The Owen You Don't Know
In his videotaped statement for Justice Sunday
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=591415) ,
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist "singled out Judge Priscilla Owen, one of the
blocked appeals court nominees
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/politics/25justice.html) , for praise in the
telecast." Many believe that Frist's specific mention of Owen suggests "she may
become the contested nominee
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/24/AR2005042400415.html)
at the focus of the looming showdown." For all the conservative talk against
judicial activism, Frist and other conservatives should know that Owen has a
long record of extremist decisions
(http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_151.pdf) ; her own hometown paper
described her as "all too willing to bend the law to fit her views
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=147) , rather than
the reverse." In fact, in reference to one of Owen's dissents, then colleague
and fellow Texas Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales went so far as to
describe the decision's proposed interpretation of the law as "an
unconscionable act of judicial activism
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf) ." Indeed, in
critiquing her nomination, The Houston Chronicle took issue not with her being
"too conservative" but with the fact that "she too often contorts rulings to
conform to her particular conservative outlook." As the San Antonio Express
stated, "The senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she
is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate's majority party.... But
concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge."
THE CORPORATE CONNECTION: There has been a good deal of coverage of Owen's
anti-choice stance (http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/owens.html) but
her pro-business leanings may be as disturbing. In 2003, the Austin-American
Statesman declared that Owen could "usually be counted upon in any important
case (http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=147) that
pitted an individual or group of individuals against business interests to side
with business." Furthermore, she had a questionably ethical tendency to take
"campaign contributions from law firms and corporations
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf) ... and
then, without recusing herself, [rule] in their favor when their cases came
before her." Owen's rulings are considered so business-friendly and tainted that
a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association once quipped, "In my
more cynical moments, I suggest that, just as sports stadiums are now named
after corporations, judicial seats are soon to follow. In that vein, I believe
that Justice Owen could well fill
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf) the
Exxon/Mobil or Wal-Mart seat on the Fifth Circuit."
THE ENRON AND HALLIBURTON CASES: Two notable past corporate-friendly cases
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf) ruled on by
Owen involve very publicly known corporations -- Halliburton and Enron -- both
of which had donated to Owen's judicial campaign. In the case of Sanchez v.
Halliburton, a Halliburton field worker "won a $2.6 million verdict after the
jury found that a company supervisor had framed him to test positive for
cocaine." After an appeals court ruling overturned the verdict, Sanchez tried to
bring the case to the Texas Supreme Court. In the months during which the case
was before the Court, Halliburton made its only campaign donations to Texas
Supreme Court justices that year, giving thousands of dollars to three justices:
Priscilla Owen, Nathan Hect, and Alberto Gonzales. Result: the court declined to
hear the case and the ruling overturning Sanchez's case stood. In Enron Corp. v.
Spring Independent School District, Owen "authored the opinion for a unanimous
court [decision] that ... saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for
the school district." |
