For Owen, is second time a charm?
Posted on 01/28/2003 2:09:34 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
For Owen, is second time a charm?
Her odds may be better as Democrats target other judicial nominee
01/28/2003
WASHINGTON - Snubbed last year for a federal appeals court seat, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen will be back soon for a second try.
And with the Senate now in Republican hands, Justice Owen and her supporters are hoping for a far different fate than the one she received last year from Democrats.
While her chances are significantly better, the outcome is not guaranteed in a Senate narrowly divided between both parties.
One thing, however, is clear.
|
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which proved to be the most controversial battleground over judicial nominations during the last session of Congress, is sure to remain a flash point.
On party-line votes last year after rancorous confirmation hearings, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee rejected both Justice Owen and Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering for the New Orleans-based court, which spans Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Critics accused the Texas justice of hostility to consumers' and workers' rights and charged her with injecting her personal beliefs into rulings on abortion. And they attacked Judge Pickering's record on civil rights, focusing in particular on his bid for leniency for a defendant in a cross-burning case.
President Bush led a GOP charge that the two judges' records were badly mischaracterized by Senate Democrats and the alliance of civil rights, consumer and abortion rights groups opposing them. Earlier this month, on the first day of the new Congress, Mr. Bush ensured a second showdown with Democrats by resubmitting the nominations of Justice Owen and Judge Pickering for the court.
Democrats cried foul and were particularly angered by Judge Pickering's renomination so soon after the furor over comments by Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., that seemed nostalgic for former Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1948 pro-segregation campaign.
Filibuster threat
Several Democratic senators, including Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles Schumer of New York, vowed immediately to use all legislative powers at their disposal to block Judge Pickering, a longtime friend of Mr. Lott.
The threat of a filibuster, which Republicans would need 60 votes to overcome, hasn't been explicitly made against Justice Owen's nomination. But there is no guarantee that the Senate's 51 Republicans would be able to garner nine votes across the aisle.
Some say the Democrats' focus on Judge Pickering could boost Justice Owen's chances.
The Democrats, they say, will have to be very selective in their use of the filibuster, a tactic only rarely invoked on nominations.
"I don't think it would be easy for them to mount two filibusters against two nominees," said John Nowacki, director of legal policy at the conservative Free Congress Foundation, which supports the pair. "They may realize that, which is why they seem to be concentrating all their fire on Pickering, believing he is their easier target."
Democrats "have to be very careful" about the number of filibusters they mount or they'll be viewed as obstructionists, said Elliot Slotnick, an Ohio State University political science professor who studies judicial-confirmation politics. The filibuster "is simply not a standard or normal legislative procedure," he noted.
Between 1949 and 2000, only 30 nominations were threatened by a filibuster, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Democrats "are not going to willy-nilly filibuster large numbers of nominees. But more than one? Probably so. How many more than one? Hard to tell," said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of the liberal People for the American Way, which opposes many Bush nominees.
Unparalleled action
Although the filibuster is an uncommon tactic, Mr. Mincberg said it is unprecedented to renominate rejected candidates.
White House officials say they think that nominations aren't resolved until the full Senate has voted on the matter.
Critics of the Bush nominees are pressing Democrats to block a number of judges - Justice Owen among them - saying the president has left them little choice by advancing candidates they consider well outside the mainstream.
"It was quite a gauntlet thrown down by the president to the Senate in renominating Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen," said Kate Michelman, head of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "The Senate needs to stand up against the president's intimidation and not let either one of these nominees be confirmed.
"We expect pro-choice senators to filibuster against Priscilla Owen."
Republicans want to avoid roadblocks.
"We hope that there won't be any obstructionist tactics on any nominee," said Margarita Tapia, a spokeswoman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We feel that Justice Owen has been an outstanding jurist, and we feel that she will be outstanding on the circuit court and that she deserves confirmation."
Democrats have to pick their battles carefully, an aide to one Judiciary Committee Democrat acknowledged, particularly because a few conservative Democrats, including Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, have said they would not back filibusters. In Justice Owen's case, "there very well could be" a filibuster, the aide said on condition of anonymity.
Partisan split
Sen. John Cornyn, who once served on the Texas Supreme Court with Justice Owen, said Democrats would do well to treat her nomination carefully.
"If they are smart, they will realize that they tried to defeat Justice Owen and we had, in essence, a referendum on that on November 5," he said, referring to election returns that swept him to victory over Democrat Ron Kirk and gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress.
Mr. Cornyn, who hopes to help Justice Owen's chances from his new perch on the Judiciary Committee, said she got a "raw deal" from Democrats last year. In a move that surprised some Democrats, Mr. Hatch said Friday that he would convene new hearings on Justice Owen and Judge Pickering. Some had anticipated that he would move directly to votes on the nominees, who were extensively questioned last year.
"I think people will have a second opportunity to look at her qualifications," said White House counsel Al Gonzales. "And again, I think once they do that, she'll be confirmed."
Nan Aron, head of the liberal Alliance for Justice, disagreed.
"No amount of backpedaling rehabilitation is going to be able to improve a record that is so hostile to workers, consumers, environmentalists and women," she said, predicting Justice Owen's nomination would be defeated again.
The woman at the center of the storm is keeping her own counsel, referring media calls about her nomination to the administration.
"She was discouraged by what happened to her last year," Mr. Cornyn said. "But I think she is encouraged by the fact the president would see fit to renominate her and, I think, is hopeful that things will go much better."
G. Robert Hillman and Jim Fry of the Belo Capital Bureau contributed to this report.
E-mail mmittelstadt@dallasnews.com
Democrats "have to be very careful" about the number of filibusters they mount or they'll be viewed as obstructionists, said Elliot Slotnick, an Ohio State University political science professor who studies judicial-confirmation politics. The filibuster "is simply not a standard or normal legislative procedure," he noted.
Between 1949 and 2000, only 30 nominations were threatened by a filibuster, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Democrats "are not going to willy-nilly filibuster large numbers of nominees. But more than one? Probably so. How many more than one? Hard to tell," said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of the liberal People for the American Way, which opposes many Bush nominees.
The article may be right that Pickering will be filibustered, though I hope otherwise. I wonder if there is a possibility he might get through?...
Could someone please refresh my memory as to what elected position Mzzz Michelman holds? What, you mean she isn't an elected official? But, she seems to have something important to say about every single thing that has been going on in Washington, and everyone seems to be real interested in what she, Queen of the pro-aborts, has to say. Who the Hell cares what she says?!?! Geeze, you would think she had an entire political party by the short and curlies or something...</ sarcasm>
Hey Katie, STFU!
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.
