Today after the Democrats defeated the nomination of Pricilla Owens,the first judicial nominee that was rated unanimously "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association to be rejected on a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Tom Daschle said the following:

"The message is this: We will confirm qualified judges. Don't send us unqualified people."

I am sure that I'm not alone in my outrage. I'll await the response from NOW, I'm sure they'll let that sexist bastard hear what's what. Any moment now...

Feeling strongly about how urgent this country and political landscape is in need of a more balanced representation to reflect its citizens and their gender specific issues, I fully support having more female judges in power.

This is not to say that it should come at the cost of freedom of choice for women themselves. The well documented public service record for Priscilla Owens speaks for itself. A judge considered ultraconservative in a republican state such as Texas will not go over well with balancing power and keeping greedy presidential hands out of the juditiary branch. It is about time that our lame duck democratic clone party stood up in Congress and attempted to slow down the erosion of checks and balances since Bush and dynasty.

She was not called unqualified because she's a woman - she was called unqualified because she has a history of ruling in favor of people who have given her large donations, such as Enron. She has also prevented teenagers from having abortions, and ruled that a company whose door-to-door employer raped a woman had no responsibility to perform a background check which would have uncovered the fact that he had been convicted of a sex crime previously.

Judge Owen is a far-right idealogue who consistantly rules against women, and against the average person in favor of big business. The Senate committee performed its duties in rejecting her.

Facts are facts. Judge Owens was graded “Highly Qualified” by the American Bar Association. A person holding such a rating that was nominated by the President has never been denied a judgeship before. The truth is that the Judge was blackballed by the committee and denied even a hearing on the floor of the Senate not based on her qualifications, but on her political ideology. It smacks of hypocrisy that women’s groups wouldn’t come to the defense of a woman being slandered by a powerful man. If a Republican had been so indelicate as to point out how unqualified Mrs. Clinton was to be a Senator –having never held elected office, not even dog catcher of Hope, Arkansas- he would have been savaged by the editorial pages and cursed from the lips of Ms. Ireland and others until he retracted his comments. The fact is that conservatives are held to one standard of conduct and speech, and leftists are allowed far more leeway. Thus the unsubstantiated claims of suggestive remarks are nearly enough to sink a Supreme Court nomination for Clarence Thomas, yet evidence of sexual misdeeds – and allegations of rape- by William Clinton are somehow given a pass. The idea that a Republican might call a woman of Judge Owens’ standing “unqualified” and get away with it is absurd. And to call Judge Owens "Anti-Women" because she opposes abortion on demand is the equivalent of calling you "Anti Baby" because you support it.

Facts are facts. She defends companies which send rapists into women's homes. Taking the side of a corporation against a rape victim is anti-women.

Facts are facts. 85% of her decisions have come out in favor of her biggest campaign donors.

Facts are facts. Her anti-abortion efforts have been contrary to the laws of her own state. The majority Texas Supreme Court justices have chastised Judge Owen, in written opinions, for imposing her "own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry" [Jane Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000)].

If Bush wants his nominations confirmed, he needs to send reasonable nominations - not people who are anti-worker, anti-women, and in the pockets of big business.

A company is sued by lawyers looking to profit from a woman’s rape. A Judge rightly argues that a rapist alone is responsible for his behavior. This position isn’t anti-women, it is anti-leech. One can easily make the argument that a company should be required to perform background checks on prospective employees. If the legislators of a state wish to make this law, then by all means let them do so. It is entirely another kettle of fish to attempt to squeeze a company for cash for failing to check backgrounds when no such legal requirement is in place.

I would love to see some documentation on this 85% of decisions benefiting her campaign donors. This sounds a lot more like the Governor of California than a Judge in Texas.

Many Judges in this country, including several on Federal Circuit Courts have, in recent memory, made rulings which reflected their personal convictions instead of sticking strictly to the legal questions at hand. If it is your contention that Judge Owen should not be granted a judgeship because of her ‘activism’, then I am sure that you agree we should rid our Republic of all ‘activist’ Judges, including the entire Florida Supreme Court, several members of the 4th and 9th circuits, and any number of others who let their personal convictions interfere with legal questions. This new-found interest in the impartiality of Judges is refreshing.