Bush Defies Senate Democrats, Appoints Pickering

Talon News ^ | 1/19/2004 | Jeff Gannon

[Jeff Gannon]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- After nearly three years of political wrangling over the nomination of Judge Charles W. Pickering, President Bush exercised his prerogative to put him on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals while the Senate was in recess.

Senate Democrats stymied Pickering's nomination through procedural obstacles when they were in the majority and finally resorted to a filibuster when faced with the certainty of confirmation if a floor vote were taken.

In a statement Friday, Bush said that he was using his constitutional authority to appoint Pickering because "a minority of Democratic Senators has been using unprecedented obstructionist tactics to prevent him and other qualified individuals from receiving up-or-down votes."

"Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate's constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system," Bush said.

The president repeated what is likely to be heard throughout his reelection campaign: "Again I call on the Senate to stop playing politics with the American judicial system and to give my nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve."

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a Judiciary Committee member, called the appointment "a finger in the eye" while ranking minority member Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that Bush's action was a "cynical, divisive appointment that will further politicize the judiciary."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "The President was forced to use his authority under the Constitution due to the unprecedented and unending obstruction against Charles Pickering and others."

"Frankly, opponents have only themselves to blame, they've prevented an up-or-down vote and the President exercised a constitutional option to end an unconstitutional filibuster against a nominee with bipartisan, majority support," Cornyn added.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) was quoted in the New York Times saying, "By circumventing the Senate ... the President has confirmed that he has no interest in working in a bipartisan manner to appoint moderate judges who will uphold the law."

Daschle added, "By taking this step on the eve of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, the President has shown a shocking disregard for the spirit of the holiday and betrayed his own words of tolerance."

Members of the Project 21 African-American leadership network disagreed with Daschle and others who have attacked Pickering's background on racial issues. They point out "during his legal career, he testified against the Ku Klux Klan, defended black clients during the Jim Crow ear and helped set up the Institute of Racial Reconstruction at Ole Miss."

C. Boyden Gray, Chairman of The Committee for Justice, a group that promotes constitutionalist judicial nominees, said in a press release, "This step was properly taken by the White House after three long years of delay and liberal character assassination directed at this respected jurist. Their latest maneuver, to block Pickering from confirmation by permanent minority filibuster, was a cynical and unconstitutional measure, which, until the 108th Congress, had no precedent in American history."

Never before had appeals court nominees been filibustered, but four of them continue to languish in the Senate. Originally, six nominees had been blocked, but Miguel Estrada withdrew his name from consideration in the fall. Janice Rogers Brown, Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor are still waiting for a vote. Critics of the Democrats say they are applying in unconstitutional ideological litmus test to the nominees that disqualifies pro-life conservatives and those having "deeply held religious beliefs."

In November, Senate Republicans staged a "Justice for Judges" debate marathon that lasted 39 hours, but failed to break the logjam. The recess appointment encouraged conservatives who are frustrated with the Democrats' obstruction. They believe the Democrats are trying to string out the nominations, hoping to either win back the White House or a majority in the Senate in 2004. It is believed that whoever occupies the White House after November's election will be filling one or more Supreme Court vacancies.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council praised the President's action, saying, "At a time when our courts at every level are over-stepping their bounds by sanctioning same-sex marriage and infanticide and stripping us of our religious freedoms, President Bush has taken the first step to ensure that our federal courts are filled with judges who understand their role is to follow the Constitution, not reinvent it."

Hard left groups were quick to denounce the move.

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way said in a statement, "The President is dedicated to packing the courts with right-wing judges who will turn back the clock on equal rights, privacy and reproductive freedom."

National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy called Bush's recess appointment of Pickering "appalling" while the National Abortion Rights Action League said it was "the worst kind of political gamesmanship."

President Bill Clinton used a recess appointment for lawyer Roger Gregory, an appeals court judge, in the last days of his term.

Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

About time.

[Cicero]

So far I am entirely satisfied with Bush's handling of judicial appointments, probably the single most important thing he needs to do as president.

Unlike earlier Republican presidents he has come up with genuinely conservative candidates and has stuck with them, instead of withdrawing them after a token fight and putting up lousy "compromise" candidates instead, like Justice Souter.

It would have been politically destructive for him to rush a bunch of interim appointments. Keep in mind that interim appointments last only a year, and what we need is to put hundreds of judges on the bench for a lifetime. It wouldn't help politically if he gave the impression of being rushed and arbitrary about the process.

Most important is to put heavy pressure on the Democrats to break their obstruction of appointments. That can be done by a) increasing the number of Republican senators in the next congress; and b) demonstrating to sitting Democrat senators, especially southerners, that they are risking their seats by their obstructionism.

Ever since the impeachment trial, the Democrats have hung together on every important issue, and regardless of the potential political damage, unlike the Republicans. Bush needs to break that habit decisively. This is the way to do it.

As long as he refrains from making BAD judicial appointments, I think he can be trusted after reelection, on this fundamental issue.

[JayNorth]

Ralph Neas, NOW, NARAL, Daschle and Schumer are all outraged, thus proving that this is a good thing.

