Posted on 05/08/2006 7:31:31 PM PDT by wjersey
Presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House counsel Harriet Miers yesterday told conservative activists and Senate staff that the administration would soon send the names of more than 20 judicial nominees to Capitol Hill for confirmation.
The undertaking to move ahead came at a 2:30 meeting at the White House that was boycotted by leading conservatives upset at the slow pace of nominations, according to people who attended the meeting.
Conservatives are upset by the Senate’s slow pace on judges since the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in February. They are frustrated that the White House has sent few nominees with strong conservative records.
Conservatives are also angry that Senate Republicans agreed to hold a second Judiciary Committee hearing on D.C. Circuit Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today.
Prominent conservatives who have played instrumental roles in the battle over the federal judiciary but skipped the meeting included Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society; former Attorney General Edwin Meese, chairman for the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. A representative for the Committee for Justice didn’t attend either.
Rove’s participation in the meeting could mean the White House intends to emphasize the judiciary to rev up the conservative base in the run-up to the midterm election. The judiciary, because of its power over social issues, is a leading concern of the base. Rove is likely to spend more time wooing the base since he was shifted from a policy-oriented to a purely political-strategy role last month.
During a conference call hosted by Leo earlier yesterday, one participant called for conservative leaders to skip the White House meeting because of frustration over the state of judicial nominees. The participant said that by missing the meeting conservative leaders would send a strong statement that GOP leaders needed to have a serious discussion on judicial nominees.
Manuel Miranda, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) who now chairs the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservative organizations, also called for a boycott during the call. He said he had about 50 participants on his call but did not know many of those who listened in.
The White House meeting was supposed to include a broad coalition of conservative activists. One participant said White House, Senate and Republican National Committee staff nearly equaled the number of conservative leaders who showed up.
But White House staff scrambled to dispel the notion of a brewing rebellion. At the meeting, Tim Goeglein, the White House liaison to conservative activists, gave a list of explanations for each prominent conservative not at the meeting. The point was to show that their absences were because of scheduling conflicts and not because of an intentional boycott. But the rarity with which such White House meetings are held seemed to undercut the explanations.
One participant said the White House could begin submitting judicial nominations to the Senate by the end of the week. Another said Rove and Miers did not give a clear timeline but indicated the nominations would come soon.
Yesterday’s meeting was scheduled to thank conservatives for their work on behalf of President Bush’s nominations to the bench, particularly Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom the Senate confirmed within the past year.
The last time White House officials held a meeting about judges with a broad array of conservative activists and leaders was the beginning of 2005, according to one activist.
The White House has nominated only four candidates among 18 vacancies on the federal appellate circuit, including two nominees to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals whom conservatives view as liberal-leaning. They are California Judge Sandra Ikuta and Milan Smith, who is the brother of Sen. Gordon Smith, a liberal-leaning Republican from Oregon. There are 56 vacancies in the federal judiciary and 33 judicial nominees pending before Congress, according to the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice.
Conservatives are also upset that Republicans have allowed the nominations of strong conservatives to languish in the Senate, despite having a 55 seat-majority in the chamber.
One controversial conservative nominee, Michigan Judge Henry Saad, withdrew his nomination earlier this year. Senate Republicans have also made clear that there is not likely to be action on 9th Circuit nominee William Myers and 4th Circuit nominee William Haynes.
Last week Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed that Democrats would filibuster Kavanaugh and 4th Circuit nominee Terrence Boyle.
Conservatives were told yesterday that Kavanaugh’s nomination could be voted on by the end of this week.
Good move on Karl Rove's part, but it'll also get The Gang of 14 back into the front page.
In any event, they should start with Brett Kavanaugh.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House counsel Harriet Miers..."
Miers..Miers...
name rings a bell...
this is a good move - but I don't see that we have 51 senators to go for the nuclear option. however, some of these picks might be able to get 60 votes - who knows.
