Republicans Blast Senate Dem for 'Trashing' Judge's Reputation

The sniping over President Bush's judicial nominees is reaching critical mass, with the Senate expected to vote soon on the so-called nuclear option -- a Senate rule change that would end Democrat filibusters of judicial nominees.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid prompted outrage from Republicans on Thursday, when he criticized one of those stalled judicial nominees on the Senate floor.

"Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway," Reid said. "He's one of those nominees. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the F.B.I., and I think we would all agree there is a problem there."

"It is unclear whether non-Judiciary Committee Senators are even allowed to read a nominee's FBI files, which are highly confidential, but they sure as heck should not be talking about it on TV from the Senate floor," said Sean Rushton, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group that is lobbying for an up-or-down vote on President Bush's seven stalled nominees.

"Can you think of a better way to trash someone's reputation -- say that there is bad stuff from an FBI investigation in a file somewhere and leave that hanging? This is character assassination of the lowest order and completely improper," Rushton said.

Judge Saad, who now sits on the Michigan Court of Appeals, has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (in Cincinnati).

In his speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Reid criticized Saad, but he also offered to stop the Democrat filibuster of three other nominees from Michigan -- if Senate Republicans don't invoke the nuclear option.

No way, Republicans indicated: Senate Majority Leader Frist on Thursday continued to insist on an up-or-down vote for all of President Bush's nominees.

The Center for Individual Freedom, a free market advocacy group, called Reid's criticism of Saad irresponsible and unconscionable: "This marks a new low in the obstructionists' campaign to smear nominees to the federal bench, and signals the Democrats' utter desperation," said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella.

"Senator Reid has the unmitigated gall to imply that something in Judge Saad's F.B.I. file raises suspicion. Of course, Senator Reid offers no specifics, and everything we know about Judge Saad contradicts Senator Reid's unsubstantiated attack."

The Center for Individual Freedom notes that Judge Saad was first nominated to the federal bench in 1992; nominated again in 2001; and re-nominated in 2003 and 2005. He has been vetted repeatedly, but his nomination has never come up for a yes-or-no vote in the full Senate.

"By attacking Judge Saad through implication and innuendo, Senator Reid leads listeners to conclude the worst," Mazzella said. "With his unsubstantiated charges, Senator Reid unfairly and irresponsibly defames Judge Saad."

CFIF said Americans should expect better behavior from the Senate minority leader. "And Senator Reid should know better than to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and slander a nominee to the federal bench just to score political points."

CFIF said it would like to know how Sen. Reid gained access to Judge Saad's FBI file in the first place.

Judge Saad's supporters praise his integrity, intellect, thoughtfulness and fair-mindedness.

But the liberal opponents, such as People for the American Way, said Saad's record "raises troubling questions in the areas of workers' rights [sexual harassment cases] and consumer rights, and also reflects a willingness to engage in judicial activism, for which his colleagues have appropriately criticized him."

Democrat Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan have opposed the nominations of the four Michigan judges, partly because Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (including the wife of Levin's cousin).

The Senate doesn't change its rules lightly, but filibusters have never been applied to judicial nominations until President Bush took office, and that's created the current quandary.

Many Republicans say it is unconstitutional to require a 60-vote test for judges (60 votes are needed to end a filibuster), rather than the simple majority (51 votes) that the Constitution requires for confirmation.

***Actually, as I understand it, filibusters have been used for nominees before, just not necessarily in such a massive amount.***

With all due respect you "actually understand it" wrong. And your "understanding" can have only of come from the lying left wing MSM (I know, that's redundant).

Filibusters against judicial nominations have never been used.

Now you will hear the MSM and the RATS bring up Abe Fortas as an example, except the filibuster was never actually used. There was one failed cloture vote but that was grandstanding by the RATS as Fortas didn't have the necessary votes anyway get get confirmed so his name was pulled by LBJ.

Oh and the reason Fortas didn't have the votes - it was found out that Fortas was 'moonlighting' and received a privately funded stipend for teaching an American University summer course. So Sen.Dirkesn (R-IL) pulled the support of the Republicans.

And while I'm on the lying MSM, all this stuff about "Clinton's 60 judges" being held up in committee is also utter hogwash. He submitted those names so late in his last term that it was humanly impossible for the FBI background checks to be completed in time for their hearings. So all the whining about that is nothing but another red herring by the RATS - which they are very good at. Think Tom Delay and their own 'travel problems'.

Harry Reid has rapidly devolved into nothing more than a low-class punk. I'm honestly surprised at how quickly it occurred.

It appears to me that these people still don't understand the fact that we are watching. Not just looking, but watching; not just hearing, but listening.

