tv U.S. Senate Confirms Court of Appeals Nominee CSPAN July 20, 2017 10:11am-12:12pm EDT
websites believe they're going to be anonymous. this demonstrated that is not always true. many dark website openly trade in narcotics, guns come images of sexual abuse of children and other serious criminal conduct. an academic study published in 2015 found the largest single category of hidden services in the network was for runs for the sale of drugs and contraband. fails about 80% of traffic and hidden services right to sexual exploitation of children. some sites of membership of hundreds of thousands of users across the globe. those disturbing statistics explain why disrupting and dismantling dark websites is a priority for the department of justice and international coordination is critical to our success. administrators and users of dark websites use anonymizing techniques speeded we believe this briefing and return to live coverage of the senate here onmn c-span2 is an american hero.
he's a hero to our conference. he's a hero to our country. here in the senate, he's a friend to almost all of us. our collective prayers are with him now. we're thinking of cindy and the rest of his family as well, along with his staff and the people of arizona. senator mccain, as we all know, has never shied away from a fight, and i assure you he isn't going to back down now. i know the senator from arizona will confront this challenge with the same extraordinary courage that is -- has characterized his entire life. and he should know we're all in his corner, every single one of us. we look forward to seeing our friend again soon, and we hope he'll be back in the very near future. now, mr. president, on one
more matter, i want to thank the president for having our conference over at the white house yesterday. the president and his administration understand the american people are hurting under obamacare. they have been long engaged in the effort to bring relief. nobody could have been more involved in this effort than the president, the vice president, his entire team, numerous phone calls, meetings. they have been all in, and i want the president and his entire team to know how much we appreciate their deep involvement in this and their commitment to getting an outcome. now, dealing with this issue is what's right for the country. the fight to move beyond the status quo of obamacare was certainly never going to be easy, but we've come a long way, and i look forward to continuing our work together to finally bring relief.
a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we waive the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the bush nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, john kenneth bush of kentucky to be united states circuit judge for the sixth circuit. mr. enzi: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak for a few minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, my colleagues and i have been on this floor for the last seven years, talking about the problems with obamacare and the need to address them. in the early days, when
obamacare was still being cobbled together, we talked about individuals losing their coverage. promises were made that if you like the plan you have, you could keep it. that turned out to be a broken promise. in 2009 and 2010, we talked about premiums skyrocketing. today we're still talking about it. premiums are more than 100% higher in wyoming today than they were when the law was passed. and our insurer has fortunately been more conservative in their approach so premiums don't spike the way they did in other states. i usually enjoy being right, but in this case, i'm very sad to have watched the worst possible scenario play out. time after time, president obama was faced with problems and implementation in outcomes, and he dismissed them by saying it just needs more time, or, as
this cartoon shows, it just needs a tune-up. well, we and the american people gave it time and money. specifically, seven years and hundreds of billions of dollars. and we are now left trying to pick up the pieces of health insurance markets all across the country. you can see here this ambulance is obamacare, and behind it is its engine and other key components, and they have completely fallen apart. that's the private insurance market today. but the part you don't see here is that there is a patient in back of this ambulance. this isn't just about politics. this is about real people and whether or not they can afford an insurance premium that is in some cases higher than their rent or their mortgage payments each month. even before its passage, my republican colleagues and i have talked about the danger that
obamacare posed to private insurance markets. insurers have already left the market in droves. in wyoming, we're down to one carrier. we lost the others to the economics of obamacare, and we'll be lucky to keep the one that we have. i know many people in our country are going to be in the position of having no insurers offering plans in their county. how could this happen? it's happened because of politics being put before patients and an unwillingness to take on the hard task of fixing something that you have sold as the perfect solution. while i can't tell you that health care isn't a simple issue, it's incredibly complex and really there is no one right way to tackle it. i was the ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee when obamacare passed. we worked hard to find common ground.
