Bush resends judicial picks

Bush resends judicial picks

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush officially resubmitted to the Senate yesterday 20 judicial nominees, including seven U.S. Circuit Court nominees whom Democrats filibustered in the last Congress.
"I'm pleased that the president has renominated these excellent women and men to serve on the federal bench," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.
"I'm hopeful that Democrats will work with me to get up-or-down votes on each nominee," he said.
Mr. Frist said he hoped to confirm the nominees, or at least give each a final vote on the Senate floor, through diplomacy. But he told The Washington Times for an article printed yesterday that he had the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules to ban filibusters against executive nominees — a threat that colored the Democrats' reactions yesterday.
Diplomacy is not likely to work, said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who told reporters last month that if Mr. Bush renominates the same judges, the Democrats will block them again.
"To replay this narrow and completed debate demonstrates the Bush administration's failure to craft a positive agenda for the American people," Mr. Reid said yesterday after the renominations were announced.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "The president looks like he is still more interested in picking fights than in picking judges."
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Bush "has again chosen confrontation over cooperation and ideology over moderation."
"The president's words about wanting to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats are ringing a little hollow at this point," he said. "Democratic senators cooperated in confirming 204 of President Bush's judicial nominees in his first term, and we were able to reach the lowest judicial vacancy rates in 16 years."
Democrats have filibustered 10 of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. Three have withdrawn their names from consideration, and the remaining seven were resubmitted yesterday.
The seven are Priscilla Richman Owen for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; David W. McKeague, Henry W. Saad and Richard A. Griffin for the 6th Circuit; William Gerry Myers III for the 9th Circuit; William H. Pryor for the 11th Circuit; and Janice Rogers Brown for the D.C. Circuit.
Also resubmitted yesterday were five other Circuit Court nominees on whom the Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote or on whom the Senate took no floor action, but had not been filibustered. To break a filibuster requires a "cloture" vote to end debate, which requires 60 votes to pass.
Mr. Bush also resubmitted eight U.S. District Court nominees who were not confirmed during his first term.

... more at linked article

Another source for same info:

Bush Tries Luck Again With Judicial Nominees

12 Candidates For Federal Courts Blocked in 1st Term

By Michael A. Fletcher and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page A05

Following through on a promise he has made repeatedly since his victory in November, President Bush yesterday renominated 12 candidates for federal appeals court seats whose confirmations were blocked by Senate Democrats during his first term.
The renomination of the judicial candidates promises to once again ignite an intense partisan battle with Senate Democrats. They have vowed to thwart Bush's nominees, whom they consider too conservative.
The battle over the makeup of the federal bench is also a key issue for conservative evangelicals and others at the core of the president's political base who see judges as crucial to their efforts to outlaw abortion, allow for a broader religious presence in daily life and limit the influence of the federal government.
Bush has said that his nominees are well qualified and deserve a vote in the Senate. "Every judicial nominee deserves a prompt hearing and an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," he said yesterday.
Word of the nominations, which the White House had signaled in a December statement, was met with dismay from Senate Democrats and the activist groups that support them. Democrats vowed to continue opposing the candidates they had previously blocked.
"We should not divert attention from other pressing issues facing this nation to re-debate the merits of nominees already found too extreme by this chamber," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the Senate minority leader.
"To replay this narrow and completed debate demonstrates the Bush administration's failure to craft a positive agenda for the American people," added Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal activist group.
Among the most controversial nominees are Terrence W. Boyle, a federal district judge in North Carolina and nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, whom Democrats have criticized for his stances in civil rights cases; Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Richman Owen, a nominee for the 5th Circuit, whose jurisprudence in abortion, civil rights and environmental cases has been criticized; California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who Democrats say has referred to the New Deal as a "socialist revolution"; and William J. Haynes II, who served as Pentagon general counsel when controversial detainee policies were set that allowed enemy combatants to be held indefinitely without charges and access to counsel. He was again nominated for the 4th Circuit.
During Bush's first term, Democrats did not allow a vote on 10 of the 52 appeals court nominations that reached the Senate floor. As a result, conservative groups have been putting increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to force votes on Bush's judicial nominees.
Last year, Republicans held 51 seats and never mustered more than 55 votes in their attempts to end filibusters of the 10 disputed judges whose nominations reached the floor. Now they hold 55 seats, five short of the number needed to halt a filibuster. If they are unable to attract enough Democratic support to overcome a filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has warned, he may seek a rule change that would bar filibusters of judicial nominees. Democrats have vowed to bring the Senate to a standstill if he does so.
GOP sources said Judiciary Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has told colleagues he would like to select one of the least controversial nominees and try to win enough Democratic support to defeat a filibuster, then push for other victories. Specter's office said yesterday that the most likely choice would be William G. Myers III, tapped for a seat on the 9th Circuit. Two Senate Democrats -- Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- voted against the filibuster of Myers last July, and Republicans hope to pick up the support of freshman Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.).

... more at linked article

So the Democrats stand ready, yet again, to filibuster these nominees and threaten to bring the Senate to a stand still if the "nuk-u-lar" option is used.

I personally say Bring it on!

These nominees deserve a vote. If the Democrats can muster 50 votes to defeat one of these nominees, then great. If not, then obviously they can't convince a simple majority that these candidates are the monsters they have tried to paint them to be.

For as bad as these nominees are, there are others out there that are just as horrible, full well supported by the Democrats because they are liberals, or progressives, pro-choice, and likely to support Democratic positions.

Obviously the Democrats in the Senate still don't understand the message they were sent in the 2004 election. Let them continue to show it though, and let them lose more seats in 2006 when they truly give a super majority to the Republicans. If that happens, they'll become so marginalized that they'll never be heard from again. What will they do then?

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Agreed, good, bad or indifferent as the nominees may be, the Constitutional mandate of "advise and consent" has been skirted too long. They can't tell the president who can and can't be nominated, just as the president can't tell them how they have to vote. Senators, It's called the U.S. Constitution you should read it sometime, you might learn something about your job!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!