown Brown argued that racially discriminatory speech in the workplace, even when it rises to the level of illegal race discrimination, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be limited. In coming to this conclusion, Brown downplayed the fact that several U.S. Supreme Court opinions have found exactly the opposite - the Court has made clear that speech can and does constitute illegal race discrimination in some cases. Dissented in a rape case in which the victim had withdrawn consent after the condom broke.  She wrote "The majority relies heavily on John Z's failure to desist immediately. But, it does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force? And even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?"

As Mr. Stark asks, are these really the best nominees that can be put forth by our President?