The 30 hour debate in the U.S. Senate over President Bush's judicial appointments
ended late last night. This marathon talkaton was heard by many Americans. It really was no more than a display of positions between the two major political parties.
What affect do you think this debate had on Americans as relating to fairness in this country's judicial system? Are the Democrats in holding off the voting on judicial appoints violating our Constitution.
This display by the Democrats in the U.S. Senate will surely cause the same reaction if and when they are in the majority. The display by the Democrats is bound to erode America's confidence in our elected officials and bring on more
apathy from American voters.
Who is right and who was wrong over these judicial appointments?

The role of the Senate is to "advise and consent" not to rubber-stamp a president's nominees. The Democrats have approved 168 of President Bush's nominees and given thumbs down on only four. I think a 98% success rate is pretty doggone acceptable by most standards.

But not for this president and his posse. They want nothing less than 100 percent.

If I were a Senator and I felt the judge coming before the Judiciary Committee was a partisan judicial activist who wants to make law instead of interpreting it, I'd have no problem denying him or her elevation to a seat on the federal bench.

It is an unseemly display of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy for Republican leaders, including senators like Orrin Hatch, to claim repeatedly that use of the filibuster to prevent final votes on judicial nominees is either unprecedented or unconstitutional.

The historical record is clear that the filibuster has been used by both Republicans and Democrats with respect to controversial judicial nominations. In defending a Republican-led filibuster on a judicial nomination in 1994, Hatch himself explained that the filibuster is “one of the few tools the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.” Moreover, during the Clinton administration, Senate Republicans blocked dozens of Clinton nominees with much less open and accountable procedures like secret holds. Fully one-third of Clinton’s appeals court nominees from 1995 through 2000 were kept off the bench – many without even a hearing or committee vote – while others were delayed for as long as four years.

If it is constitutional for a committee chair to stop a nominee by refusing to hold a hearing, or for a secret hold by a single Republican senator to prevent a nominee from moving forward, how can it be unconstitutional for 41 Democratic senators to prevent a final vote using a public Senate procedure specifically designed to protect the rights of the minority? It is clear that the answer has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the politics of power at all costs.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12871

If there is such a thing as being "too liberal" in judicial temperament, then it is equally true that someone can be "too conservative." President Clinton consulted with Senator Orrin Hatch on judicial nominees that were in the mainstream of poltical thought, but Bush, who wants a juicy issue more than he wants good judges, is interested in confrontation, not consultation.

It is not the role of Congress to meekly bow down to the power of the Executive branch. While the hard feelings and strained relationships between the Senators may be an outgrowth of this process, I applaud the Democratic senators for not knuckling under to the president's insistence upon sending up ideological extremists to be appointed to lifetime seats on the federal judiciary and possibly the Supreme Court.

I find the whole thing more amusing than anything.

Here are these politicians acting oh-so-indignant over the filibuster, but when Congressman Lindsay brings up a move to have the filibuster limited when judicial nominations are at stake (as he's threatening to do), it'll be voted down by many of the same Republicans who were acting indignant last night. Why? Because they wouldn't necessarily NOT want that power if they were ever out of the majority.

And I didn't hear ANY Republicans claiming it was "unconstitutional" when Jesse Helms -- ONE SENATOR -- used his committee chairmanship to prevent over 60 Clinton judicial appointments from even getting a hearing.

This is one of those "extremist talk show" things. Lots of bluster about "unconstitutional abuse" and about "gridlock" and all the other hot button code words that extremist love to use.

We should have dubbed it a "filibluster" instead.

Here's the thing: would the Republicans have acted in lock-step and approved these three candidates, regardless of their judicial abilities, just because the President said to? Anyone have any real doubt about this?

Actually, I think this is a warm-up act for when one of the Supremes finally decides to retire. This isn't even the main event yet.

I also think this is true. The Democratic minority will, I predict, not allow ANY judge nominated by George W. Bush onto the US Supreme Court.

What's funny about nightimer's quote:

is that these judges are not "activists", which is precisely why they are opposed. The Democrats would rather have "activists" who substitute their interpretation of the Constitution rather than allowing the Legislative branch to do its job.

Antonin Scalia, that most heinous of judges (according to the Left) takes that position: If you want to change a law, use the Legislative branch. The Judiciary is there simply to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not individual laws. The meaning of the Constitution does not change with time.

Those justices who cling to the "strict constructionist" approach are the opposite of "activists".

I find this dumb. They are arguing over judicial nominees and filibustering their acceptance to the bench, yet they must have forgotten the Medicare bill and the Energy bill that seem important.

Also, they are wasting our tax dollars on this 30 hour "talkathon".

I agree that both sides of the aisle are acting like children and then they wonder why more than half of the people are bored to death with politicians and politics and don't vote...unless it concerns their pocketbook-good or bad-then their ears perk up.

What I don't understand is why sit on these last four...just vote Up or Down and let us get on with it! I guess the filibuster forces a vote of 60 instead of 57 and that can often kill the bill or nomination.

Point of information:
doesn't look like there ignoring other issues.

This just in:

House and Senate Reach Deal on Broad Energy Bill

Oh I disagree there is such a thing as judicial activism. If there was not such a thing we would not be seeing these ideological fights over the nominees occurring. The Senators are acting by divine intervention of the almighty dollar which comes to Washington in form of lobbying groups and most of these lobbying groups on the judicial nominees are activists for one particular issue...abortion.

