Posted on 11/16/2002 3:31:32 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
Judiciary Committee has now cleared 100 of 102 Bush nominees over 16 months. Of those, 80 have been approved by the full chamber.
WASHINGTON --
The Senate Judiciary Committee, in its last meeting under Democratic control, raised its 98% approval rate for President Bush's judges by clearing two more on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina, a protege of retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), won a narrow vote to serve on the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Shedd's nomination was held up last month when civil rights groups, led by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, said the 49-year-old judge had regularly ruled against plaintiffs in discrimination cases.
Also Thursday, University of Utah law professor Michael McConnell, 47, won easy approval to serve on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. A well-regarded conservative legal scholar, McConnell drew the backing of 300 legal academics, many of them liberals.
After clearing the committee on a voice vote, the nominations now go to the full Senate for final confirmation.
The clash over judges flared after Democrats took a one-vote control of the Senate last year.
Bush campaigned throughout the country against Democrats for obstructing his choice of judges, and the Republican victories last week should make for smooth sailing for his nominees in the year ahead.
But outgoing committee chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said much of the criticism had been unfair and exaggerated.
Before Thursday's vote, the committee -- where Democrats held a slim 10-9 majority -- had taken up 100 of Bush's nominees since Democrats assumed control, and approved 98 of them.
Two were rejected as too conservative. They were U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. of Mississippi and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
And if this article is true, why were we making such a big deal about the judges being stuck in the judiciary committee? There is something wrong here, but I don't quite know what it is.
The writer, David Savage has always been one of the Times' best. (Yeah, I know that isn't saying much), but I just don't get what's going on. Could someone enlighten me, please??
Bush sent up over 180 nominations. They did not consider about 80 of them at all.
The process is those nominations are to get a hearing before the judiciary committee. If the judiciary votes to approve after a hearing, then the full senate votes to confirm or deny. If the Judiciary committtee votes no, the candidate is normalay rejected. Unless 60 senators want a floor vote for confirmation, they can bring a motion that will force the senate to have a floor vote for confirmation.
Leahy as chairman would not schedule committee hearings for 80 of bush's appointees. Thus there never was a hearing or vote in the committee for those 80 nominees. Of the 102 that had hearings, 100 were approved by the committee and sent to the full senate for a vote. When the full senate votes is up to the Majority leader. Daschle stalled on these votes as long as he could.
A single senator can put a hold on a nomination and no vote will be taken for the two weeks the hold is in effect. The Democrats took turns puting holds on nominations.
The senate was made very difficult to manage by our founding fathers. They did it on purpose. They made so that it takes a very unified senate and both parties support to do almost anything.
The Democrats can do it because our founding fathers gave them the power to do it. The founding fathers believed in limited government. Since the senate has to pass all bills and confirm all judges they made it a very hard thing to do.
Lots of Repubican judges retired when bush became president, just as lots of Democrat Judges retired when Clinton became president.
Since judges can serve for life if they want to, that is a very expected thing.
The 'big' deal is that Judgships are not tied up in committee unless there is an ethic problem.
This are over ideology.
The Texas judge is considered too conservative because she ruled in favor of parental notification before a teenager could have an abortion.
The South Carolina judge was promised to be allowed a full vote but the promise was broken.
The rule of the Democrats on these committees (voting 10-9) is unprecedented and showed had they continued to stay in control would have bottled up any Supreme Court judge they deemed too conservative.
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.