Is Bush waiting AFTER Senate Control is Decided To Begin Recess Judicial Appointments?

FREEPers everywhere ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

With all the focus on the election here, this topic may have been overlooked. I'm wondering if the President is waiting until November 6, or later ( but before the lame duck session of Congress begins on 11/11)--AFTER control of the Senate is determined--to start some recess appointments.

Seems if the Dems keep control, Lord we pray not, but if they do, it would behoove him to start putting these judges in place. The only thing that might keep him from doing it would be the long-term "tone" thing. But if the Republicans get control, he might be inclined to wait, BUT...THE 'rats could still filibuster judicial nominees, right??

Just wondering, that's why this is in the vanity thread.

Thoughts?

[Digger]

No recess appointments from Mr. Compassionate.

[meenie]

Fill the vacancies and forget about all the possible options including filibustering.

[NY Catholic]

I would not be so worried about the election if I felt GWB would appoint a slew of judges via recess.

[aristeides]

I agree. If the Dems hold the Senate, it's time to start making recess appointments. Don't even do the Senate the courtesy of warning them and giving them a last chance to vote up or down on the nominees, because their response might be to refuse to go into recess.

Hugh Hewitt has a good plan. Name as recess appointments to the bench people much more right-wing than nominees that the administration hopes to get confirmation for. Hugh Hewitt has agreed to serve as a recess appointment for a while. The virtue of naming such conservative recess appointments is that it gives the Senate an incentive to confirm -- or at least consider on the floor -- the administration's regular nominees. If they don't, the price is these super-right-wing judges on the bench.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Straightening out the courts is paramount.Forget the compassion and the handful of cry babies,make the full till of appointments and let em scream!

[aristeides]

How is refusing to make recess appointments compassionate? Failing to fill those vacancies doesn't show much compassion either for overworked judges or for parties whose suits are delayed.

[NY Catholic]

I hope you and I wrong on this one. I hope and pray if the Senate stays in the hands of the evildoers than GWB will appoint via recess but my gut tells me he may wobble.

[KriegerGeist]

"I would not be so worried about the election if I felt GWB would appoint a slew of judges via recess. "

I agree that I would be less worried. I say appoint as many of those good candidate nominees that were "Borked" by those "butt-munches" in the Senate with the non-litmus-litmus-test just to shove it in their faces!
However, equally as important is all those bills (50) passed by the House concerning taxes and economic stimulus and energy independence that are almost as important as judges to get the economy and the country going strong again, so the G.W.B. does not become a one-termer because of the economy or energy.<p.Would you agree?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Good thinking. Recess appointments. But of course, their standing would be better if they were not recess appointed. Let's pray fervently for victory!

[montag813]

The only thing that might keep him from doing it would be the long-term "tone" thing.

I am so sick of the goddamn "tone"...Look at what Clinton did in his last month. Let the press skewer him...the Judges will be in for life, baby...ROLLBACK!!!

[Petronski]

Why give them ammunition by doing it now? Why not Wednesday morning?

[Common Tator]

Who gives a rats butt about no court decisions. The problem is bad decisions that give criminals rights or take away ordinary rights.

Bush made a proposal for the Senate to change its rules. Retiring judges are to announce retirements a year before retiring. The president then would have to appoint a judge to replace them with in 6 months of retirement. The Senate would be required to vote 6 months after the president made the appointment or the appointment takes place. The chances of a Democratic Senate passing that bill are slim and none.

If the Democrats hold the Senate, Bush will not appoint anyone. The Democrats think the only choice Bush has is to keep nominating people until the Senate Democrats forc him to nominate the liberals they want. The Democrats think the choice is reject Judge Bork and get Judge Kennedy. Bush has a proposal to change the law. Until they vote on his current judges or adopt his law, why should Bush appoint any judges at all. If the Democrats won't vote on them, why should he appoint them before 2005 when the Repubicans take the senate for sure. All Bush would be hurting is trial lawyers.

Look for Bush to appoint zero judges (None Nada Zip) until the Senate votes up or down on all the judges they now have before them. They can't even trash his selections if he doesn't slect any. And they can't demand he appoint judges if they won't vote on them.

It is the trial lawyers that will go on welfare if they can't bring suit against Philip Morris for makeing butts or McDonalds for making hamburgers.

Bush is not going to appoint judges... Let the Trial laywers figure out how to make money to donate to Democrats when there are no JUDGES to hear their cases.

[Joe Boucher]

Listen if Mr. Bush were to start recess judicial appointments before the election he would just be giving the democraps an issue to hammer him with.
After he knows the makeup of the new congress and senate he then will go ahead quickly if the dims remain in control of the senate or at his leisure if the republicans take control.
either was I hope he rubs little tommy dasholes face in it. Appointing maybe a john bircher to little tommys home district.

[aristeides]

Trial lawyers seldom sue in federal court. There are bigger bucks to be made on tort cases in state courts. And state judges are much less likely to restrain runaway juries awarding monstrous damages.

[Vineyard]

Recess appointments EXPIRE when the next Congress goes into session. Therefore, any recess appointments done in November or December will expire on Jan 6, 2003.

Seems pointless to do them!!

Now ... if the Dems still control the Senate in 2003, it might make sense for Pres. Bush to wait for the first recess (February?), and fill all open seats with very very very conservative people who might even be willing to do some "judicial activism" from the Right. Then Bush can renominate the more "temperate" people of the likes he has already nominated, those who promise not to engage in judicial activism. And as long as the Senate delays confirming the replacements, the "extremists" stay in power.

Of course, all the recess appointments would expire in January 2005.

Mike

[Dutchgirl]

He may not need to make recess appointments. Just heard from Ventura's appointee on Fox that he is a strict constructionist (but social liberal) Has no problem with Bush conservative appointees.

[Dave W]

Bush can not at this moment make recess appointments since the Senate did not officially adjourn.

[Cicero]

Bush did make a few recess appointments about a year ago, not of judges but of adminstrative posts that the Dems dragged their feet on. Judicial appointments are a more serious matter.

I think he MAY appoint a few after the election. The downside is that the press would be all over him like a ton of bricks. The upside is that he could use their attacks as a way to call attention to Leahy's obstruction of judicial appointments.

In any case, it would be foolish to do it before the election. He could always point out that clinton did it, but that isn't the best route to go.

[mrsmith]

They expire at the END of the next session.

Actually the Senate is in a "conditional" recess.
They are having "pro forma" sessions every three business days.

I believe this means that Bush cannot make recess appointments.