when it became clear that there was not a reciprocal commitment to that from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we did work hard to try to stop it. now we're finally in a position to do so. we have a president in the white house who is committed to repealing and replacing obamacare with better care before more irreparable harm is done. republicans have been working on an approach that attempts to address both the short and long-term problems caused by obamacare. we have problems to solve right now. we're proposing to stabilize insurance markets in the short term and to get insurance costs on a more manageable trajectory over the longer term. we're striking at the heart of obamacare by removing its mandates and taxes while putting medicaid on a more sustainable footing. doing this isn't easy. you may have read a little something about the challenges of moving the health care bill forward, but the alternative is
to do what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done for seven years and watch obamacare crater. we don't think that's the right thing to do. we think that we have an obligation even if it's not an easy vote to salvage our insurance system. getting something done in washington isn't always a pretty process, but i'm proud to be working with the women and men in my conference who see that there is something larger at stake than themselves, who know that sitting this out means more harm and perhaps harm that can't be undone later. so i will keep working. i'm committed to passing the best product that we can deliver for the people of wyoming and for our whole country. i look forward to continuing to work together to repeal obamacare and replace it with policies that will truly improve health care in america. i hope my colleagues will join me in this worthy endeavor.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday, several of my democratic -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday, several of my democratic colleagues spoke in opposition to the nomination of john bush to serve on the sixth circuit court of appeals. they were particularly concerned about his activities outside the courtroom, especially his
personal blog posts. the comments of my friend, the junior senator from minnesota, were representative of their concern. he reminded us that he had been serving on the judiciary committee for eight years. he said that by confirming someone to the federal bench like mr. bush, who has blogd about controversial political and policy matters -- blogged about controversial political and policy matters, the senate would be doing something unprecedented. specifically, my friend from minnesota in angst said i don't think we have been here before. i don't think we have been here before, he said. well, i'd encourage my friend to think a little harder about his tenure on the judiciary committee. just a few years ago, the senate considered president obama's nomination of steven bugh to be
a federal judge in missouri. mr. bugh had been quite an active blogger himself. his blogging and online commentary were not simply confined to political satire and sarcasm. his blogging didn't use merely flippant or intemperate language. his blogging demonstrated a real and palpable animus toward conservatives and republicans in general, and elected republicans in particular, and by name, by name. he insulted and impugned people like his home state senators, his governor, the president of the united states and a republican nominee for president, just to name a few. mr. bugh's posts were truly mean-spirited.
it wasn't just that he called republicans knuckleheads, which he did. that's when he was feeling especially kind. no, he said specific republicans were, quote, corrupt, they had done evil things, evil things, mr. president. i could go on and on about his corrosive rhetoric. he approvingly posted an article describing how san francisco was contemplating naming a sewage plant after president obama as a suitable legacy for the president and posted another one that said his governor was highly ignorant. his invective was not reserved to members of the political branches. he said his state supreme court was the most corrupt in the history of the state. i'm not p making this up. he is an officer of the court calling the supreme court the
most corrupt in the history. of his state. now, for my democratic colleagues who now profess to care about the judgment of judicial nominees who blog, i submit that impugning the integrity of the tribunal that has jurisdiction over their professional conduct and law license, as mr. bough did, is more than a few tweaks shy of exhibiting sound judgment. more than a few tweaks shy of exhibiting sound judgment. mr. bough also implied that president bush made his supreme court appointment to some sort of quid pro quo. he harshly criticizeed sitting supreme court justices by name, and he claimed that the republican nominee for president only wanted federal judges who would disregard the law and rule in favor of the religious right, and that he was sucking up.
and he made a crude comment about women that i will not repeat. now, some of our democratic colleagues have criticized john bush said he -- because he said he would try hard to be impartial as a judge. by contrast, in one of his blog posts, stephen bough flat out said that he himself should not be a judge. this is his commentary on himself. but every one of our democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee at the time, including our friend from minnesota, obviously disagrees with his own judgment about himself. they all voted for him, which is especially curious in hindsight, given the superior weight our democratic colleagues now place on blog posts. only one member of the democratic conference voted against mr. bough.
