Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vermont Newspaper, Leahy Trade Barbs Over Leahy's Judiciary Performance
Burlington Free-Press ^ | 3-14-02, 3-15-02 | Burlington Free-Press, Senator Leahy

Posted on 03/19/2002 2:40:26 AM PST by The Anti-Democrat

Edited on 05/07/2004 9:25:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

You wonder how Sen. Patrick Leahy cleans off the slime following a round of confirmation hearings as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On any given day, Leahy could be coated with some of the most vile mistruths, slurs and lies polluting American public life.


(Excerpt) Read more at burlingtonfreepress.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: borking; judges; judiciary; leahy; pickering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: not-an-ostrich
You ask a valid question to which there is a solid answer.

Senator Leahy is lying through his teeth. On the subject of hold-ups of presidential nominees, the record of the Democrats is worse in the first year under Bush than the record of the Republicans in the first year under Clinton. More judges total are held up, a greater percentage of all nominees are held up.

More important than the raw numbers is the nature of the nominees sent up by Clinton as opposed to Bush. Clinton sent up nominees who would never apply the death penalty, even to multiple murderers and assassins of police officers. Clinton sent up nominees like the D.C. judge who protected the Democrats (contrary to law) from revelation of the FEC documents showing that the unions controlling the Democratic nominees and platforms.

As for Laehy's charges against Judge Pickering contained in his response to the newspaper editorial, they are character assassination, pure and simple. Both Morton Kondracke and George Will published detailed columns showing the Judge's true record of justice and fairness. On his reversal rate, Judge Pickering fared much better than the average of all federal judges, for instance.

Leahy is taking his marching orders from People for the American Way, the NAACP, and others who don't give a damn about Judge Pickering's true record as a judge. They just wanted to defeat him precisely because he would enforce the law as written -- and that is anathema to Democrats.

Pickering was "borked" (a sad word, because I have worked for Judge Bork and respect him highly) not for Pickering's sake but to lay down a marker against Bush concerning his evential nomination of new Justices for the Supreme Court.

The only way to get Lying Leahy and his colleagues out of their stranglehold on judges who will obey the law as written, is to defeat Democratic Senators one by one in the races this fall. The only cure is to knock Li'l Tommy Daschle off his horse as Majority Leader, which will also knock Leahy off his horse as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Congressman Billybob

New column" "The Truman Factor."

21 posted on 03/19/2002 6:07:20 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
So when do the pubbies start to fight back?

Oh, I see. It's not nearly cold enough...

22 posted on 03/19/2002 6:12:40 AM PST by EternalHope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Wonder if a citizen has standing in a mandamus or declaratory judgment action to determine whether the Constitution requires a vote by the full Senate on the confirmation of an executive apointment?

Taken to its extreme a Senate rule could appoint a single member to decide whether an appointment could be voted upon.

The Constitution states that appointments are to be approved on the "advice and consent of the Senate" - not the advice and consent of the majority of the judiciary committee.

Any thoughts FReepers?



23 posted on 03/19/2002 6:20:29 AM PST by Tunehead54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Leahy made a visit to his VT retreat during the Ashcroft hearings. I figured the purpose of Leahy's visit back then was to collect firewood for an ol'-fashioned witch hunt/burning, (with Ashcroft as the main course).

I find myself wondering if Leahy has taken another, more recent, trip to his little retreat to pick up more firewood. It's obvious that Leahy does not do any soul-searching when he is "on retreat."

BTW-- What kind of evil lurks in Leahy's neck of the woods? He returns to the Senate as a pretty nasty guy.

24 posted on 03/19/2002 6:22:33 AM PST by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Why are you confusing the issues with facts?
25 posted on 03/19/2002 6:25:04 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Leahy is a socialist. What else would you expect from this two-bit good-fur-nothin? I wish Hatch would wipe that smile of his ugly mug.
26 posted on 03/19/2002 6:26:56 AM PST by VoodooEconomist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldironsides
Not to mention what a sham all these liberal "special interests" groups are. They were silent for eight years. I take that back, a few of them (NOW) came out for awhile to defend Bill Clinton against the "right-wing conspiracy" ... and to denounce Paula J. and Kathleen W. for daring to accuse His Slickness of rape.
27 posted on 03/19/2002 6:30:18 AM PST by VoodooEconomist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gunnedah
>>I would think Vermonters would have better sense 
>>than keep returning him to the Senate ...

