Lessons From The Judge
by Nan Aron and Marcia Kuntz
WMD commission appointee Laurence Silberman's record should be a warning to the Senate.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9960Did a sitting federal judge now appointed to the White House commission on Iraq intelligence try to smear Bill Clinton and Anita Hill? According to former right-wing author David Brock, DC Circuit judge Laurence Silberman urged Brock to pursue rumors that then-Governor Bill Clinton had used state troopers to facilitate his affairs with women and, later, rumors that Clinton was having a sexual relationship with an intern. Brock also alleges that Silberman participated in the smearing of Anita Hill in an effort to get his friend Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and to salvage the new justice's reputation once confirmed. None of Brock's former right-wing allies has disputed, let alone disproved, any of his allegations against Silberman in Blinded by the Right.
Decisions Favoring Friends?
Brock's allegations are only the most inflammatory in a long record of flagrant partisanship by a judge who sits on the second most powerful and prestigious court in the country. Silberman has displayed intense hostility toward particular litigants in cases of great national importance. In 1990, when Oliver North appealed his conviction for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, Silberman joined Judge Sentelle in a 2-1 decision to reverse the lower court's decision. Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh wrote in Firewall: the Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up that he regretted not moving to disqualify Silberman from sitting on the panel that reviewed North's appeal. "Judge Silberman had been aggressively hostile to us" during the oral arguments of North's appeal, Walsh recounted. "Silberman's bias had been so intrusive," that it had almost prevented the appellate counsel for Walsh's office "from presenting a coherent argument."
In the D.C. Circuit Court's denial of President Clinton's claim of executive privilege during the Lewinsky investigation, Silberman wrote a concurring opinion that, as Jonathan Broder described in Salon, "stunned even battle-weary Washington insiders with his intemperate attack on Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno." In arguing for executive privilege, Reno, Silberman wrote, was "acting as the President's counsel under the false guise of representing the United States."
Silberman maintained that Reno should get out of the way of Independent Counsel Ken Starr's investigation, because it was Starr, not Reno, who represented the interests of the country. And he went further. Using what Broder calls "language seldom seen in the federal judiciary, Silberman questioned whether Clinton himself, by allowing his aides to attack Independent Counsel Ken Starr, was 'declaring war on the United States.'" Partisanship appears to be the only way to square his barely-masked hatred toward a Democratic president and praise for a Republican independent counsel with his decision (reversed by the Supreme Court 8-1) a decade earlier to strike down the independent counsel law, which of course was then being used to go after a Republican administration.
...more..