these are many of the same democrats, of course, who were supposedly aghast, aghast at the bush nomination. mr. bough is now federal district court judge stephen bough. finally, i'd like to set the record straight on the subject of the slur. mr. bush did not use the slur in a blog post, and he did not use it flippantly. in fact, he said he has never used this term and would never use it. rather, mr. bush quoted by name someone else, a prominent author who had used the slur. and mr. bush quoted him to show how various authors had viewed our hometown of louisville over time.
both those who praised it and those who criticized it. in short, mr. bush said he used it to show the good, the bad, and the ugly. so who was the author he quoted? verbatim and by name? why, it was noted liberal hunter thompson. i note that mr. thompson's use of the slur did not prevent liberals, including democratic officeholders, from praising him. in fact, not one, but two democratic presidential candidates went to his funeral. george mcgovern and john kerry. now, mr. president, the senate has considered a judicial nominee who did use this slur in blog posting, who actually did
it. the exact same slur, in fact. the judicial nominee was not quoting any literary or published work, and this judicial nominee did not use the slur for any critical purpose. the judicial nominee used it flippantly and cavalierly. who was the judicial nominee? president obama's judicial nominee and current federal district court judge stephen bough. who sits on the bench right now for life after being confirmed by the votes of our democratic colleagues. so i hope i have at least refreshed the memory of my friend from minnesota and some
haas. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. well, mr. president, first, on a sad note, but one of always of hope when it comes to senator mccain, his cancer diagnosis sent a shockwave through the senate last night. he is one of my dear friends. he's a dear friend to many in this body. from the bottom of my heart i wish him and his family well, so does every member of the chamber. the respect we have for him is broad and deep, both based on his service to america and what he has done here in the chamber. i agree with what the majority leader said earlier, john mccain is an american hero.
there is no one who has done more to serve his country more than senator mccain. there is no one more passionate in defense of our soldiers and our defense than senator mccain. i want to say the same courage he showed as a soldier, he showed here. john and i led a group on immigration reform. he was fearless. his word was good. he was good at compromising and he was good at making his views known. and that bill which passed this body with 67 or 68 votes, a large number of democrats and republicans, had it become law, our country would be better, our security would have been better because it was tough on the border. we would have been a better place for it having that bill passed. the point i wanted to make is not about the bill, but it is about mccain.
we were conferences day after day. the more you knew him, the better he looked, the better he was. so, we will know against this new battle senator mccain will fight in the only way he knows how, with every fiber of his being. we wish him well. our prayers are with him and his family. we hope he joins us very soon because this country needs john mccain now more than ever. now, mr. president, on the issue of health care. president trump, yesterday, seemed intent on pushing forward the republicans' -- republicans' health care plan. we have been on the topic of health care for seven months we're not sure what we will be voting on. will it be repeal and replace? will we be voting on one that will cause 22 million americans to lose coverage?
that would cause costs to go up and care to go down. and -- will it repeal without replace, which would cause our health care system to implode, creating chaos, causing millions to lose insurance? the c.b.o. confirmed last night that repeal without replace would cause 32 million americans --s that about one-tenth of the -- that's about one-tenth of the country -- to lose their insurance and cause premiums to double -- double -- as ten years. it was a horrible idea in january and rejected, wisely, by our republican colleagues. we weren't involved. the door was closed on us on january 4. it's a horrible idea now. so will that be the focus next week or will it be a new bill with more money thrown in, as some suggested? the same core bill devastating
cuts to medicaid, tax breaks to the wealthy, the cruel cruz amendment, an extra $2 billion slush fund thrown in, is that going to be the bill? we don't know what the republicans plan to vote on next week. i'll bet many republicans don't know either. what we do know is that a $200 billion slush fund tacked on to a bill that would gut medicaid and other services by well over $1 trillion is like putting an old band-aid on a bullet wound. $200 billion on additional funding would offset 17% of the bill's total cuts to coverage. it wouldn't come close -- anywhere close -- to covering the wound that republicans are inflicting on medicaid, on americans in nursing homes, on americans in rural areas, on those suffering from opioid addiction. it just won't work.
