Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WSJ: Bush Nominees Could Tip Court Balances--Democrats See Picks Advancing Conservative Trend
Wall Street Journal ^ | May 23, 2005 | JEANNE CUMMINGS

Posted on 05/23/2005 5:45:44 AM PDT by OESY

The Senate fight over President Bush's judicial nominees isn't just about their opinions -- it is also about their destinations. The contentious choices would tip the balance in some evenly split appellate courts, or could challenge the prevailing views of other panels on issues such as civil rights or environmental policy....

Democrats say the seven blocked Bush nominees could start a conservative shift in courts that aren't already tilted that way. "Balance on the court matters to us," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. "I've always felt a good court would have one [Justice Antonin] Scalia and one [former Justice William J.] Brennan and not five of either," he added, referring to both a conservative and liberal Supreme Court justice.

There are 13 circuit courts of appeals across the country, each with varying numbers of members, including courts for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit. They operate just below the U.S. Supreme Court and are the final arbiters of many cases, because the high court agrees to hear only a tiny percentage of the cases appealed to it.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals is considered the most-important appellate court and one that has jurisdiction over much of the federal government, including environmental and labor laws. Republicans blocked two Clinton appointees to the court during the 1990s. When President Bush took office, the court had four Democratic-appointed judges, four Republican-appointed ones and four vacancies. One vacancy already has been filled by a Bush appointee.

Ms. Brown is slated to be the president's second appointment. The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers and an easily re-elected member of the California Supreme Court, Ms. Brown has heard more than 700 cases during her tenure on the state court....

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: California; US: District of Columbia; US: Florida; US: Georgia; US: Michigan; US: Ohio; US: Oregon; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 109th; boydengray; bush; cary; feinstein; filibuster; janicerogersbrown; judicialnominees; judiciary; leahy; nominees; scotus; souter; williammyers; williampryor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 05/23/2005 5:45:45 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY
Democrats say the seven blocked Bush nominees could start a conservative shift in courts that aren't already tilted that way.

That was one of the main reasons W was elected and re-elected.

2 posted on 05/23/2005 5:47:44 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Can you post a little more of the article?


3 posted on 05/23/2005 5:50:25 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
If all the vacancies were rightly and constitutionally filled, even the 9th circuit would be close!
4 posted on 05/23/2005 5:54:29 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Excellent graphic and article! Makes me dream of a day when the 9th Circus returns to reality.
5 posted on 05/23/2005 6:04:18 AM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

If the 9th circus shifts to the right I will be floored.


6 posted on 05/23/2005 6:05:44 AM PDT by TXBSAFH (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, who's bringing the chips?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA; ken5050; Howlin

Ping.


7 posted on 05/23/2005 6:09:28 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Why is there only one nominee per district, but multiple vacant seats?


8 posted on 05/23/2005 6:10:03 AM PDT by Bostton1 (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
"Bush Nominees Could Tip Court Balances"

Yes, that's the idea. That's precisely why he was elected and why the voters gave the Senate a majority!

9 posted on 05/23/2005 6:22:13 AM PDT by Enterprise (Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

yes, that is the whole point!


10 posted on 05/23/2005 6:28:57 AM PDT by jackv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2banana; Milhous
The 9th Circuit Court should be broken up or disbanded. There are few governmental bodies that act in opposition to the will of the people than the 9th Circuit (MA state courts are bad as well). There have been years where every single case ruled on by the 9th Circus Court has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Consistantly the court has 80% and upwards of its cases oveturned. I remember one year they had 27 of 28 cases overturned.

Can someone tell me how this is serving the people? How is this spending tax payer money wisely?

11 posted on 05/23/2005 6:29:36 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Milhous

ditto ping


12 posted on 05/23/2005 6:38:35 AM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
Full article here.
13 posted on 05/23/2005 6:39:54 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

I wish I could. Restrictions on posting (i.e., 300-word limits) prevent it.


14 posted on 05/23/2005 6:42:50 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Okay, so Democratic Presidents are going to appoint conservative judges?


15 posted on 05/23/2005 6:43:38 AM PDT by ArmedNReady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I'm searching for a word, maybe a phrase that best describes this until-now super secret thesis ...Oh, yeah, DUH.
16 posted on 05/23/2005 6:48:43 AM PDT by small voice in the wilderness (Quick, act casual. If they sense scorn and ridicule, they'll flee..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

That graphic makes the RATS' arguments over judicial nominees amazingly transparent.

Look at the Ninth Circuit "balance", Schumer! Kinda telling how this Circuit Court has the MOST BY FAR overturned decisions by the Supreme Court.


17 posted on 05/23/2005 6:50:00 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty ("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

We (libs and conservatives alike) are all so concerned about how appellate and Supreme Ct. justices will rule concerning legislation--legislation passed by freely elected US and state legislators. Yet, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the US constitution giving federal judges the authority to overturn legislation passed by such legislators. The judiciary (under Chief Justice Marshall) essentially seized this power in a constitutional coup in the seminal case Marbury vs. Madison. What we conservatives should be debating is whether the institution of judicial review should even exist in this day and age. Most representative republics don't have it. A law passed by a freely elected parliament is assumed to be constitutional. That is how it is in Britain and most of Europe. American legislators and executives swear an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution. It is thus unthinkable that they would introuduce, let alone pass legislation violating our Constitution. I know this seems quixotic, but if we press our allies in the Federalist society and in Congress, we may, someday, be able to push through a constituional amendment eliminating the odious doctrine of judicial review.


18 posted on 05/23/2005 6:51:14 AM PDT by sawdust ("Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"--Pres. Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator; Cboldt

After our Pubbie Senators are done nuking the RATs, they should wipe their noses in it and SPLIT the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit has a horrific record and unfortunately makes decisions for over 1/4 of the US population.

Cbolt, what is the process for splitting up or creating a new circuit court?


19 posted on 05/23/2005 6:55:03 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty ("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sawdust

As a check and balance on the Federal Judiciary, the Constitution allows Congress to limit the Court's jurisidiction as it sees fit. High time to excercise this perorgative.


20 posted on 05/23/2005 6:58:01 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson