... there's no mention in the coverage of disability rights anywhere. I don't doubt that disability groups opposed him (however, I'm taking Pastiche's word -- yet, I do emphasize that in the dozen or so articles I read, there was NOTHING about the ADA or any disability rights group making an issue of this nomination). So, even if Smith had a problem with disability issues, it wasn't in the public conscience, and had anyone voted for or againt him on that issue, the public would have never percieved it as a vote for or against disability rights. It would be like, if a judge known for being againtst states rights also happened to think that asylum law should be expaned, and Democrats voted for him on the states rights issues, and then Pastiche used it as an example of Democrats' antipaty to the expansion of asylum law.
Nonetheless, the most popular criticism of Smith was by women's groups, and here's what they said:
Smith's critics accused him of a serious ethical lapse in the handling of one case and of espousing an overly narrow view of the powers of the federal government. They also said his decisions too often have sided with business against the interests of others.
But the strongest criticism of Smith centered on his membership in the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, a fishing and hunting organization that excludes women. As part of his 1988 confirmation to the district court, Smith promised the Judiciary Committee that he would resign from the club ]if he failed to win a change in its bylaws to admit women. Smith resigned from the club, which remains closed to women, in 1999.
Laying out the Democratic case against Smith, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the judge had "flagrantly broken" his promise to the committee. He said that to elevate him now to an appeals court would send "a bad message." Leahy and others also cited Smith's failure to recuse himself immediately from a case involving a bank where his wife worked and in which he had a substantial financial interest.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0524-05.htmI found a quote from Edwards saying that this creates concerns but wasn't enough to conclude that he wouldn't apply the law fairly. OK, that's reasonable. But why didn't Edwards just vote againt the guy, as did about 35 of his fellow Democrats?
Well, two other things become clear when you read the articles. One is that the Democrats really wanted to not be the boys who cried wolf on the judicial nominations. They control neither the senate nor the judicial committee, so the only way they can block a truly bad nomination is by fillibustering. Fillibustering comes at a particularly high price. They clearly weren't going to do it with Smith over a gun club membership (yikes). So, when they object to someone, they'll really object, and they need to retain their crediblity. Which is what happened when they fillibustered Gonzalez.
Now, the other thing that is clear when you Google is that the Pittsburgh papers were making a big deal about this nomination. They were criticizing Edwards for it before there was any vote because they presumed he was voting against it. Say what you will about political ethics, but everyone agrees that PA is a swing state next year, and will be very close, and if you want to be president of the USofA so that you can protect the rights of every American, including the disabled, whom you fought so hard for as a lawyer, and if you want to change the tax code a little bit so that you can level the playing field on which, today, corporations that control newspapers enjoy such a huge advantage, well, are you going to throw that opportunity to the wind over a judge just becasue of gun club membership?
Edwards seemed to be avoiding a public character assination from the Pittsburgh papers over something that wasn't going to carry much weight with people in the first place if he had voted against it.
Life in America sucks, and one of the many reasons it sucks is because Republicans who control newspapers in the second largest city in states which could DETERMINE the outcome of the next election get to have their way every once in a while.
Now, why would JRE care enough not to piss off those newspapers? Because he really wants to be president, not so that he can continue to lead American down the path which allows that sort of thing to happen. It's because he wants to change America so that it isn't like that anymore.
So wise up folks.