Posted on 12/31/2001 3:58:14 PM PST by GeneD
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- In early May, President Bush proudly introduced his first judicial nominees in a White House ceremony and said all 11 of them had "sterling credentials" to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Most already were judges on lower courts; four others were prominent lawyers or law professors who had clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court.
But as the year ends, only three of these nominees have won confirmation in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In all, the White House has made 80 judicial nominations, but has won confirmation on only 28 new judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Where do you think the original "borking" of Supreme Court justices comes from?
Democrats were playing this game LONG before Republicans ever started to get wise to the new rules.
The Dems rewrote the rules and only didn't like the game when they got caught on the short end of the stick.
There's no payback here. Just more of the same old, same old from the Democratic aisle.
They just don't like the game of hardball when they are losing.
The original sore losermen.
- Dems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Government Editorial
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation
Published: June 13, 2001 Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Posted on 06/13/2001 10:19:16 PDT by Stand Watch ListenNow that Democrats have taken over Senate control, they will shut down the confirmation process for President Bush's judicial nominees.
Democrats attempt to justify their planned scorched-earth obstruction campaign by suggesting or claiming that Republicans blocked, stalled, and obstructed President Clinton's judicial nominees for the last six years. Though repeated and reported ad nauseum, this claim is false.
President Clinton appointed 374 judges while confronting a Republican Senate for six of his eight years in office. President Reagan, by comparison, appointed 378 judges while also confronting a Republican Senate for six of his eight years in office. Seems Republican control of the Senate has little effect on overall confirmations.
Senate Democrats continuing making claims that are completely, factually false. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont claimed a few weeks ago that Republicans had blocked 167 Clinton nominees. A report from the Congressional Research Service, however, confirms that no more than 102 nominees named from 1995-2000 remained unconfirmed. That's a margin of error of nearly 65%, which I suppose may not be bad for politicians but is obviously just another lie.
Senate Democrats might better use their own past performance as the precedent for their impending obstruction campaign. That same CRS report showed that the Democrat Senate confirmed 92% of judicial nominees by Democrat President Jimmy Carter during 1977-1980, but just 80% of judicial nominees by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush during 1987-1992.
If past is prologue, Democrats may well set a record this year for the fewest confirmations. They would have to break their own mark, set the last time Democrats ran the Senate during the first year of a Bush presidency. In 1989, the Senate confirmed just 15 Bush nominees.
Majority Leader Tom Daschle is telling some whoppers as well. He recently claimed that the Republican Senate blocked more than 45% of President Clinton's appeals court nominees. Assistant Majority Leader Harry Reid went even further, claiming on CNN's that Republicans had blocked 55% of Clinton's appeals court nominees.
Again consulting the Congressional Research Service, this time a report issued this past February, shows this too is a lie. During the 104th-106th Congresses, from 1995-2000, when Republicans controlled the Senate, President Clinton nominated 71 individuals to the U.S. Court of Appeals. He withdrew three of them himself. Of the remaining 68 nominees, 21 were not confirmed. That's 31%. Mr. Daschle has a margin of error of 45% while Mr. Reid blew it by a mere 77%. There's a bunch more reasons why this is all fake, made-up, whooey but I'll leave it at that.
The reason the big lie is so important is that Mr. Daschle wants Senate Republicans, President Bush, and the American people to feel good about whatever confirmation scraps the new majority wishes to provide. He wants us to think they are gracious, magnanimous, and yes even fair in doing whatever they choose to do. Quoted by the New York Times, Mr. Daschle said "most" judicial nominees would receive a "fair chance" at Senate consideration. This is, of course, not a concession or even a compromise at all, let alone any sort of guarantee of fairness.
The Democrats, after all, define what "most" is and this category will be as small or large as they want it to be - precisely the same outcome as before Mr. Daschle said these words.
The bottom line is that Democrats are going to shut down the confirmation process and hope that these lies, red herrings, gimmicks, and games will distract people long enough or lull us into thinking they are actually after fairness. Don't take the bait.
(Thomas L. Jipping is the Director of the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project at the Free Congress Foundation)
Which, of course, the reporter never does.
He does, however, correctly trace the beginning of "partisanship" in judicial nominations to "liberal activists" during the Reagan administration.
So, on balance, I'll award Mr. Savage a point...
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.