Judge Patel’s Open (and Hypocritical) Letter to Judge Roberts
Leftist Northern California federal district judge Marilyn Hall Patel has written an open letter to John Roberts. (Via How Appealing.) In the letter, she asks him to request his supporters to stop running ads:
The president asked for dignified confirmation proceedings. The very next day the ads began. So much for dignity. Perhaps the president or even the so-called Gang of Fourteen could intercede. But you more than anyone have it in your power to persuade. I am sure that a phone call or a public statement from you imploring cessation of these ads by those who support you would have a puissant effect upon this crass exploitation.
But what about the idea that Judge Roberts’s detractors would continue running ads against him, and would thereby attain a disproportionate influence over the public discourse concerning his nomination? Judge Patel addresses that issue in the next paragraph:
Whether those who oppose you would respond to your entreaties is another question. However, they would be hard pressed to pursue a one-sided campaign. I, and I am sure many of my colleagues would, implore all proponents and opponents to refrain. These groups have never suffered from an inability to reach and influence the Senate. They have the ability to use traditional forms of lobbying and to testify before the Judiciary Committee.
I have emphasized the word “would” for a reason. The tense Judge Patel uses indicates that she has not yet asked anyone to refrain from doing anything. Just as Roberts’s entreaties would sway only conservatives (and probably not even them), entreaties from the famously liberal Judge Patel could not possibly sway anyone but like-minded liberals. But she apparently hasn’t made the request, because she doesn’t want leftists to unilaterally disarm — the exact thing she is asking conservatives to do.
And if I’m wrong, and Judge Patel already has requested leftists to back down — well, it had a hell of an effect, huh?
Sorry, Judge Patel. Conservatives, including Judge Roberts, are not that stupid. But nice try.
P.S. If the nominee were female and the open letter were from a male judge, how would it play for the male judge’s open letter to call the female nominee “easy on the eyes” — as Patel calls Judge Roberts in her letter?
Perhaps if the Honorable Judge Patel would show us how she sent her letter to The People for the American Way and NARAL and some of the other organizations opposed to Judge Roberts’ confirmation, her appeal (pun intended) would sound more believable.
Dana R. Pico (1d6514) — 8/6/2005 @ 10:41 amBut, as I say, if she did do that, it evidently didn’t mean much.
Patterico (756436) — 8/6/2005 @ 10:51 amA reply to Judge Patel…
…the biggest problem I have with Patel is her failure to acknowledge that judges like her are the ones responsible for what is going on right now. The reason so many people are contributing so much money to so many interest groups so they can run so …
ThoughtsOnline (d3e296) — 8/6/2005 @ 6:30 pmPatterico, you are too nice. You’re whole post could have been a link and “Judge Patel dishes out horse____.”
nk (77d95e) — 8/6/2005 @ 6:39 pmThis is *NOT* a letter to the judge. It is an add against him. It has been given front page coverage in most of the MSM. A very good, cheap add against him. It is probably a waste of time on both her part and on the MSM’s part. There is only one person that matters – Dr. Frist. If he can finally figure out how to be an effective manager Roberts will be confirmed before Oct.
Rod Stanton (9e637c) — 8/6/2005 @ 7:12 pmHowever after his display of gross incompetence on Bolton I am not optimistic on the date. Late Oct may be more reasonable.
Remember Neville?
Federal judge Marilyn Hall Patel (a Democrat appointed by Carter) issues a call for SCOTUS nominee to ask conservatives to engage in unilateral disarmament with respect to his nomination. How utterly fatuous. (Via Patterico)
ProfessorBainbridge.com (af7df9) — 8/6/2005 @ 9:04 pmI wonder, does the honorable judge propose the solution, or does the honorable judge accidently expose the real problem.
bill (7c942b) — 8/6/2005 @ 10:32 pmI went to the letter to see exactly what she said. Talk about a self-important, elistist mentality! See for yourself.
Milan (645b99) — 8/7/2005 @ 12:56 pm[…] In an unusual open letter from a sitting federal judge, Marilyn Patel of the Northern District of California has written to Judge Roberts asking him to call upon conservative groups to unilaterally stop public relations efforts on his behalf. As Patterico points out, Judge Patel has not secured any similar commitments from the Democratic side. This letter from Judge Patel is very strange, made all the stranger by her flattery of Judge Roberts’s physical appearance (he’s “easy on the eyes” she says).. […]
Confirm Them » Carter Appointees Coming Out of Woodwork (e203ab) — 8/7/2005 @ 5:31 pmI’m torn. Since Roe vs Wade gang crime is down substantially. More and more libs are going gay and not reproducing. Maybe libs will go extinct if we let things go the way they are.
RMM
Ruritania Militia Member (0aa3cd) — 8/8/2005 @ 1:05 pmJudge Patel seems to have forgotten that the watershed occasion of borking — i.e., the trashing of Judge Bork in 1987 — included anti-Bork TV commercials, featuring Greogry Peck and sponsored by People for the American Way.
In light of the anti-Bork commercials, it is simply factually wrong to say,as Patel does, that the Roberts nomination has “ushered” in the use of TV ads re Supreme Court nominations.
Further, it casts some serious doubt on her assertion that the Left “would be hard pressed to pursue a one-sided campaign” against Roberts if the pro-Roberts ads go away. They’ve done it one-sided before; why would they change now?
I eagerly await the moment when any MSMer asks the esteemed Judge Patel, “Umm . . . what about the Bork ads?” Maybe Judge Bork should publish an open letter to Judge Patel to point this out.
just me (204138) — 8/10/2005 @ 3:21 pmIn a personal manner, I would like to point out this Judge’s liberal leanings in her Court. My son, after 20yrs. in Federal Prison, was paroled to Delancey St. in S.F. He ‘escaped’, was taken back into custody in the S.F. jail and appeared before Judge Patel on 10/31/2005. He blamed his problems on his childhood, on his Mother, and at age 48, the Judge felt sorry for him. (He also had a letter from his older sister confirming his selective memories) Well, the sentence she gave him was 3yrs. probation, and some time at Delancey St. He lasted three days this time and left. He is again in custody. My son has problems, mostly stunted emotional growth and drugs. He has been ‘institutionalized’ for about 30 yrs., and cannot seem to make it outside of prison. But the Judge accepted his excuse and bought that he had changed. The letter from his sister really helped him. But no one contacted his other sister, his ex-wife, his daughter he left when she was a baby, or me…his Mother. We have all been threatened by him and fear him.
Grace Burnson (8d0335) — 11/30/2005 @ 1:26 pmHow can an experienced Judge believe that a grown man of 48, who has spent his life behind bars and has never held a job or stayed off of drugs, has changed when he is still giving the same excuse for his behavior as he did at 14? I love my Son, always have and always will, but I can’t trust him. So if he appears before Judge Patel again for sentencing, I hope she looks at the whole picture, the person, and not just the Ideology of Victimization causing criminals.
Maybe his disrespect and ingratitude to her will help someone else who comes before her with a con job.
The judge is not honorable. She is a typical phony, playing into the hands of those who she uses to further her selfish career. Her recent attacks on the Catholic Church will backfire; certainly she realizes that the test of time will relegate her to an inportant position in Oblivion……
Jay Begly (ced2a2) — 12/17/2006 @ 3:14 am