[REID - May 12, 2005] Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He is one of those nominees. All one needs to do is have a Member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there.
109th Congress - Page S5030 - May 12, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1401701/posts?page=1996#1996
"I just knew there was a file, I wanted to see the file and, you know, convince myself that there was nothing in that file that ought to impede his ability to be a federal circuit court judge, which is a lifetime appointment," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Saad Unlikely to See Confirmation Vote - May 29, 2005
At Collins' suggestion, their names [Haynes & Kavanaugh], as well as those of McKeague, Griffin and Neilson, were dropped from the document.
I take the deliberate mention of "no promise to vote for cloture for Saad" as a strong negative signal, both because his name is mentioned (as is Myers) and because, unlike Myers, his nomination was still in committee. It is interesting that the MOU is inconsistent - it assigns Saad to Part I (currently pending) while his nomination was yet to be acted on by the Judiciary Committee.
"This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senates Judiciary Committee."
I think this anomoly is insignificant because I view the MOU as a political tool, not as a contract. Every Senator will use the language of the MOU to personal advantage.
A round of applause to Reid, who got away with slandering Saad based on FBI files he was NOT authorized to have access to. As well as offer my sincere congratulations to McCain, Lott, and the rest of the culprits that kept the filibuster intact.
ping :-(
Too Baad!
So Saad!
Perhaps All the Senators would enjoy a peak into their own FBI Files...
I am just surprised he waited this long to withdraw his name...
A very interesting discussion (been going on for some time), regarding which of the Circuit Court nominations is most important to have confirmed.
Kavanaugh clearly comes up as the consensus favorite. I'm not sure about Kavanaugh, myself, because he was involved in burying the Foster investigation, and tried to keep Lewinski out of Starr's report. Hillary! is rumored to be blocking Kavanaugh through a proxy.
[Ed Whelan 03/23 05:41 PM]The Senate was too busy with asbestos (knocked down), lobbying reform (knocked out by Schumer), and dawdling on the USA PATRIOT Act when it could have been debating.Matt, I have a few additional questions: Why was Saad left languishing in committee for nearly three years after his July 2003 hearing? Why didn't the Republican majority on the committee report his nomination to the Senate floor? If it had done so, would majority leader Frist have pushed for an up-or-down vote on the nomination? Or would it have been left in seemingly endless limbo, like the nominations of Terry Boyle to the Fourth Circuit and William Myers to the Ninth Circuit, both of which were reported to the full Senate over a year ago? Why does a 55-member Republican majority defer to two Democrats from Michigan? Why are the nominations of William Haynes to the Fourth Circuit and Brett Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit still mired in committee, 28 months and 23 months, respectively, after their hearings?
Perhaps there are good answers to these questions. Whatever the real answers are, it would be good to hear them.
Toss in a day or two off to refresh the mind, and before you know it, the whole session is used up!
Uh, what could possibly be in his file that would be bad? Voting Republican once?