Posted on 03/18/2002 12:26:23 PM PST by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has a warning for Democrats intent on stopping conservative nominees from being confirmed to the federal courts.
After the defeat by the committee of Judge Charles Pickering, Sr., to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) whether a conservative nominee could make it through the Democratic-controlled committee.
"I hope so because, if they don't, there really is going to be hell to pay. If we took the attitude they did, Bill Clinton would have had a hundred judges over the six years I was chairman. The fact is we didn't," Hatch said. "I'll stack our record up against theirs any day."
The Senate confirmed 360 judicial nominees under President Clinton, 47 percent of all currently active federal judges. In his first year in office, 57 percent of Clinton's judicial nominations were confirmed, compared with only 43 percent in President George W. Bush's first year in office.
Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles (R-Okla.) echoed Hatch's threat on "Fox News Sunday."
"We're going to try to get the Democrats' attention, and we'll do whatever is necessary to get their attention to make sure that we're going to have good nominees have a chance to have a hearing," Nickles said.
Pickering was voted down 10-to-9 on party line votes, not once but three times. Judiciary Committee Democrats voted not to refer his nomination favorably to the full Senate, not to refer the nomination without recommendation, and not to refer the nomination unfavorably for a vote by the full Senate.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) says the reason for the vote is simple.
"Because it is well known that if the nomination got to the floor that Judge Pickering would be confirmed," he explained, "that there are Democrats who have stated their willingness to vote for Judge Pickering if the matter comes before the full Senate."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the partisan vote "one of the most troublesome aspects" of the Democrats' treatment of Pickering.
"It's a hint that the judicial process may be marred by partisanship and ideology, when it should be marked by success and bipartisanship," he said last week, "especially when the votes are there to pass people on the floor."
Nickles pointed out that Democrats were willing to use the judiciary committee to block Pickering's almost certain confirmation by the Senate, but decided to take the energy bill away from the Energy Committee when that bill appeared headed for passage.
"I'm on the Energy Committee. We are debating the energy bill on the floor of the Senate. I have been on the committee for 22 years. We didn't mark up the bill in the committee. Why?" Nickles asked. "Because Tom Daschle didn't want us to because he was afraid that we would put ANWR [oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] in the bill."
Republicans say further inconsistency can be found in the comments of the key Democrats who opposed Pickering's nomination.
Speaking on the Senate floor almost five years to the day before he voted not to send Pickering's nomination to the full Senate for a vote, Sen. Joseph Biden said Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had no right to keep the Senate from voting on nominees.
"I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor," Biden said in 1997.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) echoed Biden's call in Sept. 1999.
"It is true that some senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote, which gives every senator the opportunity to vote 'yes' or 'no,'" Kennedy said. "These nominees and their families deserve a decision by the Senate."
Even Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) previously weighed in on the subject, also in Sept. of 1999.
"I hope we will have a chance to vote on them, not just in committee where I have voted for each one of them, but on the floor of the Senate. That is what the Constitution speaks of in our 'advise and consent' capacity," Leahy said on the Senate floor.
Precedent for Considering Judicial Nominations
Specter had suggested that Pickering's nomination be moved to the full Senate for debate and a vote, even if the committee gave him an "unfavorable" recommendation.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was on the record calling such a move "unprecedented."
But Hatch disputes Daschle's claim.
"That's not accurate. There is, in fact, precedent for moving appellate and even district court nominees to the floor for a vote even when they have not received favorable support from this committee," Hatch argued. "Based on our research since 1950, this committee has moved at least six lower court nominees to the floor for consideration either without a recommendation or with a negative recommendation after the committee has voted them down."
Two of those were nominated for positions on the circuit courts of appeals, the same position to which Pickering was chosen.
In 1986, the committee reported without recommendation the nomination of Daniel Manion to the Seventh Circuit. The vote to report Manion's nomination favorably to the Senate failed, but the committee voted 11-to-6 to refer his nomination to the Senate without recommendation. Manion was confirmed and is still serving in the Seventh Circuit.
