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.