President George W. Bush has said his models for appointments to the federal judiciary are Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two most extremist members of the Supreme Court. His current group of judicial nominees reflects those extremist views and they hold troubling records on crucial issues for all Americans, including workers’ rights, civil rights and the environment.

During Bush’s first term, the U.S. Senate confirmed 204 of Bush’s picks for federal district and federal appeals court seats and blocked just 10 because of their extremist views. Defying the Senate’s action, Bush has resubmitted several of those failed nominations, hoping to win lifetime appointments for the extremist jurists and skew the balance of the federal courts for decades to come.

Some of Bush's most troubling choices include:

• Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was rated “unqualified” for a seat on the California Supreme Court by the state bar’s commission on judicial nominees. The commission rated her “unqualified” because of Brown’s lack of experience and her tendency to inject her personal views into her judicial opinions. Since then, she has authored many confrontational and harsh opinions—often in dissent—that would seriously undermine civil rights, workers’ rights, and the environment. Her opinions and speeches reflect a deeply held ideology that is hostile to the interests of working people. In one speech, Justice Brown compared the New Deal (when important labor legislation like minimum wages laws were passed) to a “socialist revolution,” and even went so far as to say, “Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.” She was confirmed June 8. 
  
  
• Brett Kavanaugh, nominated to the D.C. Circuit, has less legal experience than almost any nominee to the D.C. Circuit in more than 30 years, but his political connections and championing of political causes are clear. Kavanaugh is known for his work as a top deputy to Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, for whom Kavanaugh drafted key portions of the Starr report on grounds to impeach President Clinton. Until recently, Kavanaugh was a key person in the White House counsel’s office responsible for identifying and pushing through President Bush’s most extreme judicial nominees.
  
  
• William Pryor, nominated to the 11th Circuit, was Alabama’s Attorney General. In 2004, when he failed to win Senate confirmation, Bush used a recess appointment to place him on the bench. But that recess appointment expired with the new Congress and Pryor must win Senate approval. As the state’s top lawyer, he has authored or joined numerous briefs challenging the constitutionality of a host of federal employment protections, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. He also has urged Congress to eliminate a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African Americans and other minorities. Pryor has a long record as a “states’ rights” advocate and has frequently urged the Supreme Court to curtail Congress’ ability to establish uniform protections covering states in areas such as employment discrimination, environmental protections and other basic rights. In two cases, Pryor was the only attorney general urging the Supreme Court to overturn federal laws on states’ rights, including an attempt to overturn a provision of the Violence Against Women Act, even as 36 states filed a brief supporting the law. His nomination is opposed by more than 200 organizations, including unions, civil rights, environmental, women’s, disability rights and other groups. He was confirmed June 9.
  
  
• Priscilla Owen, nominated to the 5th Circuit, consistently rules against workers’ and consumers’ interests and in favor of employers and insurers. She has authored or joined opinions that have undermined the state workers’ compensation system and the right of workers to seek redress in court for job injuries. In at least one such case, the Texas Legislature immediately passed legislation to overrule Owen’s position. Owen is one of the most frequent dissenters from an already-conservative court. In one dissent, Owen would have made it much harder for workers to prove discrimination in firing, contradicting what the majority called the “plain meaning” of the state anti-bias law. Owen’s nomination is opposed by a broad coalition of union, consumer, women’s and civil rights organizations in Texas and nationally. She was confirmed May 25.
  
  
• Terrence Boyle, nominated to the 4th Circuit, is a North Carolina federal district court judge and former staff member of the former Sen. Jesse Helms. Boyle has a very problematic record in civil rights cases. He was reversed twice by the Supreme Court, once in a unanimous ruling, for deciding that congressional redistricting in North Carolina improperly favored minority voters. Boyle also refused to accept a settlement of a sex discrimination claim against a state agency, even though the agency had agreed, and was reversed when he later allowed the state to withdraw from the settlement. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination in a party-line vote June 16. The nomination awaits full Senate action.