At least since the 50s, judicial nominees have routinely been chosen with an eye towards their prospects in front of the Senate. Brennan in the 50s and Souter in the 80s are two good examples. Each was chosen in part because of his relative anonimity. Eisenhower and Reagan/Bush (I don't remember which one) was looking for someone with a strong resume but few publicly stated opinions. In both cases, the president assumed that the unstated opinions would be in agreement with the that president's party. In both cases he was wrong. As a New Hampshire native, I am quite familiar with Souter's nomination. When it was announced, most people said 'who?'. He'd only been a judge for a handful of years. His only high profile position was as Attorney General of New Hampshire, where he got rave reviews but never even hinted at what his personal opinions were. Everyone, Democrats included, assumed that he would be a typical New Hampshire conservative, whatever that is, but he turned out to be a committed centrist with some fairly liberal opinions. My personal opinion is that the Republicans are more worried about another David Souter than they are about any vacancies that result from filibusters.
First of all, this is the first time in history that four judicial nominees are being blocked by filibuster simultaneously. Secondly, all the Clinton nominees which Republicans held up were eventually confirmed. Third, I don't want people throwing Abe Fortas at me in order to prove the Republicans started this way back when. The Senate was overwhelmingly Democrat back in the late sixties. If his own party hadn't rebelled, he would have been a shoo-in. Finally, the true vindictiveness began against Robert Bork and continued through Clarence Thomas. There's a special place in hell for the people that engineered those two travesties. Republicans have NEVER treated judicial nominees as those men were treated.
Oh, I'm getting all weepy. Never have two such dicks been nominated. At least Bork was arrogant and smart, as opposed to just arrogant.
Well I'm not sure how many of them the Dems approved since the Republicans do have the majority and they can approve a judge without a single democratic vote. This is not new, and it is likely that many of Bush's other appontments may have very similar opinions to the ones being blocked, but they have been wise enough to hold them to themselves. Is that what we want to do, force judges to say as little as possible, lest it come back to haunt them?
This is flat out wrong. Many Clinton nominees never even got to the point of committee hearings because the Republican committe chairs blocked them at the earliest possible point. He was a judicial nominee, but Bill Weld is an example. Jesse didn't like him, so his nomination just withered away, and the position of Ambassador to Mexico was vacant for a year or more. Let's see now. Robert Bork publicly disagreed with Connecticut v Griswold, the 60s case in which the Supreme Court ruled that states may not outlaw the sale of contraceptives to married couples. This wasn't all, a number of his personal opinions about the law were waaaaaaaaay outside the mainstream of judicial thought. Then again, that's why he was nominated. Reagan's people figured the Dems would just roll over. Clarence Thomas claimed under oath to have no opinion on Roe v Wade even though he is a practicing Catholic and was in law school when the decision came down. Note, he didn't duck the question or say that his personal beliefs would not effect his rulings, he said he had no opinion. If he was lying, he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. If he wasn't lying no man who is utterly uninterested in one of the biggest legal questions of our era belongs on the Supreme Court. That, and has he voted, even once, differently from Scalia?
My question was to bust your balls, becuase you were right about it being different circumstances. I wasn't actually expecting an answer. I espcially wasn't expecting you to come to the defense of those two turds calling the hoopla that surrounded them a travesty.
Art. 2. Sec. 2. Subsection 2. "he shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court" Thus the president alone has the power to nominate judges. The senate and the president have the dual authority to appoint judges. The Senate is an equal player in the appointment of judges, there is no special right of the president to appoint the judges.
Which is precisely what judical nominees should do! The basic principle that is supposed to judges' behavior in our legal system, is that they are supposed to rule on the law. Their personal opinions shouldn't matter, ever. This is why, traditionally, judicial nominees aren't asked about their opinions on individual issues of the day. Their personal beliefs aren't supposed to be a predictor of their decisions. The current administration has taken to nominating people who are almost entirely defined by their public expressions of opinion, and they're not moderates. Bush doesn't need to nominate flaming liberals in order to get them approved, but he does need to nominate people who don't trigger immediate revulsion in the Democratic portion of the Senate. Remember, Federal judges are appointed for life. The bar is supposed to be very high, and nominees are supposed to be able to appeal to broad segments of the Senate.
So timing matters? If it were four spread out it would be OK, but now it's not? Total, complete, unadulterated bullshit. There were 41 Clinton judicial nominees who never got to a full Senate vote. They were all either killed off in committee or dismissed without even a hearing by the infamous "blue slip" method -- all by Republicans. You want names? Helene White, James Beaty, James Wynn, Enrique Moreno, and Kathleen McCree Lewis, to start -- they were all dismissed via the blue slip. You're ignoring the political leanings of Southern Democrats in 1968. But regardless, the issue is that this is not "unprecedented" as the GOP is claiming. A "special place in hell"? Thomas is on the Court and has proven himself to be... well, not much of anything special, as he sits there during every argument and asks no questions and ends up writing fewer judgements by far than any other justice. Bork hasn't exactly been wallowing in the sorrow of his post-nomination life as an author and A-list speaker. Bork has been used by Republicans as the "they started it first" rallying cry for 16 years now, through four Presidents. Please find a new Jesus to carry your cross for you.
