Skip to comments.
Leaders pushing recess option for Pickering (— U.S. Sen. Trent Lott had been the lone vote against)
The Clarion Ledger, ^
| November 21, 2003
| By Ana Radelat
Posted on 11/21/2003 6:34:51 AM PST by WKB
Republicans think this is last means to get judge to serve on 5th Circuit Court
WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. Trent Lott had been the lone vote against confirming a federal appeals court nominee because he disagreed with how former President Clinton gave the man a temporary appointment to the bench while Congress was out of town on recess.
Now there's talk of pressing the White House to give Charles Pickering a so-called "recess appointment" to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Lott has changed his way of thinking.
"It's not something I'm generally supportive of," he told a Capitol Hill newspaper. "In this case, it's something that might be considered and should be considered." Lott did not return phone calls for this story.
In 1999, then-President Clinton wanted to appoint a black candidate to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Virginia, but Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina kept blocking the nominees.
Finally, in the final weeks of his second term, a frustrated Clinton appointed Richard Gregory, a corporate lawyer from Richmond, Va., to the appellate court while Congress was out of town on recess.
The recess appointment allowed Gregory to serve on the court which hears appeals from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland for about a year until Congress adjourned.
Gregory's work on the bench won over President Bush, who reappointed him with the strong backing of Virginia's Republican senators. He was confirmed by the Senate on a 94-1 vote in July 2001, with Lott casting the only no-vote.
Pickering, a U.S. District Court judge in Hattiesburg, is now in the same situation Gregory was in 1999.
Saying they disapprove of Pickering's record on civil rights and workers' rights, Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 5th Circuit for more than two years.
Unable to muster 60 votes to break a Democratic filibuster on the nominations of Pickering and four other controversial candidates for federal appellate courts, several GOP leaders are pushing the recess option.
"Things are going to happen that Democrats won't like, like recess appointments," warned Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla. "They need to know there is a reason why there have never been filibusters on judges before."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., are also pushing the White House to sanction the controversial tactic. A recess appointment would allow Pickering, 66, to sit on the appellate court until the end of 2004. Then, he would be eligible for full retirement benefits because of his age and length of service on the federal bench.
A recess appointment is possible, and so is changing the Senate rules on filibustering, said the judge's son, 3rd District U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering, who has lobbied heavily for his father's confirmation.
The White House won't comment on its plans, said spokesman Taylor Gross.
"But the president is committed to making sure we fill the judicial vacancies as quickly as possible," he said.
Since he has been in office, Bush has made a handful of recess appointments to administrative posts.
The appointment of federal judges during a congressional recess is rare. Before Gregory's appointment, the last time a judge was seated during a recess was in 1982.
The White House has turned to recess appointments even for Supreme Court justices.
Former Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed during a congressional recess in 1953, and justices William Brennan Jr. and Potter Stewart took their seats in 1956 and 1958 by appointments made during Senate recesses.
The justices were eventually confirmed by the Senate, but not before deciding cases during their recess service.
Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, said Democrats' and Republicans' inability to come to terms with their differences over Pickering and other judges has set the stage for a recess appointment.
Cheh said a recess appointment of Pickering would offer the GOP a "symbolic benefit."
"(Republicans) are a crowd that keeps score and if they can put someone on the bench, even temporarily, they'll do so," she said.
Pickering would not comment on whether he'd like a recess appointment.
But legal analysts and some senators say there's no other way he can ascend to the appellate court.
If Pickering's not given a recess appointment, he may follow fellow nominee Miguel Estrada's footsteps and withdraw his nomination after being the subject of a lengthy filibuster.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS: 4thcircuit; charlespickering; judicialnominees; nuclearoption; richardgregory; richmond; trentlott; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
1
posted on
11/21/2003 6:34:52 AM PST
by
WKB
To: dixiechick2000; Hottie Tottie; MagnoliaMS; MississippiMan; vetvetdoug; NerdDad; Rebel Coach; ...
