(Tip of the cowboy hat) Thanks, Miss.
It appears Roll Call is now on my New York Times credibility roster.
Posted on 05/09/2005 11:22:58 AM PDT by davidosborne
UC Agreement on Judicial Filibuster BY the LEFT !!
That appears to be our only recourse and redress now. We'll have to hit 'em at the ballot box.
Which side is his bread buttered on?
Yeah. I forget which FReeper turned me on to it. I get Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy in print, but never read that article until it was pointed out.
The history of back and forth makes the present tension much more understandable.
"Which side is his bread buttered on?"
I just had a mnior revelation.
Bring to mind how much MORE power Sen. Specter obtains by clearly knocking out the possibility of filibustering. Every nominees fate will pretty well be established within Sen. Specter's cmmt. IMHO, that is probably the driving force of the the senator's helpful speech--ego. Power for power's sake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the major constituent of political ambition?
The Dems think it's OK because she's getting run over by the front of the bus.
I am mad, mad, mad, mad. The "weakest link" 'pubs are going to have to pay. UpChuck Hagel better not campaign in my state.
Epiphanies are great experiences. And you are correct to see what is going on as nothing more than raw personal politics. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE in Congress ;-)
Those clowns aren't looking out for the people, or even for some high-minded principle. They are looking out for their elite little collegial selves.
Sorry for the length. The gist is he is seeking compromise. He does not express the ultimate outcome of all nominees, except a wish that they not be filibustered, and that the Senate not recognize its obligation to move to an up or down vote on nominees on a simple-majority. Therefore, the disposition of some nominees is left "in limbo," also known as "in committee."
Judicial Nominations
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge my
colleagues to explore ways to avoid a Senate vote on the nuclear, or
constitutional, option. It is anticipated that we may vote this week or
this month to reduce from 60 to 51 the number of
[[Page S4633]]
votes to invoke cloture or cut off debate on judicial nominations. If
the Senate roll is called on that vote, it will be one of the most
important in the history of this institution.
The fact is that all or almost all Senators want to avoid the crisis.
I have repeatedly heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle say it is
a matter of saving face. But as yet we have not found the formula to do
so.
I suggest the way to work through the current impasse is to proceed
to bring to the floor circuit nominees, one by one, for up-or-down
votes. There are at least five and perhaps as many as seven pending
circuit nominees who could be confirmed or at least voted up or down.
If the straitjacket of party loyalty were removed by the Democrats,
even more might be confirmed.
As a starting point, it is important to acknowledge that both sides,
Democrats and Republicans, have been at fault. Both sides claim they
are victims and that their party's nominees have been treated worse
than the other's. Both sides cite endless statistics. I have heard so
many numbers spun in so many different ways that even my head is
spinning. I think even Benjamin Disraeli, the man who coined the
phrase, ``there are lies, damned lies, and statistics,'' would be
amazed at the creativity employed by both sides in contriving the
numbers in this debate.
The history of Senate practices has demonstrated that in the last 2
years of President Reagan's administration and through 4 years of the
administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush, the Democrats
slowed down the nomination process. When we Republicans won the 1994
elections and gained the Senate majority, we exacerbated the pattern of
delay and blocking nominees. Over the course of President Clinton's
presidency, the average number of days for the Senate to confirm
judicial nominees increased for district nominees as well as for
circuit nominees. That was followed by the filibuster of many qualified
judicial nominees by the Democrats following the 2002 elections. In an
unprecedented move, President Bush responded by making, for the first
time in the Nation's history, two recess appointments of nominees who
had been successfully filibustered by the Democrats. That impasse was
then broken when President Bush agreed to refrain from further recess
appointments.
Against this background of bitter and angry recriminations, with each
party serially trumping the other to get even, or to dominate, the
Senate now faces dual threats--one called the filibuster and the other
the constitutional or nuclear option, which rivals the United States-
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic confrontation of mutually assured
destruction. Both situations are accurately described by the acronym
MAD.
We Republicans are threatening to employ the option to require only a
majority vote to end filibusters. The Democrats are threatening to
retaliate by stopping the Senate agenda on all matters except national
security and homeland defense. Each ascribes to the other the
responsibility for blowing the place up. This gridlock occurs at a time
when we expect a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy within the next few months.
