Filibustering Priscilla Owen

New York Times ^ | April 17, 2003

[Chuckster]

Filibustering Priscilla Owen

Senators opposing Priscilla Owen, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, are considering a filibuster to head off her confirmation vote. Filibusters are an extreme measure in which a minority of senators block an issue from being voted on. But the system for picking judges, which should be a relatively nonpartisan effort to seat jurists who reflect broad American values, has broken down. Filibustering Judge Owen's confirmation would send the Bush administration two important messages: the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's role.

[mabelkitty]

Frist needs to fire the current Parliamentarian and put one in place who will recognize this event as un Constitutional.

[KellyAdmirer]

Ignoring the committee's decision is only one in a growing list of ways the White House and its allies have politicized judicial selection. The latest, and most disturbing, move came when former President George Bush held a fund-raiser for a group that will run ads attacking senators who do not fall into lock step behind the administration's nominees.

I'm scratching my head over how even liberals can think this is somehow improper. This is what politics is all about, building support for your positions. Democrats have done the exact same thing for years. Bill Clinton specialized in this kind of thing. The NY Times is extremely selective in its reasoning. Is fundraising proper only when it is for causes the NY Times espouses? Apparently so, according to them.

Papa is getting active, I like that. He can do the party a lot of good.

Btw, this filibuster tactic is almost certain to backfire badly on the liberals someday, unless a stop is put to it pronto. The Republicans of the 1960s and 1970s had way too much class and respect for institutions to try this sort of obstructive tactic when they were in the perpetual minority, attributes obviously not shared by today's Democrats. What goes around comes around, liberals....

[1_Of_We]

On the heels of your lucid facts, perhaps #3 should be: We need (an attorney) to sue the errant members of Congress for their unconstitutional actions.

[AMNZ]

Done prior to each cloture vote.
He doesn't care, party line to protect party's pres. support
And, it doesn't look like anyone is proposing a cloture vote (last 2 weeks ago) or making the filabusters work.
LACK OF LEADERSHIP ---- RINO's. Need to clone GW.

[NEWwoman]

Filibustering Judge Owen's confirmation would send the Bush administration two important messages: the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's (My comment: Democrats')role.

This needs a BARF alert.

[Mr.Atos]

"We need (an attorney)..."

I prefer the dart throwing Monkeys. We can attach the targets to the rumps of errant Congressman.

[ken5050]

The editorial, and the Dems are attempting to bluff President Bush into NOT making any Supreme Court nominatons...Owen and Estrada are the minor leagues..the Supremes are the big show....of course, they don't expect Bush to call their bluff....he recognizes that he's got to fight for the Senate even more in 2004....

[Mister Magoo]

The NY Times is absolute scum for printing this. Priscilla Owen is one of the most talented, most erudite, lawyers in the country. Justice Owen's stellar academic achievements and professional experience are remarkable. She earned a cum laude bachelor of arts degree from Baylor University. She graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School in 1977. When she took the Texas bar exam, which is one of the hardest bar exams in the Nation, she came in first. She earned the very highest score on the Texas bar exam that year.

Prior to her election to the Texas Supreme Court in 1994, she was a partner in the Texas law firm of Andrews & Kurth, where she practiced commercial litigation for 17 years.

Priscilla Owen's nomination should be approved posthaste.

[Pharlap]

Regarding the "packing" of the courts, it was none other than Frankin Roosevelt who sought to literally pack the Supreme Court by increasing its membership by four justices so he could get more favorable decisions on his legislation. The effort failed. The country survived and the depression ended.

[Pharlap]

For what it is worth, I have done an analysis on the constitutionality of an Art II, Sec 2 filibuster verses an Art I, Sec 5 filibuster. Art II, concerns the powers of the President, including the appointment of federal judges. Art. I concerns the powers of the Congress to legislate. My conclusion is that under Art. II, Sec. 2, once the President nominates a judicial candidate, the Senate must give its advice and consent, and a filibuster is an unconstitutional interference with this mandatory duty. On the other hand, Art I, Sec 5 authorizes the Senate (and House) to establish procedures for carrying out their LEGISATIVE functions. Art. II, Sec 2 is NOT a legislative function. I have emailed my position to both the White House Chief Counsel and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a recommendation that this matter be taken to the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of an Art II, Sec 2 filibuster

[Digger]

Apparently, the Dims in the Senate did not get the message last November.

Apparently the pubbie voters did not get what they asked for - a Congress run by their party solely & the jack'in around with a conservative agenda.

[Mr.Atos]

Apparently the pubbie voters did not get what they asked for...

So, when voters (regardless of party affiliations) vote with a nearly nationwide mandate; a statement affirming their dissaproval of a party (the Democrats) who, on a regular basis, subvert the will of the American people to their own agenda. When the voters reject that party nearly outright and punish bad leadership, bad decision making, and bad representation, you consider that to mean that the voters are seeking... "a Congress run by their party solely & the jack'in around with a conservative agenda."

Clarify, please!

[sinkspur]

It means that Frist is gutless.

Hell, Frist let Bush get sandbagged by his own party on the tax cut!

[Leatherneck_MT]

We need to start sending a louder message to OUR senators and tell them to get off of their fat asses and do what we PAY them for!!!

[Mr.Atos]

It means that Frist is gutless.

Now, I do not necessarily disagree with that. We shouldn't let errant Republicans escape the the dart-throwing monkeys. Frist needs three targets.

[TLBSHOW]

day 4 and still not one recess appointment~

[BillM]

Let me see now. They are filibustering a woman and a hispanic. Next will come an african american. The democrats will become the most racist, sexist party in America?
Maybe another nasty plan of W's!

[mwl1]

The only way we are going to break the logjam is to put pressure on RAT senators who are up for re-election next year. We have to get them to the tipping point where they fear GWB and their own electorate more than they fear Daschle.

Lincoln, Breaux, Graham, Edwards, Hollings, Feingold and others are going to quickly find their hostility to Bush judicial appointments is not going to play well at home, beginning as soon as Bush travels to their states and exposes their obstructionism. It's gonna happen real soon.

[Paul Ross]

...the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's role.

Hal Raines, Editor in Chief, NYT, is certifiably insane. How can the top-rated ABA-certified 'Well Qualified' candidates be 'ideologues'? And how does the President go about showing 'more' respect for the Senate's role...which has NEVER been abused by anyone previous to these DemocRATS in this way to stymie the President's and a whole country's wishes by a brazen political minority that thinks it is the overwhelming majority. It is time for a REGIME CHANGE at the New York Times. Send in the Marines!

[NEWwoman]

it was none other than Frankin Roosevelt who sought to literally pack the Supreme Court

Interesting. And isn't FDR the idol of liberals?