and repeal without replace is even worse. all of the options are horrible options for the republican party, bur more importantly, -- but more importantly, horrible options for the american people. it's time to start over. it's time for our republican colleagues to drop this failed approach and work with democrats to work on the health care system. they closed the door on us on january 4, in passing something called reconciliation which basically says, we don't need democrats, we'll do it ourselves. let them open the door now after seeing that the failed approach doesn't work. i outlined three specific nonideological proposals that we could work on right now that would help to bring down premiums. i believe they would pass quickly. my republican friends don't seem
to know what to do. my suggestion is to drop these failed ideas and work with democrats on the commonsense, nonideological solutions we democrats have offered. one more point. i have heard some of my colleagues say that they will vote for the motion to proceed next week because they are in favor of debate. i remind them the rules under reconciliation only allow for 20 hours of debate equally divided between the parties. one minute of debate allowed per amendment. that's not debate. the idea that you'd vote on the motion to proceed in order to have a health care debate is absurd. if any of my colleagues want to debate health care, they should vote no on the motion to proceed and urge their leader to hold a real debate in committees, in public hearings, on the floor, through regular order, a process they have spurned for seven
months. not ten hours for each party, one minute per amendment on such an important proposal. that's not a debate. it's the legislative equivalent of beat the clock and this is serious business. the health and welfare of the american people, not some game show. now, mr. president, just as the administration's flailing on health care, they are flailing on trade and outsourcing as well. i read today the administration failed to secure any concessions from china on their dumping of excess steel and aluminum in our markets which is killing jobs in my state and many others. and today the carrier plant that president-elect trump tweeted about saving jobs just laid off 300 workers in indiana, moving
their positions to mexico. exactly six months to the day since president trump took office. it's a shame we're losing their good-paying american jobs. despite all of the president's tough talk on trade and his commerce secretary's 100 days of trade talks plan, this shows that in six months the trump dmimtion has been unable to -- dmimtion has been unable to deliver. with the first u.s. beef shipment to china which president obama helped to broker before the end of his term, trump administration has not made it easier to do work abroad.
but as president he has to take strong action, not go to one plant, but you need policies that will protect millions of workers from the policies of china and other countries. making america great again requires more than 140 characters per issue. the 338 jobs leaving carrier today are a reminder that when it comes to actual substance and policy, the trump administration has done very little to change the game on trade to keep jobs in the united states. another broken promise to the american worker. finally, mr. president, i'd like to reiterate my remarks from yesterday on the nomination of john bush to the sixth circuit court of appeals. many of my colleagues have been down on the floor here expressing just how distressing and damaging this nomination
will be. his extreme record demonstrates that john bush simply doesn't have the temperament to be an impartial federal judge, the very least our system requires. once again, i urge my colleagues to oppose his confirmation. thank you, and i yield the floor. ms. hassan: thank you,
mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. and thanks to our leader, senator schumer, for his remarks. i joined with senator schumer and all of our colleagues in wishing the very best to our tough and resilient earn -- american hero john mccain. our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. we need him back here as fast as he can get here. i also share leader schumer's remarks and concerns about the current status of the health care bill, as we understand it, and i would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to vote down the motion to proceed so we can have regular order and we can hear from stakeholders and the american people about how changes in health care would impact them and what ideas they have for us to be able to lower costs and make sure that all americans have access to truly affordable, high-quality care. i also rise today, mr. president, to oppose the nomination of attorney john k. bush to serve on the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. mr. president, an independent and impartial judiciary is critical to our democracy and to our march towards progress. our founders established our court system to serve as an independent arbiter that would protect the rights of every american and ensure equal justice under our laws. unfortunately, it is clear that mr. bush lacks the impartiality