Witness the Left's actions in and around the last three elections (2000, 2002, 2004):

One involved calling a major state for a candidate while the polls were still open in the state's two time zones, and in areas where the voters were more predisposed to vote for the challenger, based on his (and his father's) respect for the military (and his opponent's loathing of the same).

When the results came back much closer than expected (as in "the trick didn't work"), the incumbent challenger held up the proceedings in court for a full month, lying through his teeth that he wanted "every vote counted", while only counting in highly Democratic counties, railing against ballot inconsistencies (designed by a Democrat), suing to get the overseas military vote thrown out, and trying to force his opponent to agree to a full recount (which he had already won). No election will ever be the same again, and 2000 set the precedent.

Another election was marked, or perhaps it is "mauled" by the distaste of a memorial service turned into a political rally. I wasn't much into the midterm elections, and didn't know what they really meant, and as such had never heard what happened until I read Bill Sammon's book "Misunderestimated".

What one party did, at this man Wellstone's memorial service, was beyond "beyond the pale". As a result, the "opposition party" tuened into the minority party on both sides of the legislative branch, and the usual circumstance of losing seats in the House/Senate did not happen with this President.

The final election occurred during wartime, something that had not happened since--well--Vietnam. I'm hesitant to even mention that word, because I heard more about Vietnam in the last year and a half than I ever heard in elementary, junior and senior high school. And not once did I hear of the extraordinary exploits of a war hero with the same initials as a slain president.

From what I heard in school, Vietnam was just an all-around disaster for America. It figures, then, that a candidate for the Presidency (30 years later) would try to ride his "fame" all the way to the White House. Never mind that a REAL war hero, a World War II hero, lost to an admitted draft dodger eight years earlier. But I digress.

Only the brashest of the brash would try to position himself as a war hero of a war that was hated by many Americans (or was it?), a war that we lost (but had been winning), and--though he didn't think we'd know--a war from which he'd been deferred FOUR times, before finally going after his fifth deferment was denied.

Imaginary tales of war crimes; admitting that he himself committed them; not being able to substantiate them in a debate against a gentleman he probably never thought he'd see again--

---and this was the best that one party could do against a sitting President whose father had been Vice President to one of the greatest leaders this country has known, and who--by way of his election as President--worked in the White House for 12 straight years;

--the incumbent who studied at Yale and Harvard (and earned an MBA there), was a former owner of a baseball team, was elected to two terms as Governor of Texas, had been elected to the Presidency, had guided the country through its worst attack in 60 years, and had waged two highly successful (and ongoing) campaigns against terror sponsoring nations...

The media was in the challenger's back pocket. Some of the most vile, hateful, vindictive things that could be said about a man were said about this President...they even went to the point of saying how much better Reagan was, and the Left hate(d/s) Reagan. When Reagan died in June, the candidate praised him...in the midst of a campaign...when Reagan left office in 1989, the same candidate, then and now a Senator, called Reagan's presidency "eight years of moral darkness".

The President who said as a candidate in his convention speech in 2000, "I don't have to take a poll in order to know my mind", who said "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon", and then went out and--gasp--did what he said he'd do, this man was framed as a deserter, AWOL, miscreant, shirker of his National Guard service...from the same time period as the challenger's service in Vietnam (by the way, did you know that John Kerry served in...)

Anti-incumbent books were produced for the challenger, and given free publicity by the media(side note, I just saw many of them collecting dust at a publisher's clearing house...heh heh heh)...especially by 60 Minutes...while books with an opposite point of view were given minimal to no exposure, even to men who ALSO served in Vietnam and with/for the "Presidential candidate", who were labeled by the same as a "front for the Bush campaign".

Of course, there was more...and on election day (my...ahem...original point), an effort was yet again made to deceive the voters that the outcome was already decided...this, in the form of fraudulent exit polls that were jumped on by those who are almost ohgasmic to break a story. (Sorry, Drudge...)

And still, it didn't work. The books, the slanders, the trial lawyer vice-president "mah dahd wuhked ina meeel", the shouts of "creepy liar", the former vice president derangedly yelling for the resignation of every person in the President's cabinet ("Paul WOL--FO--WITZ...OUGHTA RESIGN...IMMEDIATELY!"), the propaganda piece that made Joseph Goebbels look like Cecil B. DeMille, the featuring of the same in the "Presidential box" next to that noted foreign policy master, Jimmalaise Carter...

It didn't work. The President was reelected, the Republicans added seats in both houses of Congress (again), and--showing his class--the failed candidate said "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot!"

And so it goes. People like Dingy Harry better hope that one race that has been solidly in the Democrats' corner for years--mine, American blacks--don't continue to slip away...because I have been watching. I have been listening. I am highly motivated to do what I can to help ensure that this government "of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth".

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.