In a signal that the new majority will not sit idly by in the face of continued attempts to push the judiciary to the extreme ideological right, the Senate has staunched the flood of Bush's most radical appointees.

In January, in the face of certain Democratic opposition, four of the five most ideologically conservative of the Bush judicial nominees -- William Haynes, William Myers, Terrence Boyle, and Michael Wallace -- withdrew their names from consideration, and were not renominated.

While the ability of the far Right to inundate the courts with a deluge of extremist judges might have waned, that has not stopped them from trying to push their agenda in other ways. One example is Senator Sam Brownback's (R-KS) blocking of the appointment of Michigan state court judge Janet Neff to the federal bench, on charges of "judicial activism" because she presided in an unofficial capacity in a private, symbolic commitment ceremony for a same sex couple.

In addition, a troubling new tactic is emerging: the replacement of the traditionally more non-partisan US Attorneys with right-wing loyalists. A provision slipped into the reauthorization of the Patriot Act by a former clerk of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who was serving as an aid to Arlen Specter essentially gave the executive branch the power to circumvent the advice and consent of the Senate in choosing interim replacements for US Attorneys, who are primarily responsible for prosecution of federal crimes. The firing of several of these attorneys, and their proposed replacements' close ties to White House insiders, has generated quite a bit of concern among Senators and the legal community.

A few years ago, Department of Justice officials purged a large percentage of career attorneys in its Civil Rights Division for political reasons. Subsequently there was a sharp decline in its enforcement of traditional civil rights matters. One clear example of the detrimental effect that these politicized actions have had is in the realm of voting rights. In the wake of this conservative reshaping of the Civil Rights Division, the Voting Rights Division precleared redistricting plans that were obvious political gerrymanders in Mississippi and Texas (one of which was subsequently found to dilute minority voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act), and a voter identification requirement in Georgia.

This history should make us wary of the fallout of these lower-profile maneuverings to influence the judicial process. EJS was instrumental in ensuring that the California Coalition for Civil Rights supported the steps being taken by the Senate, in particular Senator Dianne Feinstein, to remedy this loophole. We need to remain vigilant and watchful, and need to stay assured that our members of Congress do the same.