Posted on 06/10/2005 7:14:16 PM PDT by Libloather
Senate deal is done: Three judges are confirmed
The Associated Press
June 10, 2005 6:01AM
WASHINGTON - The GOP-controlled Senate approved former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor and Michigan nominees David McKeague and Richard Griffin Thursday for seats on the U.S. Appeals Court, completing an unprecedented run of long-delayed judicial confirmations.
With a vote of 53-45, Pryor was approved for 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Atlanta-based court that handles federal appeals from Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Griffin was confirmed 95-0 and McKeague 96-0, both for seats on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
''These three nominees have waited a combined total of over eight years for their votes,'' President Bush said in a statement. ''I applaud the Senate for today giving these fine nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve.''
Bush gave Pryor a recess appointment in February 2004 after Democrats filibustered his confirmation. That appointment would have ended this year if Pryor had not been confirmed. Bush said Pryor's service on the 11th Circuit built on a judicial career in which he ''has applied the law fairly and impartially to all people.''
Pryor, 43, watched the vote over the Internet in his office in Birmingham, Ala. Aides brought out cake and champagne to celebrate.
''What a day,'' Pryor said. ''We even managed to get an opinion out.''
The Senate confirmed three of President Bush's most-wanted appellate nominees in less than three weeks after Senate centrists looking to avoid a partisan battle over judicial filibusters struck a deal.
Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen all had been waiting at least two years for Senate confirmation. Democrats have blocked the nominations of judges they consider too conservative.
Democrats had blocked Griffin and McKeague because Michigan's senators were upset at Republicans for refusing to confirm President Clinton's nominees to that court. While the two were not part of the filibuster deal, Democrats decided to allow them through as a gesture of good will.
''I could not be more pleased and proud that Judge Bill Pryor was part of the group that were agreed upon by those members of the Senate to get an up-or-down vote,'' said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., whose own nomination as a federal judge the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected in 1986. ''Bill Pryor is the kind of judge America ought to have.''
Democrats had fought to keep Pryor from getting a permanent judgeship. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., sued to get Pryor removed because he felt Bush's recess appointment was illegal. The courts rejected Kennedy's argument. ''After the president didn't get his way with William Pryor, he took the truly extraordinary step of making a recess appointment,'' said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. ''So while the renomination of rejected judges was a thumb in the eye, the recess appointment of Bill Pryor was a punch in the face.''
It takes 60 votes to bypass a filibuster. Republicans were able to get 53 votes for Pryor in July 2003 and 51 votes that November. On Wednesday the Senate voted 67-32 to end Pryor's filibuster.
The Senate also plans to advance the nomination of Terrence Boyle, a North Carolina judge nominated to the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., though a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee was delayed.
Pryor sold out Judge Moore. I thought you are at least smart enough to know basic facts.
I'm here in Alabama, and that's *not* what happened. Judge Pryor was supporting Judge Moore up until Judge Moore chose an overly confrontational manner of defying a federal judge.
Other options were available for Judge Moore, however, he selected the option most likely to catapult him into our Governor's seat.
Both Judges stand a very good chance of getting that which they wanted, and there was no sellout by either one.
Neither faced any opposition from the Democrats. Look at the politics of the sixth circuit and you will answer your own question. Why are they allowed to sit in the sixth but Saad isn't?
That's your answer? You haven't given any specific rulings. Maybe is just me, but when I dislike a judge or a politician I can point to specific rulings by that judge or specific votes by that politician that I don't like.
I'll ask you again, and this time I'll be more specific. What specific ruling don't you like that these two judges have made?
If you think Pryor sold out Moore then so did 95% of America. Moore, as a judge, disregarded the rule of law and paid the penalty. It is fine to believe the law is wrong but breaking an unjust law does not equal rightousness. Is that the best you can do?
What law did Moore break, I am confused. Since you are clearly the smarter between us, maybe you can edify me on why what Moore did somehow violated any federal law. Don't quote the masses. It only shows your inclination to be mediocre.
None. I haven't followed their career. But these are big time govt tools as evidenced by the fact that Griffin has been overruled less than 1% of the time.
Is the approval of 3 conservative judges reason to celebrate the approval of the three conservative judges?
