Posted on 11/04/2005 7:05:43 AM PST by pabianice
The Senate will not conduct Supreme Court confirmation hearings for federal Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. until next year, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter announced yesterday.
A final confirmation vote by the full Senate is scheduled tentatively for Jan. 20, making it the longest confirmation process since that of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991.
Mr. Specter's timetable envisions five days of hearings before the judiciary panel, starting Jan. 9, followed by a committee vote on Jan. 17.
"The White House wanted [Judge Alito's confirmation] before Christmas," Mr. Specter said yesterday. "It just couldn't be done. We have to do it right; we can't do it fast."
Although the White House had sought a faster schedule, spokesman Steve Schmidt said the administration had "great confidence in Chairman Specter to manage the extremely complicated process of moving a nominee to the Supreme Court through the U.S. Senate."
But based on comments yesterday by centrist Democrats, Judge Alito does not appear headed toward bitter hearings like Justice Thomas.
"He certainly got it off to a good start," Sen. Mark Pryor, Arkansas Democrat, said yesterday after meeting with Judge Alito. Mr. Pryor is among the "Gang of 14" who can determine whether the "extraordinary circumstances" exist that warrant a filibuster against a nominee.
"I don't see any extraordinary circumstances," Mr. Pryor said. "I don't expect any. But then again, things can change rather quickly, and I'll continue to be looking for those."
That group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans who crafted a deal in May to break the Democratic filibusters against President Bush's appeals-court nominees met yesterday morning for the first time since Judge Alito's nomination on Monday.
"No, I don't see anything," Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat and Gang of 14 member, said
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
This is why there is a delay.
The Democrats have called Sherlock Holmes to the case, and indubitably my dear Watson it will take time to find something/anything "extreme".
We all know that Specter is not on the side of wisdom and this will also give time to crank up the Enemedia broadcast machine against Alito.
Maybe Sandra O'Connor's pension increases if she hits an anniversary date, or something, and Specter's just doing her a favor.
"So is it possible to do a recess appointment to SCOTUS?"
I wish Bush would do that. Call O'Connor to the white house and ask if she'll step down for a recess appointment. If she says yes, then recess appoint Alito so he can be on the court until his hearings start on January 9.
How do I know this won't happen?
If I was someone like Harriet Miers with little or no paper trail, I would imagine confirmation hearings would have started already. But with Alito, he has a long paper trail of rulings, that every Senator needs to carefully go through. I'd rather they took their time and got it done right.
Besides, does the White House really have the political capital nowadays to get much of what it asks for?
What are the senators doing for the next two months? If they have something more important than the confirmation of a supreme court justice, could somebody tell me what it is?
***
Three months of vacation.
You need to check again. I noticed you're a newbie. Specter is an untrustworthy RINO and something is definitely going on here...
O'Connor Resignation, Local Case Puts NH Women's Health and Safety in Spotlight
Friday, July 1, 2005
By: Dawn Touzin
PPNNE Press Release -- The resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, combined with this fall's upcoming Supreme Court case, Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, puts the health and safety of all New Hampshire women at a dire crossroad.
CONCORD, NH -- Today’s resignation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, combined with this fall’s upcoming Supreme Court case, Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, puts the health and safety of all New Hampshire women at a dire crossroad, said Dawn Touzin, Public Affairs Director of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s New Hampshire office (PPNNE).
Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, in which two lower courts have reaffirmed that a women’s health supercedes any state or political limits to reproductive choice, is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall.
“With this case, Planned Parenthood is already advocating to ensure that a woman’s health continues to come first -- before political decisions or state barriers to her reproductive choice,” said Touzin. “Now we have a second goal: working with others to promote the need for a Supreme Court that protects that access.”
Only five years ago, Justice O’Connor’s vote was key in the ruling that a woman’s health and safety always come first. Her departure places women’s health at risk.
“Americans deserve Supreme Court justices whom they know will protect their health and safety,” said Touzin. “Planned Parenthood, as the largest provider of reproductive health care in this country, knows this firsthand. A lifetime appointment requires a confirmation process that is nothing less than thoughtful, intelligent, and fully deliberated.”
PPNNE, through their national organization, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is committed to providing comprehensive, up-to-the-minute information on the Supreme Court and the resignation and nomination processes. Visit www.ppnne.org for background information on Supreme Court and lower court judges and nominees and ways to take action and fight to prevent the confirmation of extremist nominees.
PPNNE is one of the largest Planned Parenthood affiliates in the United States, providing health care and education to more than 76,000 women, men and teens annually in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. As the largest provider of reproductive health services in New Hampshire, PPNNE has health centers located in Claremont, Derry, Exeter, Keene, Manchester, Portsmouth and West Lebanon. More information can be found online at www.ppnne.org.
My best guess is that it takes that long to build up a paper trail, read over his old opinions, research his background, and so forth. He is nominated to be one of the top nine judges in the land; of course the interview process takes time.
The more conspiratorially minded will look at the docket and see that arguments are scheduled for Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, which is challenging the New Hampshire parental notification statute. There are two issues on that case. The narrow question is whether the statute is valid without an explicit life-and-health exception. The larger, and more important, issue is whether the proper test is the Casey and Stenhhart "undue burden" test is the test for constitutionally permitted regulation on abortion, or if the default "under no circumstances" test as found in a case I can't remember and don't want to look up.
I don't think it's the latter, because I don't think Ayotte will be decided before the new judge is being seated - in which case. If it were tied without O'Connor's vote, then it would be re-argued in front of the whole panel and Alito would get a vote.
Alito has written hundreds of opinions and they have to be reviewed before hearings can take place. It's as simple as that.
THe schedule isn't that elongated. He made the nomination on October 31, 2005. Bush then asked to have the confirmation completed before christmas, which was less than 60 daysa.
The January 20th date is 82 days or so, which is long, but there is a thanksgiving break, and a christmas break.
Alito has not been recently confirmed to anything, so we can't push for a "quick" confirmation based on him already being known to the senators.
Heck, the senate is still working on stuff they were supposed to have done two months ago.
Reminds me of the (latest) movie of Pearl Harbor and the dramatization of FDR fighting to stand from his wheelchair, saying "Do not tell ME it can't be done!"
Yes, indeed. There are two abortion cases up before the court, and O'Connor is more to their liking. BTW, Specter is also a pro-abort, so he's fully on-board for the delay.
According to Shepherd Smith on FOX Radio News yesterday, O'Connor WILL be ruling on some controversial matters during this time frame, including abortion.
Now we know why. Roberts should postpone it until lame duck O'Connor is gone.
Delayed by Dems because W wanted them to take action before Christmas. IOW, if W wants something, Dems work to see that he doesn't get it. It's a control thing....
Specter enjoys being a nonconforming control freak and loves to poke sticks in conservative's eyes whenever he gets the chance. By delaying the hearings, Specter's giving the dems and their whacked out base a chance to ratchet up the negativity and hysteria about Alito. Remember, Specter is PRO ABORTION.
For the life of me, I'll NEVER understand why Bush wanted this disgusting RINO re-elected.
Senate is on vacation all the time. They are just to busy finding tv camera's to get in front of.
Spector, Frist, Lugar, Grassley. What a lineup of wimps.
""Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter" was a Republican last time I checked."
He, as always, folded to the dems. Specktor has a hellova hard time hiding his ultra-liberal bent.
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.