How to demonize a judicial nominee -- the new twelve step program......

HAT TIP:
http://oobleck.com/tollbooth/archives/002085.html

How to demonize a judge in twelve steps:

With the nomination of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court,
I thought it might be a good idea to dust off this list, to help out
some of the groups opposing his nomination.

Rules for demonizing a judicial nominee

1. Select cases where the judge ruled against a sympathetic
party in favor of an unsympathetic one. (e.g. employee vs.
employer, injured party vs. negligent rich party, mistreated
defendant vs. mean ol' police, anybody vs. insurance company,
drug company, big tobacco, etc.). If possible, ensure that the
sympathetic party is (a) poor; (b) minority; (c) female;
(d) handicapped; (e) an immigrant; (f) a child; and (g) abused.

2. If the judge was in the majority, describe the resulting harm
suffered by the losing party. Never mention that other judges
sided with his opinion as evidence of his reasonableness; on the
other hand, if you can find an already-demonized judge who
sided with him, flag that as proof of his extremism.

3. If the judge was in the minority, point out how out-of-the
mainstream he was because people disagreed with him. (This
one also works if the judge's opinion was reversed on appeal.)
Always characterize his opinion as a "lone dissent" -- as if there
were another type for a circuit court judge -- to make him sound
even more isolated.

4. In any non-unanimous case, cite the opinion of a fellow
judge who disagreed with your judge as if that opinion were
established fact. If this opinion predicts bad outcomes that
might result from this opinion, treat these outcomes as if
they have already been realized.

5. Never mention that the job of a judge is to apply the law,
rather than to make policy. Treat his opinions as if they
represented his policy preferences rather than the legislature's.

6. Never ever ever ever ever mention that the job of a
lower judge is to apply the decisions of higher courts.
Treat his opinions as if they represented his personal
views of what the law should be. (Remember, if he
disagreed with the Supreme Court, he'd have just ignored
the Court. The fact that he went along with it shows he
agrees.)

7. Never mention the procedural posture of the case,
or standards of review. Words like "de novo" or "abuse
of discretion" are just confusing, anyway. Act as if an
appellate judge was making factual findings, rather
than reviewing the findings of a lower court or an
administrative agency. Treat failure to reverse those
findings as agreement with them.

8. Always assume "constitutional" or "legal" means
the same thing as "a good idea." If a judge rules that
one party is permitted to do X under the constitution
or law, report it as "Judge so-and-so approves of X."

9. Remember that a judge is never deciding a particular
case; he is always announcing a general policy. If he rules
that this specific plaintiff didn't have enough evidence, he
is really saying that the sort of behavior allegedly engaged
in by defendant is always justified.

10. Remember that a judge is never applying a general
policy; he is always deciding a particular case. If he rules
that the law doesn't recognize that legal theory, he is
really saying that he approves of what this specific party did.

11. All allegations of plaintiff are factual when judge rules
for defendants. And vice versa.

12. This is most important: NEVER ADDRESS THE ISSUE
OF WHETHER THE OPINION WAS RIGHT. Remember, if
you don't bring it up, the media won't, either.

There's some obvious generic advice: use terms like "ultra-right
wing," "ultra-conservative," "reasonable" (to describe a law struck
down by the judge) and "fundamental" (to describe a right
infringed as a result of the judge's ruling). Just follow those
twelve easy steps, and soon you could be a member of People
for the American Way.

Well said, fellow bloggers, well said.