Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Judicial nominees: How have the Democrats done?
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy
Google
Eeyore
The issue of presidential nominations to federal court posts has come up again this month as President Bush is once again referring to blocked judicial nominees on the campaign/fundraising trail. The fact that Senator Edwards is a member of the Judiciary Committee further politicizes this issue.

The question for debate is:

Which statement is more accurate and why?
1) The democratic members of the Senate have unfairly manipulated the rules of the Senate to obstruct the confirmation process of President Bush's judicial appointees.
2) The democratic members of the Senate have had a solid record of confirming President Bush's appointees especially compared to the confirmation rate during other recent administrations.


Links that flesh out this debate.

Partisanship Is Their Principle
QUOTE
Plainly, these lawmakers are not interested in an even-handed application of the rules. They are merely manipulating the verbiage of principle to partisan advantage. Such unprecedented shenanigans politicize the judiciary — contrary to the very purpose of life appointments, which is to insulate federal judges from politics. Americans shouldn't tolerate this hypocrisy.


Setting The Record Straight On Judicial Nominations
QUOTE
With these confirmations, there are only 26 vacant seats in the entire federal judiciary, which is the lowest level since the Reagan Administration. Senate Republicans more than doubled circuit court vacancies and raised overall federal court vacancies to more than 100 from 1995 through early 2001. Vacancies have been greatly reduced with Democratic cooperation during the last four years. Vacancies have been cut by more than 75 percent and judicial emergency vacancies have been cut by more than 60 percent from what they were.


Fact Sheet: Judicial Nominees
QUOTE
A Senate minority composed of Democrats is obstructing the judicial confirmation process by waging unprecedented filibusters against some of the President's most important nominees -- those to the Federal courts of appeals. Six of the President's appeals court nominees who have been favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee have been denied up-or-down votes. Each has enjoyed the support of a bipartisan majority of Senators and would be confirmed if given a vote.

Home-State Democratic Senators have also succeeded in delaying confirmation hearings on judicial nominees. In this Presidency, more appeals court nominees have had to wait over a year for a confirmation hearing than in the last 50 years combined.
Google
amf
#2.

This is another Republican Red Herring, like "activist judges" and the all-important "we must defend marriage!". It's meant to distract the populace from the real issues, like who's going to pay for our monster debt, how can you cut taxes and not cut services, what will happen with social security in 10 years, are we really "winning" the war on terror, what's the reason THIS WEEK that we're in Iraq, etc.

Someday, they'll talk about the real issues that matter to our country and do it in an honest manner.
Cube Jockey
2) The democratic members of the Senate have had a solid record of confirming President Bush's appointees especially compared to the confirmation rate during other recent administrations.

This statement is true. We must also consider some of the dirty politics Bush has been using to get his appointments. Senate confirms Bush judicial appointee

QUOTE
He was the last of 25 judicial nominees the Senate voted on as part of an agreement struck by Bush and Senate Democrats in May. The deal guaranteed the Senate would vote on 25 mainly uncontroversial nominees if the president agreed to stop using recess appointments to install his most contentious nominees on federal appeals courts while Congress is out of town.

The others were confirmed with ease before Congress' July 4 recess.

Sounds to me like the Senate Democrats are being more than cooperative on this issue and only want the Bush administration to stop trying to appoint controversial judges while they are not in session.
Cadman
Like others have said #2 is accurate especially since when the democrats were in controll of the senate for 2001 to 2002 more Judicial nominees were confirmed.

judicial nominees facts

QUOTE
Question: How many judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate?

Answer: Since July, 2001, despite the fact that the Senate majority has shifted twice, a total of 171 judicial nominations have already been confirmed, including 29 circuit court appointments. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority. The Senate has only blocked 3.4 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees. This is compared to the Senate, under Republican control, blocking 20 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees.(Source : Sen. Leahy, (D-VT))

snipet

Question: How does this compare to previous administrations?

Answer: In the year following the Democrats' regaining control of the Senate, the Senate confirmed more judges than were confirmed during the first year of the first Bush Administration and the first year of the Clinton Administration combined. In fact, more nominees were confirmed under the Democratic Senate in 2001-2002 than were confirmed under Republican control in all of 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000. (Source: People For The American Way)


The only reason why they are holding up some of these recent nominees is from their own words are outside of the mainstream candidates. If Bush really wanted to get candidates passed he should find more moderate leaning candidates that don't throw up red flags to anyone with a heartbeat.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.