Priscilla Owen...A Trustee of the Constitution?

Here is some encouraging background on Priscilla Owen. It comes from material submitted for her nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by C. Boyden Gray. (Hat Tip to Confirm Them) The qualities described below seem to suggest that Owen would be a responsible and capable "Trustee" of the Constitution and not an "Activist" (See my previous post for this distinction).

"The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision to hold the pledge of allegiance
unconstitutional1 serves as a vivid reminder that the federal bench must be staffed by jurists who are committed to deciding cases according to the law, not their personal policy preferences (See Newdow v. U.S. Congress, No. 00-16423 (9th Cir. June 26, 2002). Judges are neither legislators nor constitutional drafters, and it is
an abuse of power to use the judicial office to impose one’s political views in the guise of legal interpretation.

Though startling, and inconsistent with America’s constitutional traditions, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has provoked a nationwide civics lesson. The pledge decision presents an opportunity for the American people to reconsider what sort of judges should be confirmed to the federal bench. And at a more general level, it is an occasion
to revisit the issues of the judiciary’s proper role in a democratic system of government, and what is meant by “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint.”

Ultimately, judicial restraint is an appreciation for the judiciary’s limited powers, and a reluctance to usurp prerogatives that the Constitution assigns or reserves to the other branches of government. In particular, restrained judges:
1. adhere faithfully to binding precedent issued by higher courts, especially
the United States Supreme Court;
2. defer to the policy choices the legislature enacts into positive law, and
refrain from substituting their views for those of the legislature;
3. interpret the Constitution and laws enacted by the legislature as intended
by those who wrote them;
4. respect the traditional authority of trial courts, which are in the best
position to assess the credibility and demeanor of witnesses, to make
factual findings;
5. uphold the right of individuals to take actions which the law permits them to take; and
6. approach each case without any preconceived notions, or reflexively
siding with any one litigant.

Judged by any of these criteria, Justice Priscilla Owen of the Texas Supreme Court, whom the President has nominated to a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, undoubtedly is a restrained and principled jurist. Time and again, in her opinions Justice Owen has stressed that the function of a court in interpreting legal text is to give effect to the intent of the lawgiver. Justice Owen consistently has interpreted Texas statutes in light of the binding precedents of the United States Supreme Court. She has deferred to the enactments of the Texas Legislature, denying
that judges legitimately can interpret statutory language to reflect their own political or ideological commitments. And she has declined, as an appellate judge, to meddle with the traditional prerogative of the trial courts to make findings of fact.


The discussion below demonstrates Justice Owen’s fidelity to these and other jurisprudential pillars, a fidelity that earned her a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, the highest rating a judicial nominee can possibly achieve. We agree that Justice Owen is superlatively well suited to occupy a seat on
the Fifth Circuit, and we urge the Senate to approve her nomination as soon as possible."

You can read the rest of this recommendation here...
And There is more on Owen Here...