Posted on 10/12/2005 12:26:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A journalist friend just spoke with a top Texas lawyer who spoke with Priscilla Owen last week. He says that she "most emphatically" did not withdraw her name from consideration to the Court. If the White House spin is that Harriet Miers got the job because nobody else wanted it, it would seem that the White House is at a desperation point. Posted at 12:07 PM
I trust almighty God. Only his judgement is infallible.
"That I at one time behaved like some of you are doing on this thread makes it that much worse."
And now you're just an innocent bystander in all this, right?
Sorry Rush Limbaugh, but in a time of war I support President Bush, and LOYAL to him.
She thinks Bush is the smartest guy in the world. Now that's pretty original.
Owens was one of those confirmed to the circuit court only as part of the deal the Gang of 14 made. I don't recall how long her nomination was in limbo.
They don't. Here's an example from US History when they chose NOT TO ACT AT ALL:
Few Presidents have had a rougher time filling vacancies on the Court than John Tyler. His first maneuver, upon the death of Justice Smith Thompson, was to offer the position on the Court to Martin Van Buren, who was the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination which Tyler hoped to claim for himself. But that crude effort to immobilize a rival was squelched before any nomination was made, and when Tyler named John C. Spencer of New York, the irate Whigs of the Senate rejected him. The President's next move was to offer this position to two Philadelphia lawyers apparently because he was impressed by the arguments they had just made in a case before the Court. When John Sergeant declined on grounds of age and recommended his fellow townsman, Horace Binney (at the same time swearing the President's emissary to secrecy about the prior offer to him) a tender was made to Binney, who declined for the same reason and recommended Sergeant, with a plea that his own declination never be disclosed. Tyler then twice offered the judgeship to Silas Wright, Democratic leader of the Senate, who twice declined. In desperation, Tyler sent the name of Reuben H. Walworth, Chancellor of the State of New York, to the Senate in March, 1844. When a second vacancy on the High Bench occurred, Tyler offered the position to James Buchanan, who declined, and then nominated Edward King of Philadelphia. On the last day of its session the Senate laid both nominations on the table. Trying once more in the last days of his administration, Tyler withdrew the King and Walworth nominations and sent in the names of John Meredith Read of Philadelphia and Samuel Nelson of New York. Nelson was confirmed and served on the bench for twenty-seven years, but the Senate did not act on the Read nomination. Only one of Tyler's ten tries was successful. (See "Robin Hood, the Supreme Court and Congress," in Yearbook 1978.)
My standards don't shift based on the party in power either. But in answer to your question, Constitutionally speaking (and along with advice and counsel of Congress), the President nominating her IS the determining factor in whether or not she is worthy of being nominated. I'm caught in the unfortunate position here of disliking the choice, but being unable to find valid grounds from which to contend against the nomination.
Trust your Platoon Sergeant and he trust his soldiers. I trust President Bush and he trust us.
Amen
Sorry RHINO369, One should trust their Platoon Sergeant! And I trust President Bush, his a good man.
Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit; first nominated May 9, 2001)
Cloture Motions on Circuit Court Nominations in 108th Congress
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/108.htm
Date Nominee Filed By Date Vote Result DEM Aye's for Cloture ------ ------- -------- ------ ----------- --------------------- Nov 12 Priscilla R. Owen Frist Nov 14 53-42 No.450 F Miller, Nelson (NE) Jul 25 Priscilla R. Owen Hatch Jul 29 53-43 No.308 F Miller, Nelson (NE) May 06 Priscilla R. Owen McConnell May 08 52-45 No.144 F Miller, Nelson (NE) Apr 29 Priscilla R. Owen McConnell May 01 52-44 No.137 F Miller, Nelson (NE)(other instances of cloture abuse omitted)
Voted out of Committee (again) April 21, 2005
Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
At times rejection by inaction has been far more common than rejection by up or down vote. One study of the Senate's exercise of the advice and consent power found that during a twenty year period from 1929-1948, the Senate rejected 15,263 presidential nominations through inaction. In the same period only 84 nominations were rejected by straight up or down votes.13 Such large numbers rejected without a vote are not an aberration. In 1917, roughly 2000 of President Wilson's nominations were blocked through the end of the session due to senatorial unrest over his nomination of his personal physician (Dr. Cary Grayson) to be a Rear Admiral.Rejection by failure to take a final vote has frequently defeated judicial nominations and executive branch nominations. For example, in 1828, the Senate Committee tasked with considering judicial nominations on at least one occasion expressly found that it was within the authority of the Senate to decide that it was “inexpedient to advise and consent to the nomination now” and to therefore take no action, killing the nomination after the Senate adjourned.
Deliberately denying a Supreme Court nominee an up or down vote in the Senate appears to be particularly common. Of 24 nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court whom the Senate did not confirm between 1789 and 2002, 14 (nearly 60%) were defeated through inaction or delay.16 These 14 defeated without an up or down vote represent nearly 10 percent of all the Supreme Court nominations made in our nation’s history.
As one scholar of the Senate wrote in 1938, “The Senate, on its part…has often taken no action upon [a nomination], or, after long delay, has voted to postpone its consideration indefinitely. At least ten nominations to the Supreme Court have been blocked in this way.”
Such was the fate of Andrew Jackson Supreme Court nominee Roger Taney on President Jackson’s first attempt to nominate him. The Senate held up the nomination for six weeks and then voted to indefinitely postpone a final confirmation vote. Reportedly, when President Jackson heard the news, well after midnight, that the Senate had defeated his nominee by inaction he referred to the body as “damned scoundrels.”19 Taney was later renominated and confirmed as Chief Justice.
Other 19th century examples include President John Tyler’s nominations of Judge Edward King and Reuben Walworth to the bench which were blocked in the Senate for over a year until he finally withdrew them. After he submitted two new names for the bench (John Meredith Read and Samuel Nelson), the Senate confirmed Nelson but refused to take final action on Read.
And that's just a sampling.
What keeps recurring in my thought is Miers really subservient position with respect to GWB. Indeed GWB is Miers' benefactor.
I also keep thinking of GHB picking Dan Quayle.
"But in answer to your question, Constitutionally speaking (and along with advice and counsel of Congress), the President nominating her IS the determining factor in whether or not she is worthy of being nominated."
And the senate, which is an extension of the citizen, is the determining factor as to whether she can be confirmed or not.
So again, what is exactly your point? Once she's been nominated, we shouldn't do our jobs and let our publicn officials know what we really think about her as a nominee?
She thinks Bush is the smartest guy in the world. Now that's pretty original.
As for trying to convince me this cloture abuse is constitutional, don't waste your time.
I believe that the indication from Pukin' Dog was that the candidates either had something in their background, that could be use against them or the withdrew their names. You know Bush would nominate anyone who told him that there was anything in their background (or that of their family)that could be potentially embarrassing. He had been through that before with Chavez and that guy he nominated to Homeland Security.
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.