Judicial Nominee Heads for Full Senate Vote

CNSNEWS.com | 6/28/02

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 to move the nomination of Arkansas lawyer Lavenski Smith for the U.S. Appeals Court to the full Senate for Approval.

According to reports, if Smith is confirmed, he would serve on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Arkansas.

Smith served a year on, the Arkansas Supreme Court, after being nominated by Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

[mattdono]

I guess when you shine the light on cockacroaches, they scurry for cover.

I think the best thing, indeed, was for this senile moron of a judge on the 9th circuit to have ruled against the pledge.

[dawn53]

Thank you Judge Goodwin. Senate obstructionism folds compliments of the 9th Circuit Court.

[mattdono]

I mean think about it...19-0?

Has the Judiciary Committee EVER had a unamious vote? Especially with Senator "Depends" running the show.

Another thing to think about, "after being nominated by Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee". This means that the guy is probably not a liberal...Huckabee is certainly one of the more conservative governors (I loved his volunteer-extra-money-if-you-don't-think-you-are-taxed-enough" program)

[mattdono]

So, dawn, do you think there will be a flood of judicial nominations coming out of the judiciary?

I am hoping so...

[dawn53]

We can only hope.

I did hear either the President or Ari yesterday mention that the decision demonstrates why the Senate needs to get busy because the Prez's nominees wouldn't make the kind of decision that Goodwin did.

If they sing that song for awhile, I think we could see more.

[G.Mason]

Finger in the dike?

[Batrachian]

The 9th Circuit decision is just the sort of thing the Democrats want, despite their phony protests about it. They are about as genuine as a three dollar bill with Hillary Clinton's face on it. This will not open the floodgates of all the stalled nominees that can't get a hearing, much less a vote. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's naive to think that the Democrats have had some sort of Saul-like conversion because of this incident. You notice the story is about a "nominee", not "nominees". They could process a dozen, if they wanted to.

[chachacha]

This is absolutely amazing the way these LIBERAL DEMOCRATS perform. For years they voted against anything that had something to do with GOD while at the same time voting for eveything that had something to do with Satin.

Now, all of a sudden, they are running around the Capital trying to find someone holding a microphone and a press card to tell them they found GOD.

THEY ARE PATHETIC

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Sadly, I suspect that this was a token gesture/pre-emptive strike, so the Dems can claim to be passing "mainstream" jurists when they start holding up everyone else again.

[WKB]

I think the best thing, indeed, was for this senile moron of a judge on the 9th circuit to have ruled against the pledge.

Maybe the moron knew what he was doing. Nah couldn't be.

[alnick]

I think you're absolutely right. The dems keep giving us gifts. I think that the Pledge ruling is outrageous, but it will be overturned and in the meantime, let's see Leahy et al try to stonewall Bush's judges now. heh heh heh.

Another bonus: Americans are so outraged over the ruling that the progress that the leftists have been making regarding removing all mention of God from public discourse has suffered a severe setback. People will not be so passive about that anymore -- for a while anyway (I hope).

[nicmarlo]

the Prez's nominees wouldn't make the kind of decision that Goodwin did

The only problem is.....the Rats are pointing out that Nixon put Goodwin into place.....what say you to that? I noticed the Bush team hasn't rebutted that. Only thing I've heard of (which is probably true) is that Nixon couldn't get any conservative judges appointed because the liberal dems wouldn't have let him.......

[tdadams]

Would it be completely unprecedented for Bush to re-nominate Charles Pickering at this time? Food for thought.

[browardchad]

Nixon couldn't get any conservative judges appointed because the liberal dems wouldn't have let him.......

In addition to that, Nixon was not a conservative. The media loves to paint him as one, due to the Watergate scandal and resignation.

[Colonel_Flagg]

This is absolutely amazing the way these LIBERAL DEMOCRATS perform. For years they voted against anything that had something to do with GOD while at the same time voting for eveything that had something to do with Satin.

I can't resist .. what a bunch of softies ;)

In seriousness, though, you are correct even if slightly typographically challenged :)

[mattdono]

Nixon couldn't get any conservative judges appointed because the liberal dems wouldn't have let him...

Hmmm... that sounds eerily familar... Hmmm... </false wondering>

The significant difference between Nixon and Bush's situation is that Bush has the House and a very close Senate. Nixon had neither. He had to nominate judges that would make it through.

If I was Bush I would throw it back, "See, these liberal Democrats have been doing this type of stuff for over 30 years! And, now, all of their efforts are starting to pay off, which is the decision that was handed down the other day."

Either Bush or Ari NEEDS TO SAY THAT (or something like that). It would send the cockaroaches scrurrying around...

[dawn53]

Well, the rebuttal I've heard is that they had to pull this guy out of mothballs, because they are experiencing such a shortage in judges due to Daschle's obstruction tactics.

Evidently, he was retired and they called him back. As far as him being a Nixon appointee, I think that holds no water, because in most people's minds, Nixon equals watergate equals unethical and a Nixon judge doesn't have a negative effect of this Republican administration, like say a Bush the first nomination would.

When you think of the modern day Republican party and it's representatives, does Nixon come to mind? I say no. He's too long gone to give a negative effect to present Republicans, even if the Dems would like to think so.

[nicmarlo]

Nixon was not a conservative

I have little memory of Nixon's policies......really, but I thought he was considered a conservative. I was in high school and paid little attention to politics. However, I do remember he was great with our foreign policy. It's too bad he wasn't so good at home. I remember all the lines wrapping around gas stations and you couldn't get gas on "even" days if your license plate ended with an "odd" number, etc.