Posted on 02/13/2005 11:47:49 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Specter Rebuffs Democrats on Judiciary Hearings
Human Events Online ^ | Jan 28, 2005 | Robert B. Bluey
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:18:17 PM EST by SwinneySwitch
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) told HUMAN EVENTS he would resist pressure from Democrats to hold new hearings on the judicial nominees that President Bush plans to soon renominate. Most of the nominees have already undergone questioning by members of the Judiciary Committee, leaving Specter with the option of bypassing another round of hearings and instead sending them to the floor for a vote.
"In general, I do not propose to have rehearings," Specter said. "There would have to be an exceptional circumstance that would require a hearing. We've already had hearings."
Specter, however, said he might subject two appellate court nominees--Defense Department counsel William Haynes and Brigham Young University counsel Thomas Griffith--to another round of hearings. Sparks are likely to fly over both nominees. Haynes's first hearing came in November 2003, prior to the abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Griffith, meanwhile, has run into trouble over an expired law license he forgot to renew. He had a sparsely attended hearing last November.
A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) scoffed at the idea Republicans would forgo hearings. "What is being suggested would make an already problematic process for these nominations even more troublesome," said Jim Manley, staff director for the Senate Democratic Communications Center.
Even with Specter's not planning to hold new hearings for the old nominees, the clock is ticking for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.), who promised to bring one of the Bush nominees to a vote on the Senate floor in February. The White House, however, has yet to submit the nominees to the Senate for consideration. Specter said he expects Bush to do so in "due course." White House spokeswoman Erin Healy told HUMAN EVENTS: "The process is moving along. As soon as we have something to announce, we'll let you know."
Senate Republicans have refused to disclose who the first nominee to face a vote might be, but some view California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as ideal. Brown was the first black woman to sit on California's high court.
In a January 4 speech to open the 109th Congress, Frist said he wouldn't hesitate to change Senate procedures if Democrats tried to filibuster the nominee, as they did to 10--including Brown and Owen--in the last Congress.
Robert B. Bluey is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS
I think you're right.
The RATS have warned that we shouldn't do this. That they will get back at us in the future. Hey, when they are in a position to nominate judges (I hope that never happens) and they have their 51 votes, the judge deserves to be confirmed. That is the meaning of advise and consent.
for the sake of Estrada, Janice Brown, and the future Supreme Court, this is absolutely what needs to be done. Thanks for posting.
"I suspect that a lot of hard-core leftists will have trouble grappling with such nuances."
you are exactly right. Last year a lot of hard core conservatives on this very site had trouble understanding how the nuances worked against us last year. now the ball's in their court. Heads we win, tails, they lose!
game, set, match W!
OXEN, I've met you and I know you're a good conservative. If the shoe were reversed, the Dems would have all the MSM attacking the GOP for blocking nominees. And because the GOP is more of a gentelmanly party and because they tend to believe Presidents have the right to appoint judges, our side would fold MUCH easier than they are doing right now.
The courts right now are a once in a lifetime opportunity. Go for it Frist!
I think Bush/Frist are playing this smart. Work on SS first, get that going and do the judges when you have to. But if you do the judges too early, you'll make it that much tougher to the SS reform.
Janice Rogers Brown will be the test case. That way, if we don't get the 60 votes to kill the filibuster, we'll get the television footage of RATS denying a black woman a promotion. Should scare Stabenow, Nelson, and a few other RATS facing re-election next year. Stonewalling a black female won't help Hillary any, either, for 2006 or 2008.
That said, there is a possibility Frist will get his 60 votes to cripple the filibuster.
Take 55 GOP senators and add Nelson of Nebraska; and an array of possibilities: Nelson of FL; Lincoln of AR; Pryor of AR; Conrad of ND; Lieberman; Landrieu; and a few others.
Perhaps we'll even be treated to more footage of Leo Terrell trashing the NAACP because of their oposition to her.
Trying to think about this seriously, in terms of vote counting.
It would be far better, politically, to get the 60 without resorting to parliamentary maneuvers.
55 + Nelson (NE) + Blanche Lincoln (AR) + Mark Pryor (AR) = 58.
Still two short. Possibilities: Landrieu (LA), Nelson (FL), Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND), Johnson (SD), Bayh (IN), Salazar (CO), Lieberman (CT). Need two of those. If they want something else from the Administration, a deal is possible.
I'd go further than that: after repealing the 17th Amendment, we should start working on limiting the vote to property owners!
it would be great to get Nelson thinking Jeb will run against him in FL. Than would effectively make Nelson vote with Bush on the big stuff.
Don't forget that Bayh of IN has presidential aspirations...
Here they go again thinking the Democrats give a hoot about tradition and honor. As much as I'd like to see this resolved honorably with the Dems doing the right thing I have zero confidence in that happening and therefore I want to see the rules changed so they can't filibuster. If anybody is trusting them to "do the right thing" they're very naive because they've already broken the tradition multiple times.
Then change the damned rules, quit whining about it and F'ing do it. You are the majority, it's damned well time you acted like it.
Rush said something right on point today. Though it was in regards to another topic, I think it applies here as well
Rush- "The Democrats are acting like they still have the power and the Republicans are still acting like they don't" (paraphrasing).
Note to Republicans- You have the power, now use it!
I believe that this can NOT be initiated preemptively under existing rules, because it is based on the chair ruling on a point of order regarding an existing appointment filibuster.
The filibuster must be initiated by the other side before the point of order can be raised, and the outcome will depend on agreement by at least 50 senators, plus the VP if needed, to uphold the ruling from the chair on the point of order.
That ruling MUST pass by a majority, or the effect would be just the opposite of the plan - it would CONFIRM the application of filibuster to nominations permanently, without an actual amendment to the rules.
A rule change initiated as a motion requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and failure to pass might also be construed as confirmation of the existing situation, a terrible result. This is the ONLY way the question could be raised without an active filibuster on the floor.
So leave my senator alone on this point, he is doing the best he can with it. And if he has the votes, that is a good job, indeed.
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.