If the filibuster would leave an eight-person Court, we could expect
many 4-to-4 votes, since the Court now often decides cases with a 5-to-
4 vote. A Supreme Court tie vote would render the Court dysfunctional,
leaving in effect circuit court decisions with many splits among the
circuits. So the rule of law would be suspended on many major issues.
In moving in the Judiciary Committee to select nominees for floor
action, in my capacity as Chairman I have first selected William Myers
because two Democrats had voted in the 108th Congress not to filibuster
him, and one candidate for the Senate in 2004, since elected, made a
campaign statement that he would vote to end the Myers filibuster and
to confirm him. Adding those three votes to 55 Republicans, we were
within striking distance to reach 60 or more.
I carefully examined Myers' record. Noting that he had opposition
from some groups such as the Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club,
it was nonetheless my conclusion that his environmental record was
satisfactory, or at least not a disqualifier, as detailed in my
statement at the Judiciary Committee executive session on March 17 of
this year. To be sure, critics could pick at the Myers record as they
could at any Senator's record, but overall Myers was, in my opinion,
worthy of confirmation.
I then set out to solicit others' views on Myers, including ranchers,
loggers, miners, and farmers. In those quarters I found a significant
enthusiasm for Myers' confirmation, so I urged those groups to have
their members contact Senators who might be swing votes. I then
followed up with personal talks to many of those Senators and found
several prospects to vote for cloture. Then the screws of party loyalty
were applied and tightened and the prospects for obtaining the
additional few votes to secure cloture vanished.
I am confident if the party pressure had not been applied, the Myers
filibuster would have ended and he would have been confirmed. That
result could still be obtained if the straitjacket of party loyalty
were removed on the Myers nomination.
Informally, but authoritatively, I have been told the Democrats will
not filibuster Thomas Griffith or Judge Terrence Boyle. Griffith is on
the calendar now awaiting floor action, and Boyle is on the next agenda
for committee action. Both could be confirmed by the end of this month.
There are no objections to three nominees from the State of Michigan
for the Sixth Circuit--Richard Griffin, David McKeague, and Susan Bakke
Neilson--but their confirmations are being held up because of
objections to a fourth nominee. I urge my Democratic colleagues to
confirm the three uncontested Michigan Sixth Circuit nominees and fight
out the remaining fourth vacancy and Michigan District Court vacancies
on another day. The Michigan Senators do make a valid point on the need
for consultation on the other Michigan vacancies, and that can be
accommodated.
In the exchange of offers and counteroffers between Senator Frist,
the majority leader, and Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader,
Democrats have made an offer to avoid a vote on the nuclear or
constitutional option by confirming one of the four filibustered
judges--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, or William
Myers--with a choice to be selected by Republicans. An offer to confirm
any one of those four nominees is in reality an explicit concession
that each is qualified for the court, and they are being held hostage
as pawns in a convoluted chess game which has spiraled out of control.
If the Democrats believe each is qualified, a deal for confirmation
for any one of them is repugnant to the basic democratic principle of
individual fair and equitable treatment and further violates Senators'
oath on the constitutional confirmation process. Such dealmaking would
further confirm public cynicism about what goes on in Washington behind
closed doors.
Instead, let the Senators consider each of the four without the
constraints of party line voting. Let us revert to the tried and tested
method of evaluating each nominee individually.
By memorandum dated April 7, I circulated an analysis of Texas
Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's records demonstrating she was
not hostile to Roe v. Wade and that her decisions were based on solid
judicial precedence. No one has challenged that legal analysis.
Similarly, I distributed a memorandum containing an analysis of Judge
William Pryor's record since he has been sitting on the Eleventh
Circuit. It shows a pattern by Judge Pryor of concern to protect the
rights of those often overlooked in the legal system. Similarly, no one
has refuted that analysis.
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has been
pilloried for her speeches. If political or judicial officials were
rejected for provocative or extreme ideas and speeches, none of us
would hold public office. The fact is, the harm to the Republic, at
worst, by confirmation of all pending circuit court nominees, is
infinitesimal compared to the harm to the Senate, whichever way the
vote would turn out, on the nuclear or constitutional option.
None of these circuit judges could make new law because all are bound
and each one has agreed on the record to follow U.S. Supreme Court
decisions. While it is frequently argued
[[Page S4634]]
that Supreme Court decisions are in many cases final because the
Supreme Court grants certiorari in so few cases, the circuit courts sit
in panels of three so that no one of these nominees could unilaterally
render an unjust decision since at least one other circuit judge on the
panel must concur.
