Posted on 06/09/2005 3:48:40 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate confirmed Richard Griffin of Michigan to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, ending a nomination process that was mired in a lengthy fight over President Bush's judicial appointments.
The Senate was expected to approve the nomination of David McKeague of Michigan to the court later Thursday.
Griffin, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge from Traverse City, won overwhelming approval to the Cincinnati-based court. McKeague, a U.S. District Court judge from East Lansing, was expected to sail through confirmation.
Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, who had opposed the nominations because of holdups to two judicial appointments during President Clinton's administration, offered their endorsement of the judges.
"We support moving on with these two nominations. We hope that in doing so, it may produce some bipartisanship and compromise," Levin said.
Stabenow said both judges had "distinguished" legal careers and expressed hope that moving forward would help restore "comity and civility to the judicial nominations process."
McKeague has been awaiting confirmation since late 2001, while Griffin's nomination has been stalled since mid-2002. They were renominated by Bush on Feb. 14.
You are correct!!! When Boxer whines, I sit back and love every minute of it!!! lol
The test will come when the Democrats mount a filibuster.
If the GOP doesn't respond -- effectively -- we will have lost.
After all getting these Judges confirmed is not 'that' important to some here on FR
In other words, we democraps say screw Michigan if we can't get our way. Now that our butts are on the line and we are up for reelection, we approve this nomination........
I absolutely HATE those two Ba$^^rds.........
if this senate fails to invoke the option, and then the GOP loses seats at the mid term, and then a SCOTUS seat comes available (another in addition to any that may come available between now and then), then the GOP could lose a golden opportunity.
suppose, for instance, the GOP keeps the majority in the senate, but they lose the necessary votes to invoke the option. then they will wish they invoked it when they had the chance.
You win elections, you win nominations. If you don't think it has ALWAYS been that way, then what is normal?
Let me ask you this: what if all Bush's judges, plus Bolton got confirmed, but the filibuster held. Who would win? I'd say, we did. The filibuster is irrelevant. It's like arguing about some official's call while the other team is scoring a basket.
But if you saw the thread here on FR earlier, regarding 06 senate seats, we are more likely to gain FIVE senate seats, making the so-called "moderates" even less important. In politics, you always take risks.
There was NO, I repeat, NO clear evidence that we had the 60 votes to break the filibuster. There were a lot of hints and "impressions" and "I think sos," but NO CLEAR VOTE COUNT. Given that, this is exactly the right way to go.
Walt Frazier, the great NY Knick guard, used to say that he knew he could steal the ball from the guy he was guarding at any time in the game, but he didn't, because he knew that if the game was close, he might HAVE to steal the ball.
Pressing the "moderates" to vote up or down on the filibuster MIGHT have broken the filibuster---or might not, and it might have pushed some of the "moderates" (for their own political survival in liberal states) to vote against it. By appearing "concilatory," they can get some props for their home elections and still have the option to vote against the filibuster if, after appearing "conciliatory," the Dems still screwed them.
I'm waiting for Bush to appoint Jesse Jackson to the UN Human Rights Panel in trade for Bolton as ambassador.
What a TRADE!!
i still think the option should be invoked before the midterm (preferable after the time the rats decide to battle, of course).
i pray we lose SCOTUS leftists between now and then. that would really help us see what we're up against.
As far as that goes, I would agree.
The filibuster is irrelevant.
I'm not so sure about that. Allowed to stand, it becomes enshrined in Senate procedure. At bottom, however, it strikes me as unconstitutional in its effect.
Consequently, it would best be ashcanned as a valid parliamentary weapon in the case of executive nominees.
How does one argue with that mindset? It could not have been stated more ardently by a liberal. I urge you to fight for your convictions. Adapt on!
But it's not "three judges out of five." It's dozens (hundreds?) of judges who have already (quietly) been confirmed, and only these few were in doubt. Is a higher percentage than Clinton? Barely. Is it common to have some justices held up? Yeah---perhaps not this many, but some. It is all irrelevant. "principles" fade with the next election. I agree we have a limited time to do this, but I think that period goes up to the first few months of 2007. By then, I think we'll have two new USSC justices, all 10 of the nominees, and virtually everything else Bush wants.
I hope you are correct. But remember, simply having a republican appoint two SC judges alone is not a victory in itself. They must genuinely support the constitution as it is written. Didn't Reagan appoint Sandra Day? Do you want two more like she is? I don't.
Today Bush has the lowest percentage by far and away. The comparison is made by not taking into account anything other than lower court appointments. One must consider the likes of Ginsberg who was approved without hesitation by the conservatives. Statements such as it's common to have these people held back are inane. check Ruth's background before she was voted on and tell me she isn't as far left as one could possible imagine.
Absolutely right. It's a crapshoot. But in a sense, that's why it's all the more important to see this as an overwhelming victory, because of the 95% of the judges Bush has already appointed that were NOT challenged. Say 10% of them end up being "O'Connor's" and 20% of the supposed "safe" or "moderate" judges end up being Scalias?
As I recall, didn't Clinton name a couple of other people before Ginsberg, but they backed out early?
He was on my fantasy football team, and I was down 20 going into the game. Pulled out a one point win.
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.