Democrats Block Bush Judicial Pick (7th to be filibustered)

AP (via The State (S.C.)) ^ | July 20, 2004 | Jesse Holland (AP)

[pogo101]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked a former Interior Department official who once worked for mining and cattle interests from becoming a federal appeals judge, using the debate to criticize President Bush's environmental record.

The Senate's majority Republicans were unable to muster the 60 votes needed for the confirmation of William Myers for the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The final vote was 53-44, making Myers the seventh Bush judicial nominee to be stopped by Senate Democrats.

[pogo101]

Unsure if excerpting is necessary, so am erring on the side of caution.

[votelife]

convenient time for the Dems to block a judge, with Sockgate taking hold of Washington.

[Senator_Blutarski]

The Senate's majority Republicans were unable to muster the 60 votes needed for the confirmation of William Myers for the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kind of says it all. They changed the rules when we weren't looking.

[taxcontrol]

Time to use the "Nuke" option.

[TomGuy]

Frist will be whining and threatening the nuclear option...just like he did over a year ago....and it accomplished zilch.

The Pubbies need to get control over the Judiciary Committee. Should an SC vacancy open this year by the death of a SC Justice, the Pubbies will up the proverbial creek to try to get a conservative one approved.

G_d forbid that Kerry wins. The next term President may have 2 and possibly 3 SC J nomination including Chief Justice. But First and Hatch and Co are too afraid to confront the Dems. If the Pubs do maintain control of the Senate, the Pubs will cave and 'negotiate' with the Dems to get Dem-approved candidates confirmed.

[88keys]

I thought they'd worked out some kind of a deal about this ludicrous "fillibustering" ploy?! No more "recess appointments", and no more bogusly denying a straight up-or-down vote?

[You Dirty Rats]

Frist doesn't have 50 votes to go nucular [sic]. That's not his fault; there are Republicans who aren't willing to sacrifice the Filibuster over this issue.

As far as Dubya having a conservative nominee get confirmed, no problem -- just nominate Senator Santorum. If the 'Rats try to filibuster a sitting Senator, then you will see the nucular option and all kinds of hell break loose!

[Bean Counter]

This just has to be stopped. The Rats will do anything to sieze power, and this "Super Majority" to confirm judges is exactly that.

Of course, Rats are running scared because there will likely be two, possibly three SCOTUS judge retirements in the next term...

[q_an_a]

I heard Thune on Laura Ingram this AM. the two of them could not put the "in god we trust" story with the 9th circuit, Dashcle and this or any conservative judge. the problem with Republicans is that they can't close the sale because they don't connect the dots!!! mad as *7## and can't take it anymore.

PS for all the Laura fans- after hearing her three or four times all I notice is she is having too much fun with her Pink dolls than to get a good conservaitve message. She is an empty suit.

[adam_az]

I'm sure you won't be shocked, but...

Democrats broke their end of the deal! Well... sort of.

Anyone remember the Judiciary "deal" in May?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37694-2004May18.html

The White House pledged yesterday that President Bush will not bypass the Senate in appointing federal judges for the next eight months as part of a bipartisan deal to break a seven-week impasse over votes on Bush's judicial nominees.

Under the agreement, Bush will not use his constitutional power to give temporary appointments to judicial nominees during congressional recesses for the rest of his current term ending Jan. 20 -- a power he exercised twice in recent months, infuriating Democrats.

In return, Democrats, who had been holding up action on all of Bush's judicial choices since March to protest the recess appointments, agreed to allow votes on 25 mostly noncontroversial nominations to district and appeals court posts over the next several weeks.

The agreement amounted to a partial cease-fire in the Senate's grueling fight over Bush's conservative choices for the judiciary.

Democrats refused to include seven appeals court nominees they have been blocking -- or threatening to block -- as too ideologically conservative in their views on abortion, worker rights and other issues likely to confront a federal judge. Democrats will continue to oppose these nominees, Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters.

Other nominees will be considered on a case-by-case basis, Daschle said.

I guess this isn't one of the cases.

It was a crappy deal.

On the other hand, I guess the temporary appointments can continue now. :) On a case by case basis, of course.

[LexBaird]

Now is THE time. Force a full-blown, old fashioned, stay at the podium reading the phonebook filibuster. Let's see how many Dems are willing to miss the Party's party in Boston, just to screw over the Judges.

Imagine, no Teddy or Hillary, No John-John, at the Convention!

[Coop]

The Pubbies need to get control over the Judiciary Committee.

The Repubs have control - you just don't like how they're handling it. Frist and friends are gambling that these outrageous obstruction tactics backfire on the Dems in Nov. Some here understand that, others don't. And some understand but strongly disagree with the approach.

[rhinohunter]

Can anyone answer this question for me:

Are 60 votes always required to break a filibuster, regardless of how many sinators[sic] are in attendance? If this is the case, couldn't all the rat sinators just go join the 2 girlie-men on the campaign trail and still filibuster the pro-life judges?

[firewalk]

Now is THE time. Force a full-blown, old fashioned, stay at the podium reading the phonebook filibuster. Let's see how many Dems are willing to miss the Party's party in Boston, just to screw over the Judges.

Imagine, no Teddy or Hillary, No John-John, at the Convention!

imagine that...

[pogo101]

Are 60 votes always required to break a filibuster, regardless of how many sinators[sic] are in attendance?

Yes, but that's assuming that the Rule (it's Rule XXII) validly applies at all, which it doesn't in this context. Reason: A past Senate majority (or super-majority) cannot, by mere Rule, bind a later majority.

[Tamzee]

Okeydokey... time for more recess appointments.

[PokeyJoe]

It's long been past due - Frist, go nuclear.

[PokeyJoe]

ya know... during the democrat convention, go nuclear and KEEP them in DC until THEY VOTE. =)

[Wphile]

The Senate's majority Republicans were unable to muster the 60 votes needed for the confirmation...

This is appallingly sloppy journalism. The reader now believes that it requires 60 votes for confirmation rather than 60 votes to break the filibuster. Confirmation only requires 51 but you wouldn't know that from this "reporting." Shameful.

[KellyAdmirer]

Now, if the Republicans in the Senate hold grudges - and I will openly admit I would - there wouldn't be a single judicial nominee from the next Democrat President confirmed. Ever. Period.