While it would be naive to deny that ``quid pro quo'' and
``logrolling'' are not frequent congressional practices, those
approaches are not the best way to formulate public policy or make
governmental decisions. The Senate has a roadmap to avoid ``nuclear
winter'' in a principled way. Five of the controversial judges can be
brought up for up-or-down votes on this state of the record. The others
are entitled to individualized treatment on the filibuster issue. It
may be that the opponents of one or more of these judges may persuade a
majority of Senators that confirmation should be rejected. A group of
Republican moderates has, with some frequency, joined Democrats to
defeat a party-line vote. The President has been explicit in seeking
up-or-down votes as opposed to commitments on confirmations.
The Senate has arrived at this confrontation by exacerbation as each
side has ratcheted up the ante in delaying and denying confirmation to
the other party's Presidential nominees. A policy of consultation/
conciliation could diffuse the situation.
This has already been offered by the Democrats informally, signaling
their intentions not to filibuster Griffith or Boyle, and by offering
no objections to the three Michigan nominees. Likewise, it has been
reported that Senator Reid has privately told Republicans he does not
intend to block votes on any Supreme Court nominee except in extreme
cases. A public statement of confirmation with an amplification on what
constitutes ``extreme case'' could go a long way to diffusing the
situation.
Senator Schumer praised White House Counsel Gonzales during his
confirmation hearings for times in which now-Attorney General Gonzales
consulted with Senator Schumer on President Bush's judicial nominees
affecting the State of New York. On April 11 of this year, a nominee
pushed by Senator Schumer, Paul Crotty, was confirmed for the federal
court in New York. Both New Jersey Senators, Senators Torricelli and
Corzine, approved all five district court nominations for their State
in the 107th Congress. And in that Congress, Florida's Democratic
Senators, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, appointed representatives to a
commission which recommended federal judges to President Bush.
President Bush recently nominated Minority Leader Harry Reid's pick for
the District Court for the District of Nevada.
So there have been some significant signs of consultation and
conciliation by the Republicans on choices by Democratic Senators.
I have reason to believe the President is considering consultation
with the Michigan Senators on some federal judicial vacancies in their
state and perhaps beyond.
One good turn deserves another. If one side realistically and
sincerely takes the high ground, there will be tremendous pressure on
the other side to follow suit. So far, the offers by both sides have
been public relations maneuvers to appear reasonable to avoid blame and
place it elsewhere. Meanwhile, the far left and far right are urging
each side to shun compromise. ``Pull the trigger,'' one side says.
``Filibuster forever,'' the other side retorts. Their approaches would
lead to extreme judges at each end of the political spectrum as control
of the Senate inevitably shifts from one party to another.
The Senate today stands on the edge of an abyss. Institutions such as
our Senate are immortal but not invulnerable. If we fail to step back
from the abyss, we will descend into a dark protracted era of divided
partisanship. But if we cease this aimless and endless game of
political chicken, we could restore the Senate to its rightful place as
the world's greatest deliberative body. That will require courage,
courage from each Senator, courage to think and act with independence.
Our immortal Senate is depending on that courage. Now the question
remains as to whether we have it.
Since the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
avoided the nuclear confrontation in the Cold War by concessions and
confidence-building measures, why couldn't Senators do the same by
crossing the aisle in the spirit of compromise?
As a result of the time constraints, I have abbreviated the oral
presentation of this statement. I ask unanimous consent the full text
be printed at the conclusion of this statement, including my statement
which I now make that the text is necessarily repeated to a substantial
extent of what I have delivered orally, but it is included so that a
full text may be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to urge my
colleagues to explore ways to avoid a Senate vote on the
nuclear or constitutional option. It is anticipated that we
may vote this week or this month to reduce from 60 to 51 the
number of votes required to invoke cloture or cut off debate
on judicial nominations. If the Senate roll is called on that
vote, it will be one of the most important in the history of
this institution.
The fact is that all, or almost all, Senators want to avoid
the crisis. I have had many conversations with my Democratic
colleagues about the filibuster of judicial nominees. Many of
them have told me that they do not personally believe it is a
good idea to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.
