|
Voices |
 
|
"And his position causes serious concerns about
whether he would support civil rights laws in defense of the rights of women and
minorities."
|
|
"Appeals Court Nominee Thomas B. Griffith is a Poor Choice"
Posted March 27, 2005 thepeoplesvoice.org
By: Gene C. Gerard
Last year, President Bush nominated Thomas B. Griffith to fill a vacancy on the
U.S. Court of Appeals. Senate Democrats prevented a vote on his nomination.
Consequently, President Bush re-nominated Mr. Griffith in February. The Senate
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on his nomination on March 8, and is expected
to vote on his confirmation in April. Senate Democrats were correct in not furthering his previous nomination. Mr.
Griffith has a strong record of opposition to women's rights, as regards public
education. Additionally, he practiced law, both in the District of Columbia and
in Utah, although he was not authorized to do so. Equally troubling, he gave
false answers while under oath regarding his practice of the law.
During President Bush's first term, Mr. Griffith was appointed to serve on the
Commission on Opportunity in Athletics. The Commission was created to determine
if current standards regarding the application of Title IX of the Education
Amendments on 1972 should be revised for sports. The Title IX provision was
intended to expand opportunities for girls and women in education, especially
athletics. Indeed, it has been successful in doing so.
Mr. Griffith made a recommendation so extreme it was overwhelmingly rejected by
the Commission. He proposed eliminating a test that has long been used to verify
compliance with Title IX. The National Coalition for Women and Girls in
Education noted that the recommendation ". would have devastated current Title
IX athletics policies and reduced the athletic opportunities and scholarship
dollars to which woman and girls are legally entitled."
Under the test, a school is in compliance with Title IX if it demonstrates that
the athletic opportunities for males and females is substantially proportionate
to each sex's representation in the student body. Mr. Griffith recommended
abolishing this verification, saying, ".it is unfair, and it is wrong." In doing
do, he rejected the opinion of all eight federal appeals courts, who have upheld
the constitutionality of the test. When other Commission members pointed this
out, Mr. Griffith replied that the courts "were wrong."
However, the Department of Education later stated the "test has worked well" and
"is thus a valid, alternative way for schools to comply with Title IX." Mr.
Griffith's position would significantly undermine legal and educational
principals that have protected girls and women from discrimination. His legal
viewpoint is clearly at odds with the nation's commitment to ending
discrimination based on sex. And his position causes serious concerns about
whether he would support civil rights laws in defense of the rights of women and
minorities.
Also, Mr. Griffith practiced law in the District of Columbia between 1996 and
2000, despite the fact that he was suspended twice from the District of Columbia
Bar, and as such was unauthorized to do so. His membership in the District of
Columbia Bar was suspended in January, 1998, and again from November, 1998 to
November, 2001. According to Mr. Griffith, this was "due to a clerical
oversight." Mr. Griffith has said that his office accidentally failed to renew
his participation in the Bar. The Bar's policy is to mail out an invoice for
dues, with two follow-up notices when the dues are not paid.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals requires that an attorney engaged in
the practice of law in the District be "enrolled as an active member of the
District of Columbia Bar." During his suspension, he served as the legal counsel
to Senate Republicans and was a partner at a law firm. As such, he actively
worked as an attorney after being suspended from the practice of law.
In addition, from 2000 to 2004 Mr. Griffith served as the General Legal Counsel
of Brigham Young University. But he was never authorized to practice law in
Utah, either. Under Utah law, a person cannot practice law unless they have been
admitted to the state Bar. Mr. Griffith could have received admittance to the
Utah Bar if he was a member in good standing with another state Bar. Of course,
he was not. His other option was to take the Utah Bar exam, but he never did.
As the General Counsel of BYU, Mr. Griffith was engaged in the practice of law.
According to BYU itself, the General Counsel is responsible for "advising the
Administration on all legal matters pertaining to the University." In response
to a questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee, when asked what the most
recent position in his legal career was, Mr. Griffith responded "2000-present:
Higher education law." When questioned by the Committee as to why he didn't join
the Utah Bar, he said he didn't believe as General Counsel for BYU this was
necessary.
However, in 2003 the General Counsel of the Utah Bar sent a letter to Mr.
Griffith which stated, "Utah does not have and has never had" a " general
counsel rule exception." The letter further advised him to take the state Bar
exam. Although he had eight opportunities to take the exam, Mr. Griffith never
did. Presumably, he felt that he was above the law, or was concerned that he was
incapable of passing it. However, he did submit an application, under oath, to
take the exam.
The application asked, "Have you ever been disbarred, suspended, censured,
sanctioned, disciplined or otherwise reprimanded or disqualified, whether
publicly or privately, as an attorney?" He had the opportunity to answer "Yes"
and offer an explanation. Instead, he answered "No." Of course, he knew that he
had been suspended from the District of Columbia Bar twice. In doing so, he gave
a false answer, under oath, to the Utah Bar.
The federal appeals courts play an extremely important role in the judicial
system. While the U.S. Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases annually, the
appeals courts adjudicate about 30,000 cases yearly. The judges who hold
lifetime appointments to these courts have considerable ability to effect
enforcement of the nation's laws. We should expect those judges to have strong
professional ethics and a high regard for the law. Sadly, Mr. Griffith has
neither.
-###-
© Copyright 2005 by Gene C. Gerard. Permission
is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media if this credit is
attached and the title remains unchanged. Gene C. Gerard teaches American
history at a college in suburban Dallas, and is a contributing author to the
forthcoming book "Americans at War," to be published by
Greenwood Press. His previous articles have appeared in Political Affairs
Magazine, Dissident Voice, The Free Press, Intervention Magazine, The Modern
Tribune, and The Palestine Chronicle.
|
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. This news
and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Thepeoplesvoice.org is a non-advocacy internet web site, edited by non-affiliated U.S.
citizens. editor |
|
