Posted on 12/23/2004 2:26:21 PM PST by Citizen James
Refusing to be brushed off by Democratic opposition in the Senate, President Bush plans to nominate for a second time 20 people who did not receive up or down votes on their nominations for federal judgeships.
...snip...
When the 109th Congress convenes on Jan. 4, Bush intends to re-nominate the following 12 individuals for the U.S. Court of Appeals:
Terrence W. Boyle, 4th Circuit; Priscilla Richman Owen, 5th Circuit; David W. McKeague, 6th Circuit; Susan Bieke Neilson, 6th Circuit; Henry W. Saad, 6th Circuit; Richard A. Griffin, 6th Circuit; William H. Pryor; 11th Circuit; William Gerry Myers III, 9th Circuit; Janice Rogers Brown, District of Columbia Circuit; Brett M. Kavanaugh, District of Columbia Circuit; William James Haynes II, 4th Circuit; and Thomas B. Griffith, District of Columbia Circuit.
Bush also intends to nominate again the following eight people to less controversial U.S. District Court positions:
James C. Dever III, Eastern District, North Carolina; Thomas L. Ludington, Eastern District, Michigan; Robert J. Conrad, Western District, North Carolina; Daniel P. Ryan, Eastern District, Michigan; Peter G. Sheridan, New Jersey; Paul A. Crotty, Southern District, New York; Sean F. Cox, Eastern District, Michigan; and J. Michael Seabright, Hawaii.
...snip...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Charles Pickering Sr.'s bruising battle for a seat on a federal appeals court abruptly ended when Bush, in a recess appointment, elevated him without congressional approval. But on Dec. 9, Pickering announced his retirement, saying he would not seek nomination for a permanent seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The other three are: Miguel Estrada, a native of Honduras and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee; California judge Carolyn Kuhl; and Claude Allen, whose Virginia residency upset Maryland's two senators because the post to which he was nominated on the 4th Circuit typically is held by a Marylander.
Works for me. Let the battle be enjoined.....
He should add to that list... Judge Bork!
Yes!!! Great news!!! However, to paraphrase a former Senate Minority Leader, I am deeply saddened...that Carolyn Kuhl is not being renominated :-(
I don't think he would be interested in one of these positions.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Perhaps she asked not to be at this time or maybe Bush is considering her for another position in the future.
W out spending political capital like it's goin' out of style!
Bwahahahahahaa!
Let him appoint Rush Limbaugh to the Supreme Court!
Me too. Unfortunately both CA senators are against her. That's curtains in the U.S. senate.
After I heard uber-liberal Leo Turrell praise her fairness as a judge and get drumed out of the NAACP for his comments I was appauled.
Heard Terrell praise her on several occasions (on Hannity & Colmes, Sean's radio show, etc.). I was even more annoyed at Miguel Estrada's treatment. Wonder if he'd even accept a Supreme Court nomination...doubt it :-(
That would be great if it happened.
The DUmmies would have to practice their EVIL in the open daylight, I don't think they could really stop him without series damage to themselves.
His story is quite compelling, there is NO REASON he wouldn't make a fine judge, I know you agree.
So what? Where in the Constitution does it say a Senator from the prospective judge's state can blackball a nominee and prevent a nomination? Does that meet the Constitutional definition of "advise and consent"?
This is even more outrageous than a filibuster, as Senators from the nominee's state get as crucial a role as the President - is a specific judge nominated or not?
This is just another one of the self-important rules this body of poseurs have dreamed up to make themselves feel important so they can puff up their prerogatives.
Ignore Boxer and Feinswine. Proceed with the majority vote of the full Senate, as specifically spelled out in the Constitution, not in the silly rules of a pompous Senate!
I ignore them full time.
Remember that originally senators were appointed by the state legislatures.
I don't know which way is worse, elected or appointed?
Now the real battles begin!!!
We need to prepare our letter/email engines to go after those senators who filibuster any of these nominees.
We must "DASCHLE" those who insist on blocking the desire of the majority!!
Rush's Bullet Points on Judicial Filibusters
December 24, 2004
1. If the Senate Republicans aren't prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president will have a very tough time getting these re-nominated judicial candidates -- and for that matter, Supreme Court nominees -- confirmed.
2. The so-called "nuclear option" -- which should be called the Constitutional option -- would end the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. The Democrats are warning that if the Republicans change the filibuster rule, then all hell will break loose. I cannot think of anything worse than what they've done, and will continue to do -- which is prevent the president from appointing judges to the federal court.
3. The Senate rules have never been used to block presidential judicial appointments. By threatening to use the filibuster, or actually invoking it, the Senate Democrats are requiring that a super-majority of 60 senators must, in essence, confirm a judge. There are 7 instances in which the Constitution provides for super-majority votes -- convictions related to impeachment, adoption of treaties, expelling members, overriding vetoes, amending the Constitution, 14th Amendment, and 25th Amendment.
4. The Senate has, under the Constitution, an "advice and consent" role. But it cannot use that role to impose a super-majority requirement on the president's nomination function or on the rest of the Senate. After all, all senators have a right, under the Constitution, to provide their advice and consent, which means the right to a simple majority vote on the Senate floor.
5. At no time in over 200 years, until the prior Senate, did senators contend that the filibuster could be used against judicial nominees. The point is that is was understood that the Constitution did not grant 41 senators the power to thwart the president's judicial appointment power. The way we conservatives read the Constitution is to try to determine what the words mean, what the framers intended -- we don't assign broad meanings to words or look for loopholes.
6. One last point - if the Senate, which has the constitutional right to make its own rules, decides that it wants to require a super-majority vote to pass certain bills, such as tax bills, that's perfectly fine. Such a rule would NOT infringe on a presidential power. But to do so when it affects a presidential power, such as the appointment of judges, that would be unconstitutional.
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.