According to Washington Post: Wrong Step on Judges
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Under a highly ironic column heading in The Washington Post's editorial section (which says "An Independent Newspaper"), on Monday, January 3, 2005; Page A12, theres this editorial: Wrong Step on Judges with some of the following comments:
IT WOULDN'T HAVE been hard for President Bush to set a new tone in judicial nominations. A little magnanimity and some understanding of the wrongs the president's own side has committed -- as well as the wrongs committed against it -- could have gone a long way. Instead, Mr. Bush has taken the one step sure to fuel the judicial nominations fires: He announced that he would renominate the most controversial of his judicial picks.
Mr. Bush's basic demand -- that a president's nominees get an up-or-down vote -- is a reasonable one, except in the most extreme circumstances. And Democratic senators have not always been willing to consider his nominees fairly or been able to distinguish those whom they should fear and oppose from those with whom they merely disagree.
Since taking office, though, Mr. Bush has behaved in a way that makes it harder for Democratic senators to act responsibly. He has largely failed to acknowledge their legitimate grievances about how a Republican-controlled Senate treated President Bill Clinton's nominees for six years. Instead, he bullheadedly sought to fill appeals court judgeships left vacant because of the recalcitrance of his own party, and he did so with scant consultation. What's more, he sometimes rubbed salt in the wound by nominating people to those seats who have staked out highly controversial and provocative ground, thereby apparently rewarding the misbehavior of his own party.
there's also this great nugget:
The childish message to Senate Democrats could hardly be clearer: I dare you to try filibustering them again.
This may be a shrewd short-term political move. If Democrats do try to filibuster, Republicans can then attempt to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations or simply use their expanded Senate numbers to force votes under the current rules. Stalling judges hasn't helped Democrats politically; indeed, Republicans in two successive elections have used obstruction of judges in key Senate races. So even if filibusters stick, Republicans could win by losing.
and finally, the following (which actually makes some sense):
In the long run, however, the failure of both sides to seek an accord on judicial nominations is a great mistake, one that will make it ever more difficult for future presidents of either party to get judges confirmed and one that risks politicizing the courts. Breaking out of this vicious cycle will take presidential vision and leadership. Mr. Bush's insistence on total victory -- a victory that simply isn't possible in a functioning two-party system -- will only ensure that the war goes on.
So, The Washington Post, that great "independent newspaper" chooses to slam Bush for standing by his original nominees and demanding an up or down vote on them, slams him for the "dare you to filibuster them again" stand, and then finishes by saying both sides are making mistakes, but noting that Bush that is looking for total victory.
First, I'd say that Bush is looking for nothing more and nothing less than fairness to his nominees. If the full senate chooses to keep his nominees from being approved, then so be it. Meanwhile, give the nominees a vote. Don't filibuster them just because they were nominated by Bush. Don't demagogue them because they've made conservative decisions. Don't mis-label them as racist. Don't cast them as activist. Vote on them as they are. If you don't like their records and don't want to support them, then convice 50 other senators that they don't deserve the positions and move on.
Second, though the history for Clinton nominees isn't great, it's not as bad as the liberal main stream media portrays, nor has the history been as good for Bush nominees as the same media tries to portray.
It's very obvious that Bush's nominees have been victims of stall and delay tactics. The Democrats in congress have given him lower level nominees with little or no fight, but have prevented nominees for positions in higher level courts, where law is really finally decided. Allowing him to put his nominees on those courts may actually influence legal decisions and set or stop the setting of precedence. The democrats refuse to allow that, and have lost political capital of their own -- including the loss of a senate seat for Tom Daschle -- in doing whatever possible to stop votes on his (Bush's) nominees.
It's time for this mess to be fixed, it's time for these judges to get votes, and it's time for the delay tactics to be put aside in favor of getting real work done for this country.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE been hard for President Bush to set a new tone in judicial nominations. A little magnanimity and some understanding of the wrongs the president's own side has committed -- as well as the wrongs committed against it -- could have gone a long way. Instead, Mr. Bush has taken the one step sure to fuel the judicial nominations fires: He announced that he would renominate the most controversial of his judicial picks.
Mr. Bush's basic demand -- that a president's nominees get an up-or-down vote -- is a reasonable one, except in the most extreme circumstances. And Democratic senators have not always been willing to consider his nominees fairly or been able to distinguish those whom they should fear and oppose from those with whom they merely disagree.
Since taking office, though, Mr. Bush has behaved in a way that makes it harder for Democratic senators to act responsibly. He has largely failed to acknowledge their legitimate grievances about how a Republican-controlled Senate treated President Bill Clinton's nominees for six years. Instead, he bullheadedly sought to fill appeals court judgeships left vacant because of the recalcitrance of his own party, and he did so with scant consultation. What's more, he sometimes rubbed salt in the wound by nominating people to those seats who have staked out highly controversial and provocative ground, thereby apparently rewarding the misbehavior of his own party.
there's also this great nugget:
The childish message to Senate Democrats could hardly be clearer: I dare you to try filibustering them again.
This may be a shrewd short-term political move. If Democrats do try to filibuster, Republicans can then attempt to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations or simply use their expanded Senate numbers to force votes under the current rules. Stalling judges hasn't helped Democrats politically; indeed, Republicans in two successive elections have used obstruction of judges in key Senate races. So even if filibusters stick, Republicans could win by losing.
and finally, the following (which actually makes some sense):
In the long run, however, the failure of both sides to seek an accord on judicial nominations is a great mistake, one that will make it ever more difficult for future presidents of either party to get judges confirmed and one that risks politicizing the courts. Breaking out of this vicious cycle will take presidential vision and leadership. Mr. Bush's insistence on total victory -- a victory that simply isn't possible in a functioning two-party system -- will only ensure that the war goes on.
So, The Washington Post, that great "independent newspaper" chooses to slam Bush for standing by his original nominees and demanding an up or down vote on them, slams him for the "dare you to filibuster them again" stand, and then finishes by saying both sides are making mistakes, but noting that Bush that is looking for total victory.
First, I'd say that Bush is looking for nothing more and nothing less than fairness to his nominees. If the full senate chooses to keep his nominees from being approved, then so be it. Meanwhile, give the nominees a vote. Don't filibuster them just because they were nominated by Bush. Don't demagogue them because they've made conservative decisions. Don't mis-label them as racist. Don't cast them as activist. Vote on them as they are. If you don't like their records and don't want to support them, then convice 50 other senators that they don't deserve the positions and move on.
Second, though the history for Clinton nominees isn't great, it's not as bad as the liberal main stream media portrays, nor has the history been as good for Bush nominees as the same media tries to portray.
It's very obvious that Bush's nominees have been victims of stall and delay tactics. The Democrats in congress have given him lower level nominees with little or no fight, but have prevented nominees for positions in higher level courts, where law is really finally decided. Allowing him to put his nominees on those courts may actually influence legal decisions and set or stop the setting of precedence. The democrats refuse to allow that, and have lost political capital of their own -- including the loss of a senate seat for Tom Daschle -- in doing whatever possible to stop votes on his (Bush's) nominees.
It's time for this mess to be fixed, it's time for these judges to get votes, and it's time for the delay tactics to be put aside in favor of getting real work done for this country.