Does anyone have any info on these 4 candidates and why the democrats choose to use the fillabuster against them. I would like to have an opinion on this, but I don't have all of the information.
Last night I was just about to get to bed when I caught some of the filibuster on CSPAN2 at midnight PST (3 a.m. back in DC). My insomnia was nearly cured by a rambling speech by Sen Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) on the separation of powers by the Founding Fathers. Typical repetitive filibustering speech. I finally nodded off during the speech immediately afterward by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) when he complained about partisanship and bemoaned the fact that special interests are allowed to control the Congress. And he said that during Clinton's administration, there were liberal judges nominated whom he thought would wreck the country with their activist agenda; but the Senate voted for them anyway. Thank God for sleep functions on TVs.
No, we get the point. You're obsessed with Tom DeLay and gerrymandering. Rewarded by whom? The American people. And don't you forget it.
Bork was nominated as the dutiful Nixonian who fired Archibald Cox. What kind of credential is that? The only travesty in his case is that Reagan nominated a national joke for the SCOTUS. And this from someone -- me -- who'd like to see Roe overruled.
So you don't believe judges should give the reasonings behind their results? Every ruling should just be. I find in favor of the defendant, or I find in favor of the plantiff? If the Senate is not allowed to question you about their opinions, wouldn't that be the best way to get yourself appointed to a higher court? Senator - Why did ou find in favor of the defendant in this case? Appointee - because I believe the law supported his case? Senator - and why do you believe that? Appointee - Well that would get into my opinion, and you wouldn't want to get into my personal opinions now would you?
How can you deliberately misread something this way and then complain when people give up and start insulting you? Here's how it works: When a judge makes ruling (in a civil case or an appeals court), there are exactly three sources of information that he should use. One, the facts of the case as presented by the two sides. Two, the laws of the relevant jurisdiction relating to the matter at hand. Three, case law (precedents, mostly) that relate either to the laws or the facts of the case. Notice how there's no mention there of opinion or personal belief? No one expects judges to behave as though the sum total of their life's experiences were in court rooms and law libraries. However, since this is supposed to be a nation of laws and not of men, judges must give always give secondary priority to what they wish would happen. Men like Robert Bjork are not well suited to be judges because they are better suited to be politicians. Both the executive and legislative branches of government constantly need people who are driven by passion. The whole point of the judiciary is that the judge must be able to set aside passion and provide justice. If all this is to difficult for you, or just too annoyingly rational, feel free to pretend I said, "Of course not, you twit!"
Re: Re: The Senate judiciary filibuster You shouldn't just swallow the lies that the Dems put out as talking points. As far as the filibuster goes, I wonder why they make such a big deal of working for a whole day. I'll bet that it doesn't go beyond Thursday.
I'm not going to research this, but go off the top of my head, so cut me slack if I get a minor detail wrong. Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Charles (?) Pickering, and a woman in California. All of these are for appellate level positions. Estrada is being nominated for the D.C. Circuit, which is one of the most powerful because all administrative law cases related to Congress come through there. He is considered to be a conservative. He's being demagogued by Reeps who claim that Dems are somehow opposed to Hispanic judges(!!!???!!!) William Pryor is the Attorney General of Alabama. He is super-squirrelly. He has made statements in support of Chief Justice Moore (the Ten Commandments Judge). To his credit, he did enforce the law when required to in a couple of controversial religion and abortion cases, but he's been pretty clear about disagreeing with their principles. He was formerly the Republican Party general counsel for Alabama. Pickering is a U.S. District judge in Mississippi. His big sin was trying to circumvent the federal sentencing guidelines to reduce the sentence of convicted Klansmen. He's a favorite of Ashcroft, was already defeated once, and was renominated by Bush after the midterm elections. The California woman I know less about, but she's the most conservative U.S. District Court judge and is up for a position on the traditionally liberal 9th Circuit. Estrada is the most dangerous because he's being groomed for a Supreme Court opening. Pryor is second because he most closely resembles the Trent Lott Republican world view. Pickering is just an example of what Superdave calls will-to-power because he's baaa-aaack. The California woman I don't know enough to say.
This is not true. Bork is a great legal theorist because he is constantly pushing the envelope on legal theory. That means he belongs in a university. This is true. It's why Bork makes a good professor and a bad judge. Stanley Fish and Noam Chomsky should stay in the universities too.
Re: Re: Re: The Senate judiciary filibuster The Senate confirmed 90% of Clinton's appointees. You young, uneducated types scare me sometimes.
My senator, Barbara Boxer, just slapped the Reeps up and down last night. It was midnight basketball, with the GOP playing the Washington Generals. Nothing like speaking about the many, many flaws of the nominee from her own state in front of a sign saying "2.6 million jobs lost." Boxer for President.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Senate judiciary filibuster And what percentage of Bush judicial nominees have been confirmed again? Maybe you might want to check an independent source before you regurgitate the Democrat party line this time.
Well, that, and the other umpteen examples which prove my point that movement conservatives are dangerous revolutionaries.