They believe that this unprecedented use of the filibuster
does damage to this institution and to the prerogatives of
the President. Yet despite their concerns, they gave in to
party loyalty and voted repeatedly to filibuster Federal
judges in the last Congress.
Likewise, there are many Republicans in this body who
question the wisdom of the constitutional or nuclear option.
They recognize that such a step would be a serious blow to
the rights of the minority that have always distinguished
this body from the House of Representatives. Knowing that the
Senate is a body that depends upon collegiality and
compromise to pass even the smallest resolution, they worry
that the rule change will impair the ability of the
institution to function.
I have repeatedly heard colleagues on both sides of the
aisle say it is really a matter of saving ``face''; but, as
yet, we have not found the formula to do so. I suggest the
way to work through the current impasse is to proceed to
bring to the floor circuit nominees one by one for up or down
votes. There are at least five and perhaps as many as seven
pending circuit nominees who could be confirmed; or, at least
voted up or down. If the straightjacket of party loyalty were
removed, even more might be confirmed.
For the past 4 months since becoming Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, my first priority has been to process
the nominees through committee to bring them to the floor. As
a starting point, it is important to acknowledge that both
sides, Democrats and Republicans, have been at fault. Both
sides claim that they are the victims and that their party's
nominees have been treated worse than the other's. Both sides
cite endless statistics. I have heard so many numbers spun so
many different ways that my head is spinning. I think even
Benjamin Disraeli, the man who coined the phrase, ``there are
lies, damned lies and statistics,'' would be amazed at the
creativity employed by both sides in contriving numbers in
this debate.
In 1987, upon gaining control of the Senate and the
Judiciary Committee, the Democrats denied hearings to seven
of President Reagan's circuit court nominees and denied floor
votes to two additional circuit court nominees. As a result,
the confirmation rate for Reagan's circuit nominees fell from
89 percent prior to the Democratic takeover to 65 percent
afterwards. While the confirmation rate decreased, the length
of time it took to confirm judges increased. From the Carter
administration through the first 6 years of the Reagan
administration, the length of the confirmation process for
both district and circuit court seats consistently hovered at
approximately 50 days. For Reagan's final Congress, however,
the number doubled to an average of 120 days for these
nominees to be confirmed.
The pattern of delay and denial continued through 4 years
of President George H.W. Bush's administration. President
Bush's lower court nominees waited, on average, 100 days to
be confirmed, which was about twice as long as had
historically been the case. The Democrats also denied
committee hearings for more nominees. President Carter had 10
nominees who did not receive hearings. For President Reagan,
the number was 30. In the Bush Sr. administration the number
jumped to 58.
When we Republicans won the 1994 election and gained the
Senate majority, we exacerbated the pattern of delaying and
blocking nominees. Over the course of President Clinton's
presidency, the average number of days for the Senate to
confirm judicial nominees increased even further to 192 days
for district court nominees and 262 days for circuit court
nominees. Through blue slips and holds, 60 of President
Clinton's nominees were blocked. When it became clear that
the Republican-controlled Senate would not allow the
nominations to move forward, President Clinton
[[Page S4635]]
withdrew 12 of those nominations and chose not to re-nominate
16.
After the 2002 elections, with control of the Senate
returning to Republicans, the Democrats resorted to the
filibuster on ten circuit court nominations, which was the
most extensive use of the tactic in the Nation's history. The
filibuster started with Miguel Estrada, one of the most
talented and competent appellate lawyers in the country. The
Democrats followed with filibusters against nine other
circuit court nominees. During the 108th Congress, there were
20 cloture motions on 10 nominations. All 20 failed.
To this unprecedented move, President Bush responded by
making, for the first time in the Nation's history, two
recess appointments of nominees who had been successfully
filibustered by the Democrats. That impasse was broken when
President Bush agreed to refrain from further recess
appointments.
Against this background of bitter and angry recriminations,
with each party serially trumping the other party to ``get
even'' or, really, to dominate, the Senate now faces dual
threats, one called the filibuster and the other the
constitutional or nuclear option, which rival the US/USSR
confrontation of mutually assured destruction. Both
situations are accurately described by the acronym ``MAD.''
We Republicans are threatening to employ the constitutional
or nuclear option to require only a majority vote to end
filibusters. The Democrats are threatening to retaliate by
obstructing the Senate on a host of matters. Each ascribes to
the other the responsibility for ``blowing the place up.''