Sometimes fixing stuff is satisfying, regardless of how it fits the approved methods of correcting a problem. The nuclear option would have had political consequences that were unpalitable and the compromise may blunt those consequences if/when it needs to be used in the future. 5 for 5 judges is a big win that many didn't expect could happen if we had pushed the nuclear button.
Maybe it is all political for both sides - Moore got coverage and Pryor looked like a federal tool, but the Constitution suffered. It used to mean something.
So now you are willing to sell out Judge Saad who is by far more conservative than Griffin and the other fellow. What do you have against the nuclear option?
Do you know something I don't? How do you know Saad isn't gonna get confirmed?
None. I haven't followed their career.
I have no further questions.
If you let me cross-examine, can you cite me one case where either of the two seriously challenged any precedence, or found any govt program unconstitutional, or seriosuly damaged the federal govt?
How much are you willing to bet?
I appreciate your honesty. I'm not inclined or qualified to instruct you on how the judicial system works. The school system, hopefully you attended, should have explained the judicial system...perhaps in a class called history or civics. If you never received this instruction you will have to trust me on this...the simplified explanation is Judge Moore erected a monument of the 10 Commandments in his court He was instructed by a court order to remove this monument. Moore defied the order. That is breaking the law. The court order was based upon the 1st and 14th Amendment to the Constitution. You can learn about the incident on the web or here at FR. Good luck.
What you lack in knowledge you make up in your condescension. In my stupid school, they did have a civics class but either the teacher was too stupid or I wasn't paying attention, but I was told that the courts do not make laws. That cannot be true because you claim otherwise. I was also taught that the 1st Amendment prohibited the federal govt cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. But my school was too stupid to furnish the actual Constitution, so they must have made that up. Furthermore, I was taught that the 14th Amendment was about equal protection and no one even claimed that this was a violation of equal protection. But what do I know, I didn't attend the meeting for party tools and specialize in becoming someone else's parrot.
You've only been a Freeper a short time but I'd be willing to make a $50 FR contribution if Saad doesn't gets confirmed this session. Will you match that donation to FR if you lose?
The 109th Congress was sworn in January of 2005. You mean, we need to wait until January or 2007?
They didn't teach about Roe V Wade?
I was also taught that the 1st Amendment prohibited the federal govt cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Well, maybe that was true in the old days but today the government says you can't pray in schools, can't own guns in many places, and you can't keep the money you earned...hell even political speech isn't permited for some if it's close to election day(CFR)
We live in 2 different worlds. You live in a world where you are the judge of what the Constitution means. I live in a world where the government and the people who elected the government say what the Constitution means. Your version of what the Constitution says might closer to what the Founding Fathers believed, but they're all dead and can't back you up.
Furthermore, I was taught that the 14th Amendment was about equal protection and no one even claimed that this was a violation of equal protection.
In fact you don't know what you're talking about. One of the main points of the court order was that people who were arrested but not followers of Moses, Jesus, or Mohamed would be intimidated by the monument. It was the main basis of the claim. I don't expect you to undestand that, but fortunately it doesn't matter.
But what do I know, I didn't attend the meeting for party tools and specialize in becoming someone else's parrot.
I don't know everything. I rely on the judgement of others I trust sometimes. Sometimes I look to the judgement of others who I don't trust to make my judgement. What ever they say, I disagree.
You sound a lot like a rat. The rats are my enemy. I disagree with them. I disagree with you.
You're the one who wants to make the bet...Give me your terms then.
If I am a Democrat, you are a communist.
BTW, Roe v Wade is not a law.
The Constitution is the Constitution. Over the years both Republicans and Democrats have violated the Constitution knowing full well that there will be no repurcussion from the people. The so-called greatest generation already have been well-trained to tow the government line and they have taught their children to do the same. Since Bush won there was a lot of hope among conservatives that he will stop the erosion of the Constitution. There is no sign of that at all. In fact, he made Bill Clinton look like a fiscal conservative. My beef with Republicans is that they put up liberals in conservative's clothing. Bush is no different from an old school big govt Democrat. His words are sufficient when he said that FDR is the greatest president of the 20th century.
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.