Similarly, in 1988, the committee reported without recommendation the nomination of Susan Liebeler to the federal circuit. After her nomination was defeated by a single vote, she was reported out without recommendation by a vote of 8-to-5.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also has a history of forwarding district court nominees to the Senate, regardless of committee action. In 1950, the Judiciary Committee reported Carroll Switzer and Neil Andrews, and in 1951 it reported Joseph Drucker and Cornelius Harrington to the full Senate with negative recommendations.
The Supreme Court nominations of conservative Judges Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork were also referred to the Senate after receiving unfavorable votes in the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee.
"We have sent to the Senate floor nominees much more controversial, much more polarizing than Judge Pickering. We sent to the Senate floor Judge Bork who was turned down by this committee 9-to-5. But Judge Bork went to the full Senate," Specter recalled.
"There has not been a judicial nomination more controversial than Justice Thomas in the history of the Senate. On a 7-to-7 tie, Justice Thomas would not have gone before the full Senate. But then there was a subsequent motion made to send Justice Thomas to the floor and by a 13-to-1 vote," Specter added.
Thomas was eventually confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. Bork was rejected. Hatch says these examples point out the hypocrisy among Democrats.
"There's ample precedent for giving a lower court nominee due consideration on the Senate floor," Hatch said, "notwithstanding this committee's failure to report the nominee with a favorable recommendation."
It's unfair, Hatch adds, to both President Bush and Judge Pickering that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would not send Pickering's nomination to the full Senate, even with an unfavorable recommendation.
"I'm disappointed in that because, frankly, we did," Hatch concluded.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Hatch and the 'Pubs might as well not waste their time complaining about fairness, because everyone knows, with Rats, fairness has nothing to do with it. For the Rats, its all a matter of ideology and the exercise of raw political power. The 'Pubs better learn to play that game as ruthlessly as the Rats do, or they're gonna be rolled yet again...
Famous saying for Orrin Hatch: Don't count your Hatches before they chicken.
Otherwise, it's all just, "Boy oh boy, you just wait, just you wait! You do that ONE MORE TIME, and boy oh boy...."
Dan
It's the sham tough-guy talk and the endless litany of empty threats that's really humiliating.
Doesn't anybody see how ridiculous this whole process is??? The Judicial branch is a check and balance, not an extension of the ideology (or lack thereof) of the other two branches of govt. We are looking for brilliant jurists, not ideologues.
That's for sure, considering they gave the chairmanship of the party to Racicot, who refuses to help the GOP win back the Senate by running a sure-win race against Baucus in MT.
What gets me is how few freepers find Racicot's wimp-out - - and the party's reward of him - - at all frustrating.
See this post:
Why won't Racicot run? (Pickering loss shows need to retake Senate, but Racicot won't help) laureldrive/based on Wash Post story of Pickering loss | March 14 02 | laureldrive Posted on 3/14/02 3:51 PM Pacific by laureldrive The Dems defeated Pickering. They'll keep kicking sand in GOP faces until the GOP retakes the Senate. Yet GOP chair Marc Racicot - who could run a strong race against the incumbent Dem Senator in MT - - refuses to do so. IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE FREEPERS WHO MAKES EXCUSES FOR THIS WEENIE, STOP CRITIZING DASCHLE AND THE OTHER SENATE DEMS - YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. (and of course, neither does Racicot).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/646685/posts
The above statment by Daschle was proven wrong, but will it change his mind or alter his postion? Of course not.
The extent of truth in Daschles world extend no further than the knowledge he selectively maintains. Facts are a nusance to this idealouge, unless of course they support his position. Then the [facts] are paraded incesantly to and by the liberal media, while truer truths are flogged mercilously.
When [if] the Republicans wake up some day, they will realize that it isn't about whats fair and just, or who is right and who is wrong. Hatch leaves me less than confident that "change" is in the air. They [he] will bog themselves down in playing fair and following rules...meanwhile the Democrats will be conspireing there next move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.