Surely, you jest. If South Dakotans continue to elect two socialists as their Senators, why would you expect northeasterners to get rid of Lay-He?

28 posted on 03/19/2002 6:33:23 AM PST by VoodooEconomist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tunehead54
If I had the time, I would file a Writ of Mandamus to challenge the Constitutionality of Judicial Appointments that are not voted on by the full Senate.

If I were the President, I would most certainly file such a case.

The Senate may choose to assign a committee to vet the nominee and perhaps even provide a recommendation, but it is the right, I would argue, of each and every Senator to vote on a Presidential nominee a President nominates.

There's got to be a reason Bush isn't filing such a suit.

29 posted on 03/19/2002 6:38:08 AM PST by GotDangGenius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
:)
30 posted on 03/19/2002 6:46:15 AM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: not-an-ostrich
Re: Is Leahy factually correct, I don't believe so. I recall that Pickering was overturned at a rate that was lower than average. As to "Legislating from the Bench", I don't know, but for Leahy or any Rat to whine about THAT takes unmitigated gall. The rats have been putting activist judges in place to assult the constitution since 1932.

Their view of activist judges are judges who don't view the constitution as a "living document". When the rat bastard talks about "established case law" he is concerned that Pickering (or ANY conservative judge) would challenge unconstitutional decisions by activist socialist judges.

Leahy is as bad as the Bubba the Rapist. Nothing that lying scum says should be taken seriously.

31 posted on 03/19/2002 6:50:07 AM PST by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GotDangGenius
There's got to be a reason Bush isn't filing such a suit.


Good point noting that President Bush could file the action. Given the principle involved, President Bush doesn't need to wait for more nominees to be declined a full senate vote - such a vote is either required or its not.

IMHO he should get going and establish the principle before he needs to make a SCOTUS appointment.

32 posted on 03/19/2002 7:11:51 AM PST by Tunehead54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Leto
Leahy and cohorts have now put themselves above the other senators and taken on the power of controlling the judges selected. By not allowing an open senate vote, they have assumed the authority given to the WHOLE senate and serve as an "elite counsel" to determine who us mere underlings get to put in as judges.

They pour over the judges prior decisions and find any decision they can twist to be examples of unfair practices while they themselves are guilty of the most egregious abuse of power far worse than anything the judges ever did - the removal of the decision making from the senate to their own committee for bipartisan power.

The senators should demand better to prevent a few men from putting themselves in position to make decisions for the whole senate and abusing that position.

33 posted on 03/19/2002 7:15:16 AM PST by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Save the Constitution--Take back the Senate!!!

Support the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

34 posted on 03/19/2002 7:24:28 AM PST by mondonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Leahy stinks. If only we could rid ourselves of the Northeast liberal Senators like Leahy, Clintoon, Schumer, Kennedy,Loserman, etc. What a better world we could have.
35 posted on 03/19/2002 7:28:51 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Sanity, yes; accuracy, no.

Ronnie White's record was in no wise distorted - he was a miserable candidate chosen by Der Shlickmeister because of one qualification alone: skin color.

36 posted on 03/19/2002 7:35:06 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: not-an-ostrich
Is Leahy correct?

He correctly parrots the lies prepared by the intelligent ones amongst Pickering's assasins.
But factually correct: NEVER!
After all, he has his reputation to consider...

(You can do a little research through the archives of e.g. the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times for the truth about the issues Leahy mentioned)

37 posted on 03/19/2002 7:38:32 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
Slime ie; LEAKY Leahy - 1, Representatvie form of Govt - 0

Thanks for the encouraging article from this newspaper! You know a few Vermont voters must read this and ask questions about who they elected and why do they act as they do.
38 posted on 03/19/2002 7:39:33 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
I hope you didn't let Leahy have the last word. You did respond with the truth, I hope.

How'bout posting an article about the new law that was passed in Vermont, banning elephants. Give everyone a clear view of influence that the PETA freaks have in the Green Mountain State.

39 posted on 03/19/2002 7:41:48 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-Democrat
bttt
40 posted on 03/19/2002 8:15:52 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson