"My mama says: "Stupid is as stupid does."
Posted on 05/26/2005 7:53:28 AM PDT by Jean S
Please try to reconcile, if you can, the following statements:
• The nomination of Henry Saad to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals represents an “extraordinary circumstance” and will be filibustered by Democrats.
• The nomination of Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit does not represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and will not be filibustered.
• The nomination of William Myers to the 9th Circuit represents an “extraordinary circumstance” and will be filibustered.
• The nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit does not represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and will not be filibustered.
• The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit might represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and might be filibustered.
• The nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit does not represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and will not be filibustered.
• The nomination of William Haynes to the 4th Circuit might represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and might be filibustered.
If you have been trying to come up with a logical pattern in those statements, forget it. There isn’t one. The fact is that the deal reached by the “Gang of 14” to avert Republican use of the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd option has revealed the arbitrariness and incoherence of the judicial confirmation process.
Start with Owen.
Democrats filibustered her for years. The main reason was their objection to the way she read a bypass clause in a Texas law requiring underage girls to notify their parents — not get their approval, just notify them — before having an abortion. For that, Democrats called Owen an activist and an ideologue.
They dug in their heels and threw out two centuries of Senate tradition to stop her.
And now they’re letting her through? Why?
And what about Pryor? The former attorney general of Alabama, Pryor was, like Owen, filibustered mostly over the issue of abortion. But unlike Owen, who appeared the picture of moderation at her confirmation hearing, Pryor, when he went before the Judiciary Committee back in June 2003, made no attempt to hide his views.
For example, Pryor had in the past called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”
At the hearing, when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) read Pryor’s words to him and asked him whether he still believed that, Pryor answered, simply, “I do.”
Later, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), trying to give Pryor an escape route, asked whether the “abomination” quote was accurate.
Pryor said that it was indeed accurate, and what was more, “I stand by that comment. I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.”
Democrats called Pryor an extremist. They dug in their heels and threw out two centuries of Senate tradition to stop him.
And now they’re letting him through? Why?
Why did Pryor and Owen — not to mention Brown, who angered Democrats when she referred to the New Deal as America’s “socialist revolution” — once constitute such a threat to the judiciary that they were filibustered, and now they do not even rise to the level of “extraordinary circumstances”?
And just to throw in one other case, why did Democrats — back in 2002, when they were in the majority — approve the nomination of Michael McConnell to a place on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
McConnell didn’t argue around the edges of the abortion debate. Instead, in 1998 he wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled “Roe v. Wade at 25: Still Illegitimate.” He also wrote, in a law-review article, that “abortion is an evil, all too frequently and casually employed for the destruction of life.” And just so no one would be mistaken about where he stood, he endorsed a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion altogether.
So McConnell was confirmed — by Democrats! — while Owen and Pryor were filibustered.
Do you see a problem here?
The standards by which judicial nominees are evaluated in the confirmation process are so arbitrary and so inconsistent that they simply cannot be taken seriously. That has never been more clear than in the filibuster compromise.
And when that deal was done, and the 14 signatories divvied up the contested nominees on the basis of no standards whatsoever, they asked the White House to be more attentive to their views on the issue of judicial nominations.
“We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate,” the document said, “both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.”
Let’s say that President Bush — whose signature was nowhere to be found in the agreement — did consult those senators. What would he learn?
That some nominees are OK, and others are not, because of — well, because of what?
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: byork@thehill.com
You'll get a headache looking at 'rat votes through a logical lense.
Ping.
I think the Donks were the most vulnerable, all over the place, on going to the mat to block two women, one of whom is black.
Just that.
...bump.
"My mama says: "Stupid is as stupid does."
For two days in a row, I heard from Sen Frist on his comments regarding the agreement and his Constitutional option.
I sent a reply asking if his defense of the Constitution was important - is the agreement between the 14 mushy-middle Constitutional?
You cannot enter into an unlawful agreement.
Either way, my donations to the NRSC are done, I can pick my own senators to donate to - sorry Senator Dole
There's no rhyme nor reason to it. Just a bunch of fluffed up, power grabbers. Whom the President should ignore.
For example, Pryor had in the past called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”
At the hearing, when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) read Pryor’s words to him and asked him whether he still believed that, Pryor answered, simply, “I do.”
Later, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), trying to give Pryor an escape route, asked whether the “abomination” quote was accurate.
Pryor said that it was indeed accurate, and what was more, “I stand by that comment. I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.”
Democrats called Pryor an extremist. They dug in their heels and threw out two centuries of Senate tradition to stop him.
I like Judge Pryor!!!
It is good to see the names of the Judges who were screwed by the gang of 14 im-moderates ... a reminder that this was not a noble compromise, but the worst sort of backroom deal:
WE NEED TO GET VOTES FOR THESE NOMINEES:
• The nomination of Henry Saad to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals represents an “extraordinary circumstance” and will be filibustered by Democrats.
• The nomination of William Myers to the 9th Circuit represents an “extraordinary circumstance” and will be filibustered.
• The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit might represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and might be filibustered.
• The nomination of William Haynes to the 4th Circuit might represent an “extraordinary circumstance” and might be filibustered.
SHOW SOME SPINE!
CUT THE CRAP AND NUKE THE DEMS, DANGIT ALL!!!!
Very clear article that shows the inconsistency in these judicial votes better than anything I've yet seen. Thanks for posting it.
Once the questionables are through, send up the "extraordinaries" and then nuke the bastards.
Rush jsut said that now Graham has opined that he will not vote against a filibuster of John Bolton.
The simple answer to the question has to do with who is already on the court that these people are nominated to & what was the judicial philosophy of the judge they are being nominated to replace.
Replace a conservative with a conservative, you have no change in balance of that court. Replace a liberal or a moderate with a conservative & the court issues rulings in the opposite direction than it had previously.
Right, and John Thune said he would filibuster. Hopefully Thune will come around to his senses, and reconsider, even though he's lumping the Ellsworth AFB closure in as part of his voting against Bolton.
All the GOP, plus Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-NE), and Pryor (D-AR) voted Aye on the Cloture motion for Bolton. Specter was excused absent, but his vote would not have taken the total to 60. Inouye was also absent. Frist voted against cloture so he could make a motion to reconsider, which he did.
Vote Number: 129 - May 26, 2005, 06:17 PM
Thune will vote against Bolton, but at least he's going to let Bolton have the benefit of an up or down vote in the Senate.
You do have a point.
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.