The gridlock occurs at a time when we expect a United
States Supreme Court vacancy within the next few months. If a
filibuster would leave an 8 person court, we could expect
many 4 to 4 votes since the Court now often decides cases
with 5 to 4 votes. A Supreme Court tie vote would render the
Court dysfunctional, leaving in effect the circuit court
decision with many splits among the circuits, so the rule of
law would be suspended on many major issues.
In moving in the Judiciary Committee to select nominees for
floor action, I first selected William Myers because two
Democrats had voted in the 108th Congress not to filibuster
him, and one candidate for the Senate in 2004, since elected,
made a campaign statement that he would vote to end the Myers
filibuster and to confirm him. Adding those three votes to 55
Republicans, we were within striking distance to reach 60 or
more. I carefully examined Myers' record. Noting that he had
opposition from some groups such as Friends of the Earth and
the Sierra Club, it was my conclusion that his environmental
record was satisfactory, or at least not a disqualifier, as
detailed in my statement at the Judiciary Committee Executive
Session on March 17, 2005. To be sure, critics could pick at
his record as they could at any Senator's record; but overall
Mr. Myers was worthy of confirmation.
I then set out to solicit others' views on Myers, including
the ranchers, loggers, miners, and farmers. In those
quarters, where I found significant enthusiasm for the Myers
confirmation, I urged them to have their members contact
Senators who might be swing votes. I then followed up with
personal talks to many of those Senators and found several
prospects to vote for cloture. Then the screws of party
loyalty were applied and tightened, and the prospects for
obtaining the additional few votes to secure cloture
vanished. I am confident that if party pressure had not been
applied, the Myers filibuster would have ended and he would
have been confirmed. That result could still be obtained if
the straitjacket of party loyalty were removed on the Myers
nomination.
Informally, but authoritatively, I have been told that the
Democrats will not filibuster Thomas Griffith or Judge
Terrence Boyle. Griffith is on the Senate calendar awaiting
floor action, and Boyle is on the next agenda for committee
action. Both could be confirmed by mid-May.
There are no objections to three nominees from the State of
Michigan for the Sixth Circuit: Richard Griffin, David
McKeague and Susan Bakke Neilson; but their confirmations are
held up because of objections to a fourth nominee. I urge
my Democratic colleagues to confirm the three uncontested
Michigan Sixth Circuit nominees and fight out the Fourth
Circuit vacancy and Michigan district court vacancies on
another day. The Michigan Senators make a valid point on
the need for consultation on the other Michigan vacancies
and that can be accommodated.
In the exchange of offers and counteroffers between Sen.
Frist, majority leader and Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat
leader, Democrats have made an offer to avoid a vote on the
nuclear or constitutional option by confirming one of the
four filibustered judges: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers
Brown, William Pryor, or William Myers with the choice to be
selected by Republicans.
An offer to confirm any one of the those four nominees is
an explicit concession that each is qualified for the court
and that they are being held hostage as pawns in a convoluted
chess game which has spiraled out of control. If the
Democrats really believe each is unqualified, a ``deal'' for
confirmation for anyone of them is repugnant to the basic
democratic principle of individual, fair, and equitable
treatment and violates Senators' oaths on the constitutional
confirmation process. Such ``deal-making'' confirms public
cynicism about what goes on behind Washington's closed doors.
Instead, let the Senate consider each of the four without
the constraints of party line voting. Let us revert to the
tried and tested method of evaluating each nominee
individually. By memorandum dated April 7, 2005, I circulated
an analysis of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's
record demonstrating she was not hostile to Roe vs. Wade and
that her decisions were based on solid judicial precedent. No
one has challenged that legal analysis.
By memorandum dated January 12, 2005, I distributed an
analysis of decisions by Judge William Pryor that shows his
concern to protect the rights of those often overlooked in
the legal system. Similarly, no one has refuted that
analysis. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers
Brown has been pilloried for her speeches. If political or
judicial officials were rejected by provocative/extreme ideas
in speeches, none of us would hold public office.
The fact is that the harm to the Republic, at worst, by the
confirmation of all pending circuit court nominees is
infinitesimal compared to the harm to the Senate, whichever
way the vote would turn out, on the nuclear or constitutional
option. None of these circuit judges could make new law
because all are bound, and each one agreed on the record, to
follow U.S. Supreme Court decisions. While it is frequently
argued that circuit court opinions are in many cases final
because the Supreme Court grants certiorari in so few cases,
circuit courts sit in panels of three so that no one of these
nominees can unilaterally render an unjust decision since at
least one other circuit judge on the panel must concur.
