Replies

GOP Seeks Filibuster-Proof Ways to Advance Bush Nominees
Fred Jackson and Bill Fancher
Agape Press

Republicans in Washington are apparently ready to try a new tactic aimed at putting a stop to the Democrats' blocking of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

Many feel it has been nothing short of an embarrassment for the Republican Party that despite it being the majority party in Congress and holding the White House, the Democrats have succeeded in putting a halt to every judicial nominee that they deem too conservative.

The latest Democrat success came Thursday when, once again, Democrats blocked the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. That is the same thing that happened last week to Charles Pickering, and it is likely to be the same fate for another Bush nominee, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly approved Brown to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but Democrats are poised to block her Senate confirmation as they have done with a number of Bush's most conservative nominees to appeals courts.

Next week the Republicans are going to try to draw attention to the Democrats' stalling. GOP Senate leaders are planning a 30-hour non-stop "talkathon," beginning next Wednesday evening. However, Democrats say that will be fine with them, and they are ready to participate.

According to John Nowacki of the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project, the filibuster of Charles Pickering's nomination last week is the latest example of a deplorable tactic that the Democrats appear to have adopted -- character assaults based on false information.

The appointment process analyst notes that Pickering has been a federal district judge for more than a decade and has a very clear record of judicial restraint. "And yet he's still being attacked," Nowacki says, "and I think that demonstrates that no matter how much experience someone has, no matter how much evidence there is of someone's judicial temperament ... no matter what, there's still going to be this opposition."

Apparently, Nowacki says, to Democrats who are being manipulated by special-interest groups, truth means nothing.

In the wake of the continued filibustering, many feel President Bush has every right to make recess appointments. However, Nowacki points out that this may not be a viable option. While recess appointments have been made in the past, many judicial nominees do not like them because they are only in effect for the period while the appointing president is in office.

Nowacki explains that in many cases, appointed judges like Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown would be giving up a seat on their state Supreme Court or other high bench position to "go take a judgeship for a year or two and then be out of a job again, and not even be able to go back to [the] previous position."

Nowacki feels that is too much to ask of men and women who have worked so hard to get where they are. Most federal judicial positions are "lifetime" appointments -- except for those made during congressional recesses.

©2003 Agape Pres