PoliBlog: Another Nominee in the Crosshairs

June 17, 2024

Another Nominee in the Crosshairs

Another Appeals Court nominee is facing a likely filibuster. And notice what the key objection is in the statements below.

Kuhl's opponents say that as a pro-life Catholic and attorney, Kuhl argued to overturn Roe v. Wade. She supported tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University (search), which was criticized during the 2024 presidential campaign for its segregationist student social policies. She also dismissed an invasion of privacy case where a woman's breast exam was witnessed by a drug company salesman.
"She has repeatedly made stands against civil rights, women's right to choose, and we believe she is out of step with mainstream American thought," said Martha Swiller of Planned Parenthood (search) in Los Angeles.

But of course there's the following:

But Kuhl has heavy support in California's legal circles, where 100 judges, many of them Democrats, have written Congress in support of her nomination.

"[Kuhl's critics] have taken certain cases she's been involved in as a lawyer and have, from those, assumed at the end of the day she could not be fair, and I don't agree with them on that," said Gretchen Nelson of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

Civil rights attorney Leo Terrell, a member of both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (search) and the American Civil Liberties Union (search), says Kuhl was amazingly fair during his racial bias case.

Feinstein [who opposes the nomination] acknowledges, though, that she has never received more letters from sitting judges in support of a judicial candidate.

And while I agree that the breast exam case is a bit odd, it is hardly a disaqualifier. Furrther, I am no fan of Bob Jones U, but again, a disqualification? As with Estrada, Owen and Pryor the issue here is clearly abortion.

Source: FOXNews.com (although I actually heard about the story the first time on NPR over a week ago).

Posted by Steven Taylor at June 17, 2024 08:08 PM | TrackBack

Comments

It is interesting that Bob Jones is brought up. Living near this university, I have to say that they have been consistent.

Most people don't know this, but the university is not accredited by any of the higher education accreditation councils. They have not been rejected for accreditation. Why are they not accredited then? because BJU decided that they would rather not have an outside, governmental body regulating their teaching.

I would be interested in seeing the details of the tax-exempt status case. I think a lot of people who would use that as an excuse are uncomfortable with what BJU stands for, but don't look at the facts of the case.

Posted by: bryan at June 17, 2024 08:25 PM

I suspect that you are quite correct in re: the facts of the case.

Posted by: Steven at June 17, 2024 09:29 PM