While it would be naive to deny that the ``quid pro quo''
and ``logrolling'' are not frequent congressional practices,
those approaches are not the best way to formulate public
policy or make governmental decisions. The Senate has a
roadmap to avoid ``nuclear winter'' in a principled way. Five
of the controversial judges can be brought up for up-or-down
votes on this state of the record. The others are entitled to
individualized treatment on the filibuster issue.
It may be that the opponents of one or more of these judges
may persuade a majority of Senators that confirmation should
be rejected. A group of Republican moderates has, with some
frequency, joined Democrats to defeat a party line vote.
The President has been explicit in seeking up-or-down
votes as opposed to commitments on confirmations.
The Senate has arrived at this ``confrontation by
exacerbation'' as each side ratcheted up the ante in delaying
and denying confirmation to the other party's Presidential
nominees. A policy of conciliation/consultation could diffuse
the situation. This has already been offered by the
Democrats, informally signaling their intentions not to
filibuster Griffith or Boyle. Likewise, it has been reported
that Senator Reid has privately told Republicans that he
doesn't intend to block votes on any Supreme Court nominees,
except in extreme cases. A public statement with an
amplification of what constitutes an ``extreme case'' could
go a long way.
Sen. Schumer praised White House Counsel Gonzales's
consultation with him on President Bush's judicial nominees.
On April 11, 2005, the President's nominee for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Paul
Crotty, supported by Senator Schumer, was confirmed. Both New
Jersey Senators, Bob Torricelli and Jon Corzine, approved all
five district court nominations for their state in the 107th
Congress. In the 107th Congress, Florida's Democratic
Senators, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, appointed
representatives to a commission which recommended Federal
judges to President Bush.
President Bush recently nominated Minority Leader Harry
Reid's pick for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada. I have reason to believe the President is considering
consultation with the Michigan Senators on some Federal
judicial vacancies in their State and perhaps beyond.
One good turn deserves another. If one side realistically
and sincerely takes the high ground, there will be tremendous
pressure on the other side to follow suit. So far, the offers
by both sides have been public relations maneuvers to appear
reasonable to avoid blame and place it elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the far left and the far right are urging each
side to shun compromise: pull the trigger; filibuster
forever. Their approaches would lead to extreme judges at
each end of the political spectrum as control of the Senate
inevitably shifts from one party to the other.
The Senate today stands on the edge of the abyss.
Institutions like the Senate are immortal but not
invulnerable. If we fail to step back from the abyss, we will
descend into a dark, protracted era of divisive partisanship.
But if we cease this aimless game of political chicken, we
can restore the Senate to its rightful place as the world's
greatest deliberative body. That will require courage.
Courage from each senator. Courage to think and act with
independence. Our immortal Senate is depending on our
courage. Do we have it?
Since the U.S. and USSR avoided a nuclear confrontation in
the Cold War by concessions and confidence-building measures,
why couldn't Senators do the same by crossing the aisle in
the spirit of compromise.
Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.(Tip of the cowboy hat) Thanks, Miss.
It appears Roll Call is now on my New York Times credibility roster.
Saad, Kavanaugh and Haynes not discussed. Disposition of the nominations is a matter of speculation, but the tone of the speech implies these nominees may be held in committee, if votes are taken on the 9 named nominees. The votes could come with or without calls for cloture.
Specter goes on to note instances of cooperation by President Bush with Democratic Senators regarding the selection of judicial nominees.
I would like to see Janice Brown on the USSC!
If they give up Brown, I will never EVER give another dime to the RNC. Ever. Till the end of time.
See link at #255, currently C-SPAN has replay of this mornings Washington Journal interview with Washington Times reporter discussing todays article and the nuclear option and some of the nominees.
It is so important that this Judge be honored for her fine work. It is also worth noting that while she is often cited as "conservative" in years like 2002 she wrote the majority opinion for the California Supreme Court more than any other justice on the court. This completely dispels any claim to her being outside the judicial mainstream of respected decision making.
I agree 100 percent, KC. I despise what they are doing to her, and I despise the fact that "our" guys are complicit in this.
Pull the trigger.
Thanks
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.