Not At All Judicial

The Reagan Administration’s appointments to the federal judiciary have included a number of well-regarded legal minds as well as some people of much less ability and experience. Among those in the latter group is Daniel A. Manion, who has been nominated for a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Chicago and covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Manion’s record makes him a poor choice to be an appellate judge.

Manion has not distinguished himself either as a lawyer or as a legal scholar. Much of his adult life was spent with the Manion Forum, an advocacy group that produces radio and television broadcasts endorsing extremist right-wing views. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had no published writings, which in itself should raise eyebrows about a nominee for a court that issues written opinions on complex legal issues.

The positions that Manion has espoused should give the Senate further pause about giving him a lifetime judgeship. Manion has praised the John Birch Society, of which his father, Clarence Manion was a founding member, and called for the re-establishment of the House Un-American Activities Committee. During four years in the Indiana Legislature, he sponsored legislation to have the Ten Commandments posted in every classroom and to require schools to teach creationism along with evolution.

His views of constitutional matters, which regularly come before the Courts of Appeals, are equally odd. For example, he opposes the incorporation doctrine, under which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states as well as to the federal government. He has repeatedly shown little regard for the First Amendment freedoms that federal judges must protect.

Manion lacks the qualifications and independence of thought necessary for this important judgeship. The Committee should reject him.