Posted on 03/02/2005 5:25:53 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, March 1 - The Senate moved closer to a major partisan breakdown over judicial appointments on Tuesday as Democrats on the Judiciary Committee assailed one of President Bush's nominees and asserted he would not be confirmed to the bench.
Republicans had hoped that the nominee, William G. Myers III, who had been nominated to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, might get enough Democratic support to win confirmation and break a long-term logjam over judicial posts.
But minutes into a two-hour hearing, Democrats on the committee began pummeling Mr. Myers, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries, as unfit for the federal bench.
"The most anti-environmental candidate for the bench I have seen in 37 years in the Senate," Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat, said. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said, "Your record screams 'passionate advocate' and it doesn't even whisper 'impartial judge.' "
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the committee, encouraged Mr. Myers to rebut his critics, inviting him to declare that his views as a lobbyist were irrelevant to how he would behave as a judge. "What assurances can you give to your critics and to the public at large that as a judge you would dispassionately review the law?" Mr. Specter asked.
Mr. Myers said that remarks he had made in the past disparaging environmental groups showed that he had been "a forceful advocate for my clients and, if confirmed, I would be a forceful advocate for the law."
Before Tuesday, Mr. Specter had expressed the hope that confirming Mr. Myers would herald a compromise to end a three-year battle between the White House and Senate Democrats over judicial nominations.
During Mr. Bush's last term, Democrats blocked 10 of his appeals court nominees with filibusters, the threat of extended debate, saying they were conservative extremists.
Mr. Myers was one of seven of those filibustered who was renominated by Mr. Bush.
At the hearing on Tuesday, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, criticized Mr. Myers for his actions as the senior lawyer at the Interior Department, where he drafted a ruling that upheld a regulatory change allowing a foreign-owned gold mine to be established on Indian land in California. A federal judge later ruled that Mr. Myers's opinion misconstrued the "clear mandate" of a federal law that, the judge said, was intended to prevent degradation of land.
Mr. Feingold said that Mr. Myers met with the mine owners 127 times while refusing to meet with the Indian tribe.
While there seemed to be no flexibility among Democrats on the committee on Tuesday, the real test will come when the nomination moves to the Senate floor.
Mr. Specter said at the hearing that he had counted 58 votes in the Senate supporting Mr. Myers's confirmation "and that's within shouting distance" of the 60 votes needed to break any Democratic filibuster.
But Mr. Specter's tally appeared to include Ken Salazar, the new Democratic senator from Colorado, who as the state's attorney general signed a letter supporting Mr. Myers's confirmation. Mr. Salazar has since said that he had not made up his mind. On Thursday, he released a letter to the White House calling on Mr. Bush to withdraw Mr. Myers's name, along with the six others who have been renominated, as a gesture to find grounds for compromise.
All of this means that the Senate may be moving closer to a situation in which frustrated Republicans declare filibusters inapplicable to judicial nominees. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, has threatened to do just that if the Democrats continue their filibusters. The Democrats have said that if Dr. Frist were to make such a change in the rules, they will block all activity, shutting down the Senate.
After the hearing, Mr. Specter said he thought that Mr. Myers had improved his chances. But that judgment seemed optimistic when measured against the comments of the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who told reporters, "I think that he's worse off than he was before." Mr. Reid also expressed confidence that the Democrats would continue to maintain their filibusters on the candidates they had previously blocked.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1354483/posts
Is it time for a March on the SCOTUS and the Judiciary and the Senate?
Looks like a rules change is all that will break the Damn Dumb's inability to do other than oppose.
Sheets Byrd may rail and slobber, but it's time.
What a bunch of useless, mewling babies.
Danno = Frist
Well, Senator, bring him up for a vote and we'll see if you were effective enough in destroying his character and his career. Just vote on it.
How I wish we had Repubs with balls enough to let this happen.
WHAT FILIBUSTERS?!
We've got to fix this!! We've got to get good judges on the bench so as to avoid another creative mandate like the recent "Treat Teen Killers Well" fantasy. This is not a dem vs. Republican issue; bad judicial decisions are a key part of the neocommunist campaign to destroy the American way of life!
This I'd like to see. I imagine there are still some democrats who actually care about getting re-elected and representing their constituency, I'd like to see them explain why they found it necessary to shut down the Senate over some judges.
Oh, how awful. Is it wrong to pray for this.
"Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, has threatened to do just that if the Democrats continue their filibusters. The Democrats have said that if Dr. Frist were to make such a change in the rules, they will block all activity, shutting down the Senate."
Sounds like the dems are threatening to do what they have been doing all along, obstructing government. Go ahead, cry and take your toys and go home, who the hell needs you.
Frist et al are playing with nominees in order to 'enhance' pubby election potentials in 2006 I fear. Nuking isn't within the Frist 'comity' of errors, but he talked a good game, don'tcha know!
They're pretty slow on the uptake, aren't they? You'd think they'd have figured out that their obstructionism of the president's judicial nominees played a role in their devastating electoral losses in 02 and 04.
Let 'em destroy their party. Good riddance to 'em.
Dr Frist should go ahead and blow it up. If the Dems want to shut down the Senate, then so be it. Enough of this BS - it's been over two years. Shut it down and let Chucky and Patty and Teddy go home. At the very least the country will be better off.
I'll bet that nobody in the press asks this guy whether withdrawing all the disputed nominations sounds more like "throwing in the towel" than a compromise?
If things were reversed and the RATS felt the need to change he rules, they'd do it in a minute. To the cheers of the MSM. So, it's simple, make the change and rest assued the RATS will make another change when they can. I suppose this is way over the heads of the GOP "leadership".
The liberals simply passed a rule saying they could override the Constitution, annul it.
BOOM
LVM
Another elected official lies his *ss off to get elected. What a surprise. /sarcasm
Salazar's office told Laura Ingraham that he hasn't made up his mind whether he would vote for Myers yet. Another lie, I see.
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.