With A Rebel Yell, Mick's A Whore, Whore, Whore
Little Mick's last minute get out the vote campaign for his
Whore of the Year candidacy has gone into overdrive. By simply ignoring the
mountains of
evidence of Charles Pickering's
unsuitability for the position of
federal appellate judge, Mick
concludes "[t]he case against Pickering is weak."
How does Mick reach this conclusion? Dishonestly, of course.
In discussing the case, Mick cites a anti-Pickering
article in
The New Republic, written by Michael Crowley at the time of the first Pickering nomination. Mick then writes:
I was surprised at how little Crowley has on Pickering -- the piece reads as if he'd been fed tendentious arguments by the camp of Sen. John Edwards, when the Edwards folks were panicked by some respectable criticism of his Judiciary committee cross-examination of Pickering. ...
Crowley completely ignores what Byron York and the WSJ editorial page describe as Pickering's chief complaint in the cross-burning case -- that the government cut a lenient deal with the wrong guy, the ringleader who had the most racial animus. (Unnecessary ellipses by Mick, nothing omitted.)
But that's simply not true, as Mick would know if he had read the WSJ op-ed to which he links. The WSJ explains that
all three defendants were offered deals, and the one who went to trial (Daniel Swan) rejected the government's deal.
Mick's "proof" of the lack of evidence against Pickering is the existence of two articles favorable to Pickering. Unfortunately for Mick, the incompetence and/or dishonesty of both York and WSJ editorial page is well-established, so Mick's proof is illusory. But let's leave those facts aside, and look at the defense Mick advances on behalf of Pickering. Mick says that Pickering's concerted efforts to reduce the sentence of one racist terrorist were inspired by the fact that Swan's co-terrorist received a light sentence via a "government deal."
Was Pickering really put out that "the government cut a deal with the wrong guy?" As Al Gore, Sr. said to Strom Thrumond, "Hell, No!" In fact, it was Pickering who
approved the plea bargain with the juvenile defendant who Mick calls "the ringleader." Crowley writes that "[Pickering] repeatedly told senators that he had been unaware, when he
accepted the two plea bargains, that one of the pleading defendants had previously fired a gun into the Polkeys' home. But the trial transcript shows a discussion of the fact that the defendant's plea itself included an admission of guilt for the shooting." (Emphasis added.)
The simple fact that Kaus, York and the WSJ omit is this: Pickering could have rejected the plea bargain and forced the "wrong guy" to go to trial for his crimes too. But he accepted the plea. (And, according to Crowley, lied to the U.S. Senate about the facts too.)
Once this fact is revealed, Mick's impassioned defense for Pickering collapses. Pickering called the government's demand for a 7 year sentence for Swan the "most egregious instance of disproportionate sentencing recommended by the government in any case pending before this court." But Pickering reached this conclusion by comparing Swan's sentence
not to the crime Swan committed, but to the plea agreement he himself approved for the juvenile. If Swan's sentence was "disproportionate," it was because Pickering approved the too-lenient sentence for the juvenile in the first instance. Not much of a principled reason for setting a criminal sentence, and even less a principled criticism of mandatory sentencing laws.
Notwithstanding Mickey Kaus's clowning, Judge Pickering deserves an impartial hearing on the matter. To that end, I implore Judge Pickering to call Daniel Swan as a character witness at his forthcoming confirmation hearing.
Great Minds Update: Read the Horse's "
MICKEY "MAUS" KAUS SWOONS OVER A SEG."