PING
2
posted on
11/21/2003 6:36:46 AM PST
by
WKB
(3!~ Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? (George Carlin))
To: WKB
Just one? Screw the libs..appoint them all and let the libs deal with it.
3
posted on
11/21/2003 6:42:11 AM PST
by
chiller
(could be wrong, but doubt it)
To: WKB
A recess appointment would allow Pickering, 66, to sit on the appellate court until the end of 2004. Then, he would be eligible for full retirement benefits because of his age and length of service on the federal bench.
This reads like a gratuitous line inserted by the reporter. In case the reporter needs reminding, he's already going to get those full retirement benefits because of his current position as a federal judge.
To: WKB
Sounds to me like the judge's congressman son is the point chosen pointman for lobbing a few grenades over at the "other" body...
5
posted on
11/21/2003 7:00:32 AM PST
by
ken5050
To: ken5050
Sounds to me like the judge's congressman son is the point chosen pointman for lobbing a few grenades over at the "other" body...
I wonder if he is a "Chip" off the ole "blockhead" like my two sons?
6
posted on
11/21/2003 7:07:53 AM PST
by
WKB
(3!~ Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? (George Carlin))
To: WKB
Do they Freep?
7
posted on
11/21/2003 7:31:42 AM PST
by
ken5050
To: ken5050
Do they Freep?
One does the other is other wise busy
8
posted on
11/21/2003 7:33:13 AM PST
by
WKB
(3!~ Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? (George Carlin))
To: WKB
Bush should appoint super partisan conservatives as recess appointments. Make sure the recess appointment is much worse from the Democrats point of view. That way the Democrats will be motivated to confirm the nominee.
To: WKB
I am really sick of the dem tactics, but think the Republicans should pee or get off the pot.
I hope they do something soon, or let poor Pickering withdraw his name and get on with his life.
10
posted on
11/21/2003 9:54:11 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
("A memo to all you liberals: The party's over. I'm back!!!"-----Rush Limbaugh)
To: dixiechick2000; wardaddy; WKB; afuturegovernor
This judicial confirmation mess is so screwed up that it's hard to believe.
I love the Senate Republicans' response to the Democratic filibuster. It is so sublime in its confusion.
They won't change the Senate Rules (which they apparently consider to be sacred) to overcome the filibuster. No, this is so extreme that they even refer to it as "the nuclear option." Never mind that nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that judges have to be approved by anything more than a simple majority vote.
Instead, now they're considering the "slightly less extreme" option of recess appointments. Never mind that they fulminated against Clinton's recess appointments or that many conservative legal commentators believe that recess appointments are themselves unconstitutional.
This tells you a lot about the composition and character of most of our Senators. Changing their own rules and procedures is just too hard, whereas violating the Constitution--well, that's just second nature.
11
posted on
11/21/2003 10:57:53 AM PST
by
bourbon
To: bourbon
note how the Clarion Liar made it appear that Helms blocked Gregory because he was "black".
12
posted on
11/21/2003 12:08:10 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(we must crush our enemies and make them fear us and sap their will to fight....all 2 billion of them)
To: dixiechick2000
"3. The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session. "
I agree that they need to do something, but my best understanding of the constitution (both word and intent) would be that the president has the right to fill vacancies that occur during a recess, not to use recess as an opportunity to appoint someone the legislature has denied approval.
13
posted on
11/21/2003 1:48:01 PM PST
by
Apogee
To: WKB
Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, said Democrats' and Republicans' inability to come to terms with their differences over Pickering and other judges has set the stage for a recess appointment. The Constitution bestows on the Senate the responsibility for "advise and consent", not allowing the judge to come to a vote is abdication of this responsibility, thus, a recess appointment is justified. If the Senate had brought any judge to a full vote and voted the jurist down, I would be the first to say the Pres would have to live with the vote, as the people will have spoken.
To: Apogee
I wasn't suggesting that Pickering receive a recess appointment, although there is precedent that denied nominees have received them. I really don't think he would want a recess appointment.
I am concerned about the filibusters, though, and would like to see the Republicans do something about them.
