Oren M. Spiegler – 6/29/18


This page was last updated on July 21, 2018.

What type of nominee will Trump select?; Oren M. Spiegler (OMS); Beaver County Times; June 29, 2018.

Mr. Spiegler is such a prolific letter writer the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review gave him a little tribute back in 2003.  Google “Oren M. Spiegler” and you’ll get more hits than you know what to do with.  Unfortunately, prolific is not a synonym for competent.  Mr. Spiegler claims to be a Republican.  In my critique of “Breathing more freely,” I cited reasons why I was “beginning to believe Mr. Spiegler is simply another Republican impersonator,” but he sealed the deal with “Greatest foreign policy debacle.”  Subsequent letters provided more confirmation.  The group of local Republican impersonators also includes Messrs. William A. Alexander, Arthur Brown, Edward J. Hum, Bill Ralston, and George Reese, all claiming to be disgruntled Republicans.  While he has previously claimed to be a Republican, this appears to be the first time Mr. Spiegler claimed to be a registered Republican in a BCT letter.  If true, Mr. Spiegler joins Mr. Hum in going the extra mile to further his impersonation of a Republican.

ALERT!  Though I missed it by several months, Mr. Spiegler finally did the honorable thing and ended his charade and deregistered as a Republican.

You can find links to previous critiques of Spiegler letters I critiqued here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The BCT has or had a limit of 12 letters per writer per year.  In 2014, the BCT either ditched that limit or made a huge exception for Mr. Spiegler.  By my count, the BCT published at least 25 Spiegler letters in 2014.  Mr. Spiegler and/or the BCT dialed things back a bit in 2015; the BCT published only 15 Spiegler letters in 2015 and 10 in 2016.  This letter appears to be OMS’ eighth of 2018.

Below is a review of the subject letter.

“The announced retirement of U. S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is in many ways disastrous for the country.  The president will quickly name a replacement for Kennedy, someone with sterling academic credentials and experience; a bedrock conservative who may be challenged by the Democrats only on ideology.”

[RWC] I held off publishing this review until after President Donald Trump (DT) made his nomination, Judge Brett Kavanaugh (BK), United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  OMS’ post-nomination letter was “Fierce but futile battle ahead over Trump nominee.”

Here’s how BK described his judicial philosophy the night of his nomination:

“A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.  A judge must interpret statutes as written.  And a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”

“Until the 1980s, qualified candidates would be confirmed on a bipartisan basis, and often unanimously.  In today’s hyper-partisan environment, the party in control attempts to force through the confirmation process a nominee whom the party that is out of power reviles.”

[RWC] The first sentence of this paragraph is not true.

“The stealing of the Merrick Garland court seat by Justice Neil Gorsuch, aided and abetted by a Republican Senate, has tilted the court to 5-4 conservative majority decisions as seen most recently in the Janus case, which ended the mandatory collection of union ‘fair share’ fees from nonunion members.  A sixth Trump-style justice, the replacement for swing vote Justice Kennedy, could solidify a conservative bent to the court for decades to come.”

[RWC] How did Justice Neil Gorsuch (NG) steal “the Merrick Garland court seat?”  Unless there’s an amendment I missed, candidates for the Supreme Court don’t nominate themselves.  Who says Mr. Garland would have been approved?

OMS forgot to mention the Janus ruling covered only government employees.

Here’s an excerpt from my review of the BCT editorial “Back in time” (3/3/2011).

“The editorial fails to mention FDR (patron saint of lefties) opposed public sector labor unions.  In a 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward (President of the National Federation of Federal Employees), FDR wrote, “… meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.  All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.  It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”  Likewise, George Meany (first president of the AFL-CIO, 1955-1979) opposed collective bargaining for public sector employees.  I’m surprised lefties haven’t tried to convince us Messrs. Meany and Roosevelt were really conservatives.  When politicians negotiate with labor union management, they negotiate with people who will return part of what they win to the politicians via taxpayer-funded campaign contributions.  It’s called a conflict of interest.  There’s a reason 93% of labor union management PAC contributions to federal candidates (over $62 million) went to Democrat candidates in 2010.”

OMS failed to mention it was “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts who saved Obamacare not just once, but twice.  Justice Kennedy dissented both in cases.

NG “has tilted the court to 5-4 conservative majority decisions?”  NG replaced the-late Antonin Scalia and so far, appears to rule similarly.

“Another Trump court pick would place the nation firmly on the path to limit abortion rights, voting rights and the rights of sexual and racial minorities, to further gut environmental protections and likely expand gun rights.”

[RWC] Blah, blah, blah.  This is boilerplate stuff lefties dust off whenever there’s a Supreme Court opening during a Republican administration.

“The Senate currently has a slim 51-49 Republican majority.  Will any member(s) of the GOP have the courage to stand in the way of the party forcing through a nominee who faces enormous opposition?”

[RWC] OMS failed to mention three Democrats had the courage to stand in the way of their party and approved Justice Gorsuch.  Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) had the courage to stand in the way of the party trying to block a highly-qualified nominee with enormous support.  Will other member(s) of the Democrat party show the same courage for DT’s second nomination?

“What do you say, moderate Republicans John McCain and Susan Collins, and Trump critics Ben Sasse, and Bob Corker?”

[RWC] Blah, blah, blah.  Given the comments below by OMS’s four senators about Justice Gorsuch, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any of them not to approve DT’s nominee should he/she be Gorsuch-like.

Here’s an excerpt from what Sen. McCain (R-AZ) said about Neil Gorsuch: “I have been remiss in not taking the time to describe for the American people why I support—strongly and without qualification—Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to serve as an Associate Justice on the nation’s highest court.  Why I do is very simple: Rarely has this body seen a nominee to the Supreme Court as qualified, skilled, independent, and with such a high command of constitutional jurisprudence as Judge Gorsuch.  It is exactly for these reasons that this very body unanimously voted in 2006 to confirm this very same judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.  And yet, now the other side would have the American people believe that this very same judge lies firmly outside the mainstream and is otherwise unacceptable to serve on the nation’s highest court.  Even by the standards of this body, this sophistry is breathtaking.”

Here’s an excerpt from what Sen. Collins (R-ME) said about Neil Gorsuch: “I come to the floor today to announce that I shall cast my vote for Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  In making my decision, I evaluated Judge Gorsuch’s qualifications, experience, integrity, and temperament.  I questioned him for more than an hour in a meeting in my office, evaluated his record, spoke with people who knew him personally, and reviewed the Judiciary Committee’s extensive hearing record.  While I have not agreed with every decision that Judge Gorsuch has made, my conclusion is that he is eminently well-qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court.  Judge Gorsuch has sterling academic and legal credentials.  In 2006, the Senate confirmed this outstanding nominee by voice vote to his current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals.  A roll call vote was neither requested nor required.”

According to a news story, “Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse disagrees with President Donald Trump on plenty of things, but not on his judicial nominees.  Sasse has had his differences with Trump, but not on how the president is shaping the judiciary.  ‘His judicial nominees have been excellent; not just good, they’ve been great.  His trade policy is really bad,’ Sasse tells Nebraska Radio Network.”

Regarding Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), “U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement after voting to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.  “‘Our next Supreme Court justice will have a lasting impact on the direction of our country, and as I said on February 2 after meeting with Judge Gorsuch in my Capitol Hill office, I have full confidence in his dedication to upholding the Constitution and applying the rule of law in a fair an independent manner,” said Corker.  ‘I am pleased President Trump nominated such a well-respected and qualified individual, and I was proud to cast a vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch.’”

© 2004-2018 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.