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

Skip to comments.

Senate confirms Griffin to 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
AP ^ | 6/9/05 | AP

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.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; confirmation; judicialnominees; richardgriffin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: Always Right

It was a good game only because it was the Iggles. That Dallas team was terrible.


41 posted on 06/10/2005 4:43:45 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LS; Congressman Billybob; Blurblogger
As I recall, didn't Clinton name a couple of other people before Ginsberg, but they backed out early?

Asking me to make your argument? It's pointless regardless. Let's assume there were a couple. So what? Why do you think Bush nominees have not "backed out"? Why do you think those Bush nominees who "backed out" were not SCOTUS level?

I have the lists which compare Clinton and W side by side, who waited, who left, who was flushed... Why do you continue to ask these questions? Why don't you respond to previous questions? What's the point of all of this if you are fixated on ideas such as flexible/living government? This has absolutely nothing to do with slowing welcoming ourselves back into the club. Liberals/minority are imposing their desires through activist judges who strike down laws and impose new ones. If people have no say over the control of their government the term is tyranny. The Constitution defines the powers of both Congress and the judiciary, educate yourself. The courts are changing the Constitution without consideration of the amendment process and Congress is defying the Constitution. If you learned how the rules worked you would not support a liberal position, unless you supported liberal values.

42 posted on 06/10/2005 6:09:59 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
NO, you educate YOURSELF. You are the one making ridiculous arguments like this is something unusual. It's POLITICS. Politics constantly change; power relationships constantly change; and it's the shrewd politician who understands what those relationships are. My point always has been that there are no "fixed" and "immutable" rules of the Senate or anything else--it all comes down to the votes of the day.

The fact is, some judges are always washed out; some are always denied (very few); and most are confirmed. To act like because we haven't gotten 100% of all judges at all times is unusal is just silly, and I think you know it.

I repeat what I keep trying to tell you and everyone else about this "deal": it's irrelevant what the Dems do. We got our judges confirmed; we'll get the next batch confirmed; and when they finally filibuster, or attempt to, we'll defeat that BECAUSE the "moderates" have been given their cover.

43 posted on 06/10/2005 8:54:50 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LS

How did Dallas end up doing overall that year when Barry Switzer was the coach and they couldn't score a touchdown for anything and they kept kicking 5, 6, 7 field goals a game? Not too good if I remember correctly. I don't think they made the playoffs.


44 posted on 06/10/2005 9:00:35 AM PDT by johnb838 (In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LS

Well, I do see your point when we're this close to a filibuster proof majority and people want to blow off the pubs because the rinos won't get in line, like they ever do. First we should get the numbers, and all the while pick off the rinos as we get the opportunities.

However, I admit I've gotten mad and made threats. That's what non-election years are for.


45 posted on 06/10/2005 9:04:25 AM PDT by johnb838 (In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Failing to effect the change they were elected to effect will in and of itself prevent the pubs from retaining the majority.

I'm reminded of something Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have, or the army you hope to have a future date." He got ragged for that comment, but there was a lot of wisdom in it.


46 posted on 06/10/2005 9:11:25 AM PDT by johnb838 (In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
Dallas went through a period where they had ZERO draft picks. Larry Allen was the only consistent starter from their drafts for about five years. Their promising TE, LaFleur, was out of football with a back injury after 3-4 years, and they NEVER replaced Charles Haley.

I know I say this a lot, but THIS may be their year, to at least challenge the Iggles for the NFC championship.

47 posted on 06/10/2005 9:18:34 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: johnb838

True.

And we have a pretty lousy army in the senate. We need to court marshall a number of insubordinate troops.


48 posted on 06/10/2005 9:35:01 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 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