Absolutely scandalous that they haven't sent up nominees for each and every one of those openings while the GOP has the upper hand in the Senate. If the 'Rats gain any ground in the Senate this Fall, then these will be the good ol' days.
Quick Quiz:
How many Court of Appeal Judges have been confirmed since the Alito SCOTUS hearings ended?
Anyone?
That's Circuit Court of Appeals judges I meant.
Anyone with an I.Q. Larger than their shoe size knows issues on the hot burner in the first four or five months of a year have little effect on the fall's election.
But issues on the front burmer in the summer and fall can and do effect elections.
By waiting until the summer to appoint judges, Bush assures that their confirmation or filibuster can have a real effect on the fall elections to the house and senate.
Since it is likley the Democrats will not want to let Bush use that issue against them, they may very well allow a number of these appointments to be confirmed. And if they don't it will likely cost them some seats.
Many Republicans would have liked an earlier vote when nearly all the nominees would have been rejected by Democrats.
Many conservatives just don't think. They dont want to win .. they want to lose immediately rather than wait for a better chance to win.
Let's see. The Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate.
Yet, they allow the Democrats to control the flow of appointing judges to the federal bench.
Where is the 60's version of Barry Goldwater to kick butt within the Republican Party ?
What a sorry spectacle !
Conservatives leaders supposedly boycotted the meeting.
Good.
Talk is cheap.
When the Republicans abolish the filibuster and stop playing games with human beings, let me know.
Oh, and for anyone educating us with their beautiful theories about how the Republicans are playing this perfectly...
...that the common folk cannot understand....
I understand that these are real people with their reputations being trashed. I understand we have vacanies and court cases piling up, while time runs out in the countdown to '09. I understand that Harry Reid slandered Saad with information he didn't have right to that was very likely nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip and the Republicans didn't do a damn thing about it. Just as Estrada was slandered. Just as many more have been slandered.
See, I actually recognize these Judges as real people. This isn't some cute little game to use to get elected. They have a job to do, they have been holding hearings on steroids in baseball instead while threatening oil companies.
Conservatives didn't elect them to allow good people to be abused for years. Conservatives elected them to pass conservative agendas and confirm these judges and be strong on the WOT. Rather than pandering come election day, they would have a stockroom full of good will to justify keeping and increasing their power this fall had they simply done their jobs and respected us enough to believe we have memories and would have awarded consistent achievement.
They chose not to, and now people see them as nothing more than politicians. Pandering come election day, and therefore untrustworthy and unprincipled.
Oh, not to say I wouldn't fight for these judges. I would. But it ain't changing my mind about the GOP. I'm not bought with the carrot of a couple of judges and a $100.00 gas rebate.
End the Filibusters.
Now.
Were they so busy that they couldn't even nominate people?
This is the first time I can think of this year where I heard Rove's name associated with some actual politics. The only time I here his name it is about Fitzgerald/Plame or his 'demotion.' Liberals better start fearing the ground Rove walks on. Rove has six months to get enough stuff on the table to get you and I back on board with the White House and energized enough to show up to the polls and to work for the GOP majority. Without Rove's involvement, we end up with what we've had for the last 18 months - loss after loss after loss and no prospects for winning.
The only message that sends is that they're not interested enough to attend.
20 nominees- Specter will block eight of them.
My question about these 50 judges is, "what is their position on illegals?"
Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, but THIS COULD BE A WAY BUSH IS ATTEMPTING TO BACKPEDAL ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE GUEST-WORKER PROGRAM??
Kinda hard to confirm when, for most of that time, Congress hasn't been in session.
The Judiciary committee has had time to badger AG Gonzalez, have hearings on "wiretapping", asbestos, and immigration, yet they couldn't get a few judges to the floor?
And those judges held up for 5 years couldn't get a floor vote?
They've been held hostage to McCain & Specter.
Mabye, but I've had enough experience in a bureaucratic environment where I've seen things all come "in due season." As much as it may seem logical, you don't "do" judges every week.
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.