and commitment to equal justice for every americans that needed to qualify -- that's needed to qualify for a lifetime appointment on the sixth circuit court of appeals. president trump's nomination of mr. bush represents yet another attempt by this administration to undermined the rights of american women to make their own health care decisions and to control our own destinies. to fully participate not only in our economy, but also in our democracy, women must be recognized for their capacity to make their own health care decisions just as men are. they must also have the full independence to do so, just as men do. mr. bush has made clear that he fundamentally disagrees with that principle and that he does not support a woman's constitutionally protected right to a safe and legal abortion. hiding behind a pseudonym on an
online blog, mr. bush has gone so far as to compare a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions to slavery. saying that they are, and this is his quote, the two greatest tragedies in our country. mr. president, the fact that someone nominated for the bench would believe something like this is nothing short of appalling. mr. bush has also criticized essential programs that women and their families depend on, referring to programs like the women and children program otherwise known as wick and grants to combat violence against women as, quote, wasteful. mr. president, i also have real concerns with mr. bush's record when it comes to the rights of lgbtq americans. mr. bush has made clear that he
is vehemently opposed to marriage equality calling it a no compromise position. in 2011 he criticized the state department for an announcement that led to more equal treatment of same-sex parents. and he's even used an offensive antigay slur in a quote he chose to use in public remarks. mr. president, mr. bush's deeply offensive public statements and his record indicate that he is an individual who is focused on extreme partisanship and who does not recognize the basic equality of all americans. his statements and his actions tell us that he is not committed to the concept of equal justice under our laws. this is unacceptable for someone seeking a lifetime appointment to a job that requires sound
judgment, objectivity, and more than anything else an essential commitment to fairness. i'll oppose mr. bush's nomination to the sixth circuit court of appeals, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that any pending quorum call be lifted and i be allowed to speak as it in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. white thank you, mr. president. to the disappointment of the american public and the world scientific community and even to corporate giants like goldman sachs and cargill, president trump recently decided to withdraw the united states from the paris agreement. he cited as justification a slew of alternative facts. some of the most egregious of these alternative facts came from a national economic
resource associates, a group we'll call nera in this speech, a nera report that was commissioned and promoted by a group that calls itself the u.s. chamber of commerce but fronts for the fossil fuel industry. u.s. chamber of carbon might be a better and more accurate name for it. the u.s. chamber of commerce, so-called, is a heavy hitter in washington. it was the second largest spender of anonnous -- nowmous outside -- anonymous outside money or dark money in the 2016 elections second only to the national rifle association. in addition to all that political election spending, it wields the largest lobbying force on capitol hill. in 2015 dropping over 100 million -- $100 million on lobbying. the u.s. chamber of commerce is one of climate actions' most
implacable enemies as most everybody here knows. despite the good climate policies of so many companies on its board. along with senators warren and sanders and others, i examined this inconsistency between the positions of the chamber and of its board members in our recent report the u.s. chamber of commerce out of step with the american people and its members. i ask unanimous consent to enter that report into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: when president trump announced his withdrawal from the paris agreement, he used these alternative facts from that chamber commissioned nera report. here's what trump said. compliance with the terms of the paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the united states could cost america as much as
2.7 million lost jobs by 2025. this includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs. end of alternative facts quote. this was another assertion. by 2040 compliance of commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors. paper down 20%, cement down 23%. iron down 38%. coal -- and i happen to love the coal miners -- he said down 86%. natural gas down 31%. the cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost g.d.p. and 6.5 million industrial jobs while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases much worse than that. end quote of his all terp tif -- alternative facts. now, countless reviewers, including politifact, scientific american, that known crazy,
phony, liberal publication, scientific american, cnbc, and "fortune" magazine fact checked the president's speech. it did not fair well. politifact warned us to take these statistics with a grain of salt. analysis of the underlying report was done by kenneth gillingham, an economics professor at yale university, and he pointed out that the nearest study made up -- made up a hypothetical set of policy actions to reach those goals. those policy actions may well never have been taken by anyone to comply with the paris agreement, but that was what they used. second, nera only modeled the cost side. you heard the phrase cost benefit equation. they only looked at the cost.