No kidding. They say you can tell a good man by the company he keeps. You can also tell a good policy or decisions by who denounces it.

[theDentist]

I suppose you're right, but I still get very frustrated with the man.

[deport]

The Senate has confirmed 168 of his nominees. Only five or so were filibustered.... and Estrada withdrew his name.

[Condor51]

Bush; ''Here Chuckie, take this!''

[KantianBurke]

Bush benefits more politically if he does NOT recess appoint old timers such as Robert Bork. Doing so would take the issue off the table and would refocus attention to his less conservative actions. By making a single appointment to Judge Pickering, he assuages his base and indirectly reminds them why they should vote for him in 04.

[kennedy]

Good point. I just don't see any way that the Republicans will get a filibuster-proof majority after the 2004 election, so Bush is going to have to come up with some strategy to force the Democrats to cave.

Perhaps we will at least get enough new Republican Senators to effectively use the "nuclear strategy." My understanding is that any Senator can raise a point of order, objecting that the Democrat filibuster of the judicial appointments is unconstitutional. A majority vote is then all that is required to affirm the objection. Currently, there are enough RINO's in the Senate who have said that they would vote against affirming the objection that it can't be done.

[gunnedah]

I agree with you if it were possible. The Liberal Democrats are in the process of overthrowing our government,judicial system and installing a dictator if Americans are not cautious and wise. But Bush himself is actually aiding them with his immigration polices and everyone know it is for votes.
We have a hell of a choice coming up in the presidential election but Bush is still head and shoulders above anything the Democrats have to offer and that says a lot about how low our politics have sunk.

[mwl1]

1. We don't need a filibuster-proof majority next year -- we just need to pick up 4,5,or 6 Senate seats -- that will scare the rest of the RATS up for re-election in 2006 to stop the nonsense. If we have 56 or 57 Senators, we can pick-off the extra 3 or 4 we need with plums and promises, not to mention the fear of political retaliation.

2. Bush would go for more recess appts, but no one on this thread is grasping the point that recess appointees are unpaid -- not everyone can put their lives and no salary on the line for a year.

[cake_crumb]

"...so Bush is going to have to come up with some strategy to force the Democrats to cave."

Reelection will sove a lot of problems between the president and the senate Dems. The point of all the games, lies, Bush-bashing sessions, filibusters and dire rhetoric-bytes has been to guarantee one of theirs takes control of this country and continues pushing the agenda that the Clintons set into motion in 1992. If - when - President Bush wins another term, all the rats who stil have careers to salvage are going to jump ship.

[cyncooper]

He should have given them all a recess appointment.

He offered, they declined. He can hardly MAKE them accept a recess appointment, now, can he.

[cyncooper]

Because none of the nominees, including Pickering, were willing to accept a recess appointment until Pickering finally agreed this time around.

Get it?

[Condor51]

While that may be correct, it's the important vacancies that the RATS are targeting. As Appellate Judges are 'one-step' away from the SCOTUS there's no-way that any will NOT be filibustered by the party of traitors, aka Democrats. In fact, during the 'Republican Talkathon', it was reported (FNC) that there was a list of about 10 more Appellate nominees that the dems guaranteed that will be blocked by filibuster. No ifs, ands or buts.

As such, I say it's time to 'go nuclear' - period. The heck with the so-called 'comity of the senate'. That's a farce and loooooong gone. And don't think that if the dems were the majority party they'd put up with these filibusters. They would have 'gone nuclear' after the 2nd failed cloture vote on the 1st blocked nominee.

The 'problem' IMHO is that the dems are commie street fighters and WINNING by any means is all that matters to them - they LIKE gettin' dirty, while the 'republicans' are all worried about missing cocktail hour at the club! In addition, if I recall correctly, about 20-30 years ago, the Dems DID use the 'nuclear option' to enforce a rules change that THEY wanted because the republican minority was blocking something by using the then current procedural rules.

Furthermore, due to the RINO's, more than 60 'republican' senators will be needed in '04. I say 65 would be about it and that I don't see happening.

[cyncooper]

You are correct. They were offered recess appointments and declined.

[mac_truck]

Why did he wait so long?

Well for one thing, Pickering's term now lasts until Jan 2005. Perhaps by then there will be a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. Liberal squawking in the meantime will remind voters, especially in the southern states where a number of Democrats are retiring, why they need a Republican representing them in the Senate.

[rdb3]

Dear Mr. President,

Please rescind Judge Pickering's recess appointment. The holier-than-thou conservatives don't like your motives behind the appointment. It's wonderful that you did make this appointment, but they still don't like it.

[theDentist]

This is the first I'd heard that the nominees were rejecting that offer.

[mac_truck]

Because none of the nominees, including Pickering, were willing to accept a recess appointment until Pickering finally agreed this time around.

Never heard that recess appointments were previously offered and refused before. In what timeframe were the first recess appointments offered, and what reason(s) were given for Pickering's acceptance this time?

[freedomcrusader]

Only five or so were filibustered

Which is 5 or so more than ever before.

.... and Estrada withdrew his name.

BECAUSE of the filibuster. He'd be on the DC circuit today except for the filibuster.

What was your point?