Statement Regarding Big Labor’s Efforts to Block Senate Votes on Judicial Nominees

FOR RELEASE: November 12, 2003

Springfield, Va. (November 12, 2003) – The following is a statement of Stefan Gleason, spokesman for National Right to Work, regarding the effort of Big Labor-beholden Senators to prevent votes on pending judicial nominees:

“Senate Democrats rant and rave about ending special interest politics in Washington, but this unprecedented filibuster shows the lengths to which Senators will actually go to do the bidding of one of the most powerful special interests wielding influence on Capitol Hill – Big Labor.

“Union officials’ government-granted special privileges include the power to collect nearly $9 billion annually in mandatory union dues from more than 11 million of America’s working men and women. Now, union officials are funneling those forced dues into a massive so-called ‘Save Our Courts’ campaign aimed at preventing the Senate from confirming judges who will defend the Constitution. Perhaps their real fear is that new judges will take a critical look at those union special privileges.

“Meanwhile, as a result of numerous vacancies on the federal bench, countless cases defending rank-and-file employees abused by compulsory unionism are delayed for years as they wind their way through the crowded federal court dockets. Justice delayed is justice denied.

“Knowing full well that maintaining their special privileges depends heavily on preventing judges who support the Constitution and the rule of law from being appointed to the federal bench, Big Labor officials are leaning on Senators to deny judicial nominees even so much as a vote.

“Though a solid proportion of rank-and-file union members stand solidly behind President Bush and his judicial nominees, union officials have mounted a campaign, financed primarily by these workers’ forced-dues dollars, to publicly smear well-qualified and respected legal minds such as Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen.

“If Senate Democrats hope to drop their label as the party of narrow special interests, they ought to tell union boss lobbyists that they will no longer do their bidding and instead allow up-or-down votes on these judicial nominees. In November 2002, Senate Democrats paid a high political price for putting union special interests over national security. At this rate, 2004 may yield a similar result.”