May I ask you a question? I have read conflicting accounts concerning changes in Senate rules. Does it require a simple majority or a super-majority of Senators to change a rule?
15
posted on
11/21/2003 2:07:40 PM PST
by
dixiechick2000
("A memo to all you liberals: The party's over. I'm back!!!"-----Rush Limbaugh)
To: dixiechick2000
I'm not sure about the number needed to make a rule change, but I suppose the Democrats could filibuster a rule change too.
To: chiller
Exactly, appoint all of them. The Dems are not going to give in on any of them during 2004. So, Bush has nothing to lose. If he wins the election next November, he can nominate them again. If the Pubs still don't have enough to get the 60 votes, then he can do recess appointments again.
Personally, I just wish that Cheney would go to the Senate and the Pubs call for a vote on all of them, then have Cheney rule that filibusters only apply to bills and not Senate confirmations of Presidential appointments. Then hold the vote. Problem is, certain gutless Pubs are such chicken sh_ts they couldn't bring themselves to stick it to the Dems. The Dems get away with all this stuff because the Pubs refuse to make life miserable for them.
17
posted on
11/21/2003 3:15:06 PM PST
by
CdMGuy
To: afuturegovernor
This is an excerpt from older article by Robert Novak, dated Oct 28, 2003, explaining Frist's strategy. I posted an excerpt earlier, and have just reviewed the contents. Read the next to last paragraph concerning the "Nuclear Solution". It appears that, unless some have changed their minds recently, there are enough gutless Republicans, who will not support fiddling with "the traditions of the Senate", to doom it to failure. Perhaps, as the Judiciary Committee moves forward, some needed Senators will become disgusted enough to change their minds on this. Here's hoping, anyway.
I had forgotten about this article. It answered several questions that I had.
http://www.theunionleader.com/opinion_show.html?article=28185 Now, Frist is about to mount a campaign in three phases, lasting through whats left of this years session.
Phase One: Start this week with a cloture vote on the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering Sr. of Mississippi for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. Pickering, bottled up in the Judiciary Committee during the 2001-02 Democratic interregnum, has just been sent to the Senate floor.
Phase Two: Next, order a cloture vote for the second time on Alabama Attorney General William Pryor for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. Claims by opponents that Pryors deeply held beliefs taint him for the court have produced accusations of anti-Catholicism.
Phase Three: Vote on three female nominees. Attempts to get cloture on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owens nomination for the 5th Circuit has failed three times. California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhls two-year-old nomination for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco is coming to the Senate floor for the first time. Just released by the Judiciary Committee and already threatened with a filibuster is California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American.
Failure to reach 60 votes for cloture on each of these three women is scheduled to be followed by consideration of the bill co-sponsored by Frist and conservative Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia. That measure would reduce the number of votes needed to end filibusters on nominations. That, too, will be filibustered in order to defeat it.
All this refocusing is intended to set the scene for a bitter battle in next years session of Congress. At that time, an effort may be made to rule out of order a filibuster against judicial nominations the so-called nuclear solution. This would require only 51 votes, but Frist does not even have that many today because of reluctance to tamper with the traditions of the Senate.
Whether or not Bill Frists offensive eventually places any of these well-qualified judges on the bench, it will sound a stentorian refusal to surrender. That means a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Senate have not acquiesced in letting Ted Kennedy determine the membership of the federal judiciary.
18
posted on
11/21/2003 4:39:52 PM PST
by
dixiechick2000
("A memo to all you liberals: The party's over. I'm back!!!"-----Rush Limbaugh)
To: WKB; bourbon; wardaddy
I meant to ping you to my post above.
19
posted on
11/21/2003 4:41:52 PM PST
by
dixiechick2000
("A memo to all you liberals: The party's over. I'm back!!!"-----Rush Limbaugh)
To: dixiechick2000
Oh how soon we forget!!
20
posted on
11/21/2003 5:12:28 PM PST
by
WKB
(3!~ Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? (George Carlin))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson