U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005 on his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites). (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
Posted on 02/24/2005 1:53:49 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Both political parties are to blame for the impasse on confirming President Bush (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees, says Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites).
"No one wants to back down and no one wants to lose face," Specter said Thursday in his first interview with Washington reporters since disclosing he has Hodgkin's disease.
Specter will initiate this year's confirmation battles between Bush and the Democrats by holding hearings on the nominations of former Interior Department Solicitor William Myers on Tuesday, a nominee who was blocked last year, and U.S. District Judge Terrance Boyle on Thursday, a nominee who has been waiting for his confirmation hearing since the beginning of Bush's presidency.
While he expects those nominees to undergo severe questioning from Democrats, Specter is certain the Republicans' 10-8 advantage on the Judiciary Committee can win approval there, sending the nominations to the full Senate.
"When it comes to the floor, as you all know, it is another matter," he said.
Specter said he has counted 58 votes for Myers, which mean he's only two away from a filibuster-proof margin. Democrats have complained that appeals courts need balance, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in San Francisco is considered the most liberal appeals court, Specter said.
"I think that William Myers would bring some balance to the 9th Circuit," he said.
Republicans and Democrats have been fighting over judicial nominees for years. Democrats blocked Myers and nine other appeals court nominees through filibuster threats during the first Bush term, while allowing the Senate to confirm 204 of the president's other nominees.
With a Senate comprised of 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent, Democrats still have the 40 votes necessary to uphold a filibuster — and they have threatened to do so with nominees they don't like.
Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said Bush's "my way-or-the-highway" posture on judicial nominations is the real obstruction.
"There is zero consultation," Schumer said. "That is not what the founders intended."
Specter, however, said Democrats started the impasse by blocking President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush's nominees, then Republicans retaliated by blocking President Clinton (news - web sites)'s, and now Democrats are taking their turn.
Specter would not commit to vote for a Republican plan to change Senate rules to ensure judicial nominees can't be blocked, called the "nuclear" option because Democrats say it would blow up relations in the Senate.
"I have not made a judgment on it," he said. "As I've said before, I'd prefer not to come to that bridge. I'm certainly not going to jump off the bridge until I come to it. I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option."
Specter also said his committee has started work on researching the process of confirming a Supreme Court nominee, just in case a position comes open.
"There has been a generalization that justices like to retire at the end of a term so as not to disrupt the work of the court," Specter said. But a battle over the next nominee would leave the court at a 4-4 tie, he said, and "if you were to have a 4-4 court, with its proclivity for being evenly divided, you wouldn't have decisions for the cutting edge of all the questions."
Bush can solve the problem by consulting with both sides before making a nomination, he said. "You need to bring the country together on this nomination if you possibly can," Specter said.
But that is Bush's call, Specter said. "Taking advice is not too hard as long as you get to make the final decision," Specter said. "And the Constitution doesn't say the president should do more than take advice."
The interview in the U.S. Capitol came one week after Specter announced that he has Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph system. He brushed aside questions that his illness and the chemotherapy needed to fight it could affect his work as Judiciary chairman.
His doctor, John Glick, says "when I take these treatments on a Friday afternoon and rest over the weekend, that I can come back to work on Monday," Specter said.
"I have a lot of stamina, and Dr. Glick hopes that being in shape from my daily squash regime is going to help me. But I expect to be able to do the job I always have," he said.
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005 on his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites). (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
What a wuss.
"Caption this pic."
Thank FRist. ;-)
He's turning into another Edwards. Think's his presidential aspirations supercede his senate responsibilities.
It appears that Specter is taking the Schumer claim that "advice and consent" means that the President should ask for advice BEFORE making a nomination. The process has never worked that was in the past and it is ridiculous to think that after 200 years the process should change now.
Then again, with Specter you don't know what to believe from day-to-day.
And as far as "blowing up relations in the Senate" if the nucular option is employed, how would that be any different than what we have now? Not much collegiality going on there lately that I can see!
Spector is a mistake, a big mistake.
I'll be interested to see is Specter repays to Senator Santorum the same loyalty and support that Santorum showed to him during the primary that he came close to losing last year, when Santorum runs next year for reelection.
FYI.
I sure would not count on it.
I can understand Spectre's train of thought.
If the Republicans would only give in to the Democrats, there would be no impasse.
Well, you don't always get what you want but you always get what you deserve.
More proof Republicans cannot govern, have no business in power and are cowards.
If they aren't going to use the power of the majority (as the Dems did for decades) then why bother?
The Democrats are to blame for their obstructionist tactics. The Republicans are to blame for letting them get away with it.
Don't forget to thank Bush and Santorum first.
More proof that Washington does not have a division when it comes to the very important issues. When the American people have to fight the elites in this "TWO-PARTY CARTEL" the people always lose. You see the elites would make sure that these pols never got re-elected but the sheeple keep re-electing these idiots at a 98% rate.
It's no better in the states either. The GOP here in Tenn last election took over the state senate and voted back in the old, Dem good 'ol boy network to keep running things.
Sickening.
You nailed it. Exactly why we can all look forward to President Hillary Clinton in four years. There was a major outcry against this useless socialist piece of garbage taking the chair of the Senate judiciary among rank and file Republicans after his brazen admission last November that as chairman he would see to it there were no pro-life judges seated on the Supreme Court.
Did Bush, flim-flam-Frist, and the other leadership pay attention? Absolutely not! Specter makes an empty promise to behave himself and promptly hires two Demo-Marxist lawyers as the JC staff attorneys.
This is part of a clever strategy by the Rockefeller Republicans running the show to keep leftists (whose agenda they share) in control of the judicial branch. While most pols like Frist would never dare to support some abomination like gay marriage publicly, they can conveniently arrange to keep the courts packed with leftist ideologues who will impose the agenda by judicial fiat. Most of the voters are way too ill-informed to understand he shell-game. When the pols run again for their political fiefdoms, they can then posture themselves as pro-life, as social conservatives, etc. and blame the out-of-control judges that they are heroically trying to reign in. Not a dime's wort of difference!
One of Lyndon Johnson's favorite sayings was, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pi$$ing out than outside the tent pi$$ing in."
Sure.
We're the ones preventing good justices from a constitutional vote because they will follow the constitution and, oh, they are pro-life or Christian or both. Let us not even get into those memos from the Dems about objections of minorities to the court....
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.