What I take issue with mostly is the idea of the fact that currently a senator from New York can filibuster and help defeat the nomination for a judge who is to be appointed and rule on laws in Oregon...wrong.

There is a push currently to help split the 9th circuit court....I know this is a little off topic but I feel it does tie into the advise and consent role of congress ...the Northwest region of America would get their own opportunity to rule in favour of their own political identity...because I thought the idea of federalism and sovereignty of states was a vital concept in this country.

I think we are forgetting the biggest problem. The lack of judges is starting to reach a critical stage. People that would normally have a hearing are being post-poned because of this crap. I am really starting to get tired of the Democrats blocking everything with unforseen technocalities and hosing up the process. I thing the DNC is basically becomming a nothing party IMHO. We have seen this is the election of 2000 and we keep seeing this. It's kinda like the little barking poodle that just won't die or shut up..IMHO. When politics are put ahead of whats right or good for the country we have a problem and besides what most liberals may think the American people aren't as dumb as they want you to believe. The DNC better get a grip real soon or they are about to become the dodo of the 21st century in American politics. I say chose your battles and quit making people suffer because you want an answer on a case that hasn't been heard yet.

cusbilla

So... four blocked judges means we're in critical mode waiting for judges? When there are hundreds of judges in the federal judicial courts hearing cases?

Please. Try again.

Perhaps the problem that really needs to be solved is that we have too few judicial circuits.

Is there a source to show that ALL bush appointees but 4 have been approved?

It's been said a couple times but yet to see a source.

Not all that have been nominated have gone through the process, or come to a vote, yet. About 2/3's have. Of all that have, however, only 4 have been blocked. There have been about 170 approved so far.

HERE is a story that gives the numbers and the basics of the dispute.

That is how I see it too. Break the 9th circuit up! Why is the state of California dictating the laws and judicial mindset of Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. ?? Anyone who has lived in any of those states or territories can tell you that the general..and that would be majority... of constituents of those states/territories are nothing like those in California.

I think the only answer is to change the law that calls for 60 votes to bring up a nominee to be voted on. Then it will benefit the Republicans when they have the majority and vice versa for the Democrats.

The Republicans don't have a cause to complain because they attempted
the same stunts when Clinton had nominees. I believe the number was somewhere around 50 that the Republicans blocked,while Clinton was in office. Now we have a total of 6 or 8 so far blocked by the Democrats. Quit complaining or change the law

I think everydoby is right in this situation and our good old system of checks and balances is in healthy working order clogging up the works instead of moving change forward too quickly.

An up or down vote only requires a majority. The '60' are needed to break a filibuster. Now, before you go calling for a change in law, it might be best if you understand the current one first.

A history lesson might also be in order since the Reps never used a filibuster to hold up judicial nominees. As a matter off act, neither party ever did. This is a first. Filibustering judicial nominees.

This whole thing is simply another example of a political party devoid of ideas and lacking in popular support.

Well my goodness,excuse me for living. I hope I am not taking up too much oxygen. It is just that you have such a nice way with words. My grandfather had a favorite saying,"live by the sword and die by the sword".

Passion51:



http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html?related



Now should I show good debating manners like you and say a history lesson might also be in order. No, I will not say that,because I don't want to placed in the same category as you. No one knows 100% of everything. I am lucky if I know just enough to be a newbie debater. But other people must think they are masters and everyone else that doesn't agree with them are not worthy.

I am proud to tell you I make plenty of mistakes. That is the way you learn.

Thanks for the CS Monitor link, Popeye. IMHO it is time for the "nuclear" option. Blow up the logjam, and let's get these superbly qualified judges approved.

Thanks Izdarri:

I am glad someone appreciated that,since I risked getting belittled and bashed about. Its a (no thanks) job but someone has to do it.

The judicial appointees is politicial and will always be political.

While I find the actions of the Senate Democrats reprehensible, I would be very wary of introducing the so-called "nuclear option" to break the filibusters for Circuit Court judges. Such an action would forever alter the nature of the Senate and I don't think that's such a good idea.

Popeye47 said....


and for once, I find myself in agreement with him. Confirmation of federal judges is a political process and I think the Republicans should treat it as such and fight the fight in the political arena. Their 30 hour "talkathon" was one step in that fight, and the elections next year should be another step. Rather than to talk about changing Senate rules, they should be talking about running political campaigns for Republican Senatorial candidates to gain seats and possibly a super-majority that would be filibuster-proof. Judicial nominations are certainly one issue that Republicans can use to win elections. That's how I'd prefer to deal with it.

A fair share of the blame has to rest with the president. He could have chosen moderate judges of good record and reputation. When any ideologue is chosen(either of the left or the right) then the legislative branch should do it's job and try and throw a wrench into the process. The president picked this fight, and he has no right to cry and moan about how his appointments are held up. We have potential judges who hold some pretty far out there beliefs.

I guess in all the articles I have read on this I missed the "far out beliefs". I'm not saying that they don't exist because I don't know. Could someone post a couple links on the "far out beliefs" of the four blocked nominees? Thanks.

Here is a link from the People for the American Way. I will admit that this is a very liberal group, but the stances of the judges on their site is really something else to read. Now I'm not advocating that only liberal justices make it onto the bench. I think the court should not be politicized and that every effort should go into making sure that does not happen.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=103