President Bush has just agreed to a deal where 25 so-called "non-controversial" judges will get up/down votes while Bush has agreed to not recess appoint judges until his second term. This deal has outraged/confused/frustrated many Freepers but I think everyone is missing the big picture.
First what did Bush give up? He agreed not to recess. Until term #2. But recess appts only serve until the next Congress. So Bush is giving up what, 7 months of a judge term? Recall that Bush offered recess noms to more than Pickering from MS and Pryor from AL. Others refused. Estrada, a very popular cause on this site, refused a recess appt. So all in all, Bush really did not give up much, because in reality most judges don't want it.
What does Bush get? 25 right of center judges. Most are district court, but apparently five are for the Appeals court.
The point is, the fundamental equation has not changed. The real battle is over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sets precedent for the lower courts to follow. While these lower posts are important, it's even more important to get conservatives on the High Court.
So to get more conservatives confirmed it's simple: 1. Help the GOP get a bigger Senate Majority 2. Call talk radio about Democrat judicial obstruction 3. Write your newspaper about Democrat judicial obstruction 4. Tell the GOP/Senate/Bush to fight for conservative judges 5. Make sure you get all of your conservative family and friends to vote in November
This agreement between Bush and Dashcle is meaningless. If this wasn't done, zero judges would have been confirmed this year. Qualified judges like Priscilla Owen (TX Supreme Court), Janice Brown (CA Supreme Court), among many others will be a campaign issue. Bush used this issue in 2002 to stunning effect, pulling off big wins in Minnesota (Coleman), GA (Chambliss), and MI (Talent). It also helped in Texas (Cornyn). But this agreement does not change the fundamental fact that the Dems are going all out to stop conservative appointees, particularly conservative minorities from serving in high judicial positions. Right now, Bush is preoccupied with Iraq. But he is with us on the judges. He needs us to do the heavy lifting for now becuase he's trying to save the world from radical Islamic extremism. But come the campaign season, FR will see that Bush will fight for his judges, will Kerry will try to support and oppose Bush's judges.
Let's resolve to help make the judicial obstruction an even bigger issue than it already is by calling talk radio, writing letters, working on campaigns, calling Congress and the President etc.
Read my screenline, that's what we need to do!
Thanks for your reasoned explanation-it makes the most sense.
WE really have a smart man in charge, and yes, we need to hammer to the libs the obstructionism!!!
Exactly, in addition:
1. Were Bush to lose the election, none of these judges would ever be approved. Everything would be on hold until the next president comes into office.
2. If Bush wins the election, he can almost immediately return to recess appointments if the Dims still filabuster.
"The point is, the fundamental equation has not changed. The real battle is over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sets precedent for the lower courts to follow. While these lower posts are important, it's even more important to get conservatives on the High Court.
"
At this rate, it will NOT happen.
In 2000 there were various reports that at least 2 SC judges might retire for whatever reasons (health and age), but not a one has. Is it just a personal decision of the judges' to hang onto power and productivity as long as they can, or it is because they don't like the congressional enviroment for a successor? I really don't know.
Much akin to when Bush was working with Ted Kennedy, and now Kennedy is attacking Bush at every chance, including blaming him for passing his education bill, well hell, the two of them worked on it together.