they didn't ever look at the benefit side. this is phony accounting when you only look at one side of the ledger. now, nera, of course, has a history of producing misleading reports for its industry sponsors. in 2015 it released a report for the national association of manufacturers on the proposed ozone standard claiming that it would cost as much as $140 billion per year. well, on the cost side, e.p.a. estimated it would cost a fraction of what nera estimated, less than 12%. the economic consulting firm analyzed the report and found it, quote, grossly overstates compliance costs due to major flaws. math errors. math errors and unfounded assumptions. these assumptions and other
flaws led nera to overstate compliance costs by more than 700%. and that's just on the cost side. once again they didn't even bother to look at the benefits. it's a one side of the ledger phony analysis. so, of course, the chamber commission, nera -- commissioned nera to do the same thing it did on climate. overestimate the costs and ignore the benefits. in this world of climate denial, this is a classic maneuver. senator ted cruz cited the nera report in his cnn op-ed urging president trump to pull the u.s. out of the paris agreement a day before president trump cited these stats in his withdrawal speech. cruz, trump, and the chamber ignored more than a thousand companies, a thousand companies that supported the u.s. remaining in the paris agreement, including several
chamber member companies. some of these have publicly distanced themselves from the chamber as a result of the president's decision. a recent bloomberg news article was headlined paris pullout pits chamber against some of its biggest members. citigroup said we have been outspoken in our support for the paris agreement and have had a dialogue with the chamber about how its views and advocacy on climate policy are inconsistent with citi's position. similar distancing came from dow and ford. over the weekend "the washington post" ran a piece is the most powerful lobbyist in washington, that's the so-called u.s. chamber of commerce, losing its grip. exploring this tension around climate in more detail. the article said perhaps the most meddleson issue for the chamber has been climate change. it calls out the chamber's claims to be neutral on the paris agreement while actually
providing, quote, ammunition for foes of the agreement. the article highlights the chamber's climate denial effort, including its 2009 proposal to hold a public trial on climate science, what it dubbed the scope's monkey trial of the 21st century. new mexico-based utility p.n.m. resources actually quit the chamber because that idea was so preposterous. "washington post" identified eight of the 25 companies that signed an ad in "the new york times" supporting the paris agreement as chamber members, including g.e., microsoft, and walt disney. the c.e.o. of these -- the c.e.o.'s of these companies publicly criticized president trump's decision. microsoft's brad smith said we're disappointed with the decision to exit the paris agreement. microsoft remains committed to doing our part to achieve its
goals. g.e. said disappointed with today's decision on the paris agreement. climate change is real. industry must now lead and not depend on government. walt disney's bob iger said, as a matter of principle, i've resigned from the president's council over the pawr ris agreement withdrawal -- paris agreement withdrawal. the chamber is out of step with its own members on climate change. maintaining a scientifically untenable position as every one of our home state universities -- our state universities knows. so who is pulling the chamber's chain? well, it's hard to tell since the chamber hides from the public who its donors are, but i suspect the answer is the same as why the republicans continue to revive the hated zombie health care bill despite huge public distaste for it.
which brings me to the nomination of john bush to be the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. the chamber's rigid anticlimate stance is part of a fossil fuel political program that holds this chamber in a state of intimidation and inaction on climate change. as congress cowers before this fossil fuel political presence, we are now advancing the nomination of a climate denier to the federal bench. john bush was not nominated because of any track record of distinguished performance or demonstrated commitment to public service. to the contrary his most notable achievements seemed to be a series of wildly offensive blog postings and public statements. denying that climate change is real and mocking it, comparing a woman's right to choose to the evil of slavery, casually using
vile sliewrs against -- slurs against gay people and on and on go the list. bush has written a number of posts dealing with environmental issues in which he insists on placing the terms global warming and climate change in quotation marks, insit yating that they do -- insinuating that they do not really exist. tell that to your home state universities. so, with this appalling track record, why was he nominated? it is not hard to figure that out. he is here because through those offensive blog posts and by flagging himself as a loyal climate denier, he signals himself as a willing foot soldier of the big special interests. these big special interests are intent on capturing our courts, just as they have captured so much of congress. judicial nominees like mr. bush are