Bush gives up on four disputed judge nominees

WASHINGTON – In a move that could mark the end of President Bush’s conservative realignment of the federal courts, four of his most controversial judicial nominees were withdrawn Tuesday, bowing to the Democratic takeover of the Senate.

The four were stalled last year when Republicans controlled the Senate, and they had little chance of winning confirmation this year. They included a top legal adviser to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a former mining-industry lawyer who roused the ire of environmentalists.

A week after the November election, Bush angered Democrats by announcing he would press ahead with these nominations. Tuesday, the White House issued a list of 33 proposed judges, without the disputed four.

Three had submitted letters asking that their names be withdrawn; the White House itself gave up trying to win a promotion for U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle, of North Carolina, who drew strong opposition because of rulings that rejected civil rights claims.

The other failed nominees were William J. Haynes, of Virginia, the Pentagon’s top lawyer; Michael Wallace, of Mississippi, who was given an “unqualified” rating by the American Bar Association; and William G. Myers III, of Idaho, who was accused of favoring the mining and cattle industries when he worked in the Interior Department.

“The president’s main focus now is to address this issue by moving forward in the 110th Congress with a new slate of highly qualified nominees,” said Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called the announcement “a welcome beginning” and “an opportunity for a fresh start.”

Since taking office in 2001, Bush has appointed 255 judges to the federal courts, including two justices on the Supreme Court. Despite Bush’s overall record of success, a few nominees were stalled by wavering Republicans and solid Democratic opposition.

Haynes, the Pentagon’s general counsel, was criticized for his role in approving harsh interrogation techniques for detainees in the war on terrorism.

Myers, a Boise attorney who was nominated to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was opposed by virtually every major environmental organization in the United States, as well as civil rights, women’s, labor and Native American organizations. These opponents feared he would bring a pro-industry bias to the court that hears appeals from a vast region that includes three-fourths of the nation’s public lands.

In a 1996 article, Myers compared federal management of public lands with “the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes” on American colonists. He criticized the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, which created two national parks and carved out millions of acres of protected wilderness, as “an example of legislative hubris.”

His supporters said conservative Myers would help bring balance to a court that is often criticized as too liberal.

The final blow to Myers’ chances for confirmation came recently when Leahy said newly disclosed information raised questions about whether Myers testified truthfully when he told senators that he had never met Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud and is serving 70 months in prison.