Less than two months after re-nominating four controversial Court of Appeals nominees during the lame duck session, President Bush did not include these men in his first list of judicial nominees to the new Congress. The four nominees, William J. Haynes II, Terrence W. Boyle, William G. Myers III, and Michael B. Wallace, had all asked the President to withdraw their nominations.
"President Bush has made the right decision in not resubmitting these controversial and problematic nominees who failed to win confirmation from a Republican-controlled Senate," said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats had vowed to block these far-right nominees.
District Court Judge Boyle, a former aide to Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), was blocked by Democrats when he was first nominated to serve on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. Boyle, one of President Bush's most controversial nominees, has issued numerous opinions hostile to affirmative action, women's rights, fair employment, and voting rights. Wallace, who was nominated to the 5th Circuit, is a former aide to Senator Trent Lott (D-MS). Wallace has the distinction of being the first appellate court nominee in 25 years to be given a rating of "unqualified" to sit on the federal bench by the American Bar Association.
Leahy has said that Myers was blocked for being "the most anti-environmental nominee sent to the Senate." Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) wrote about Haynes in an opinion piece in the Washington Post, "Nominations do not get much worse than this…Haynes does not come anywhere close to the commitment to fundamental rights and the principle of separation of powers that we all expect from the federal courts. He would be a poster boy on the 4th Circuit for denying the rule of law."
Media Resources: Washington Post 1/10/07; Leahy statement 1/9/07; Feminist Daily News Wire 9/1/06
3/7/2014 Study Finds Continuing Gender Gap in Medical Research - Although 20 years have passed since the government instituted legislation requiring adequate female representation in medical studies, a recent study finds that a significant sex and gender gap still persists in medical research.
"Sex-Specific Medical Research: Why Women's Health Can't Wait" by researchers at the Connors Center for Women's Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Jacobs Institute at George Washington University Hospital finds that scientists still fail to account for differences between males and females. . . .