|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 01/15/2003 8:05:41 PM PST by Jean S
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats urged their leadership yesterday to use the organizing resolution as leverage to give them more clout over nominations from the White House.
The resolution was held up by a dispute over funding, which has prevented Republicans from taking control of committees and frustrated new Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
The Democratic maneuver underlines the fact that judicial nominations promise to be one of the most contentious issues of the 108th Congress.
All the Democrats on the judiciary panel signed a letter to Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) requesting that he “include negotiations over blue slip practices and a fair and measured protocol on judicial nomination hearings in your discussions with the Republican leadership regarding reorganization of the Senate.”
The “blue slip” policy allows senators to block nominations of judges from their states.
Citing the letter, GOP Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.) charged that the Democrats were gumming up the works. As he put it yesterday:
“This a routine recognition of who won the election that is being turned into a leveraging of trying to get their procedural agenda through, to sort of slow up the nomination process and potentially the legislative process. That is almost incredible — it’s tantamount to an attempted coup right here on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Asked about the unresolved issue, Daschle said he remains committed to support any colleague who opposes a judicial nominee from his or her home state.
But he added: “It will not be part of the organizing resolution. It never has been. But it really has to be a marker that we will lay down any time a judicial nomination is in question.”
The letter to Daschle stated in part:
“We would urge that the following be included in any agreement on an organizing resolution: that hearings not be scheduled until the [American Bar Association (ABA)] has submitted its peer review and the committee has had three weeks to review the nomination; that each hearing contain only one controversial nominee; that each hearing include only one circuit court nominee; that hearings not be held more frequently than every three or four weeks.”
As The Hill reported in December, incoming Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that, in some cases, he might skirt the blue slip policy.
“Failure to bring in a blue slip should be given great weight but it is not dispositive,” Hatch told The Hill at the time. “In other words, we can go ahead with certain nominees where you might have a withheld blue slip.”
The letter to Daschle also contended that “this shift in blue slip practices would weaken what democratic [small “d”] check there is to moderate the president’s choices and likely shift the balance on a number of circuit courts across the country. It could also lead to extended debate before the Senate over the lack of consultation and advice sought by the White House regarding particular judicial nominees.”
Blue slips also were a major sticking point when the prior organizing resolution was negotiated, in June of 2001, after Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) left the Republican fold.
Republicans at the time insisted on incorporating language that blue slips would be made public. The issue was settled with a letter signed by Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Hatch indicating that the use of blue slips would be made public.
The letter to Daschle further asks for an agreement on scheduling hearings. It alleges that Hatch, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and others “have been talking about unilaterally establishing hearing schedules on important judicial nominations that are unprecedented and unreasonable.”
Judiciary Democrats also want the committee to continue the practice of waiting for the ABA to rate nominees to schedule hearings.
They had objected when President Bush ended the 50-year practice in March 2001, of giving the lawyers’ group the names before sending them to the Senate.
Asked about the memo, Hatch said: “That’s all politics. Don’t pay any attention to it.”
Leahy spokesman David Carle said, “Democratic members of the committee have offered guidance to Dem leaders about the need for consistency and the handling of judicial nominations as we go forward.”
The letter to Daschle came amidst a controversy over Bush’s renomination of one nominee who was voted down in committee last session, Judge Charles Pickering for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hatch has not indicated whether he would hold nomination hearings for Pickering, in addition to the ones last session, or when the nomination might come up for a vote.
Several Senate Democrats, including Daschle, Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.), have indicated they would filibuster Pickering’s nomination if it comes to the Senate floor. The Republican would need to muster at least 60 votes to break a determined Democratic talkathon.
The Democrats say they object to the nomination partly on civil rights grounds, and prominent groups like the NAACP also oppose it.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called Pickering’s nomination “unwise” and urged Democrats to consider a filibuster, saying “it’s the only thing we can do.”
“It just seems as if the administration is caught up in the hubris of their victory, not realizing how close these margins are, and many of us on the Democratic side are not going to simply abandon the role of the Senate to advise and consent on judicial nominations,” he said. “We rejected this person and it was an appropriate move and I think there will be a serious effort on the floor of the Senate to reject him again.”
But some centrist Democrats said they would not support their colleagues’ use of a filibuster.
Although Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he had not yet decided whether he would vote to confirm Pickering’s nomination, he emphasized that he would not support a filibuster.
“I just don’t think that you use the filibuster in this fashion,” he said. “It’s not the way I would do it. Others feel differently about it. So they can vote as they choose. But it’s not the way I would view it. … These nominations deserve a vote.”
Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) also would not go along.
“Sen. Miller’s support for Judge Pickering is as strong today as it was last year,” said his spokeswoman, Joan Kirchner. “He would like to see it get to the floor for a vote.”
But another centrist senator, John Breaux (D-La.), criticized the administration for renominating Pickering in the wake of the controversy that cost Trent Lott (R-Miss.) his job as majority leader.
“I thought it was premature. I didn’t think it was good timing. I think it should have been later. Let all this stuff settle down before they jump right into it,” Breaux said. “I think it raises all these issues that surrounded Trent and I think it’s not particularly helpful.”
Breaux remained noncommittal on whether he would support a filibuster.
“I’m not there yet,” he said. “I think the president should have great discretion in appointing the judges. They won the election. We know the judges are going to have their philosophy. I tend to support them unless there’s something that disqualifies them. It’s not just philosophy. I’ll wait to see what the hearings show.”
But he added that he wasn’t concerned the filibuster would set a bad precedent. “It’s pretty dramatic to emphasize a point, but it’s certainly within the rules.”
The fight over Pickering is widely seen on Capitol Hill as a preview of battles that will ensue if and when vacancies open on the Supreme Court.
“I believe that the [Democrats] have expressed some genuine concerns, but I think there is no doubt that this is a warm-up for a possible Supreme Court nomination,” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told reporters. “It’s a highly unusual matter, but I have to tell you that things are pretty tense in the Senate Chamber.”
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
I love this clause, and it's unwritten addendum: "And we get to decide who's controversial and who isn't"
This is laughable. The Hypocrats ignore ABA recommendations anyway.
I don't think I've seen anything like this for a couple of years. |
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.
Well, isn't this special? I feel privileged to be informed of the various demands being made by the minority party in the Senate. And it is so refreshing to see a journalist who will quote extensively from the minority's position, so that we can all be privy to the arguments they are making.