Posted on 03/07/2002 1:52:18 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Republicans and even some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday acknowledged that extremely bitter battles surrounding the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees are endangering the entire nomination process.
"We're on the verge of an institutional crisis here, and both sides are responsible for it," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "I fear we are edging toward a place where no one can be confirmed, that we'll all just continue to get more dug in and more partisan and the wheels will grind to a halt."
McConnell made his comments during a committee meeting that was to include a vote on the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote was postponed for the second time.
"The last thing on earth I want for this committee and for this Senate and for any future Senate is to have this totally devolve into a tit-for-tat situation where all we do is smear people who we don't like or who differ with us in their opinions," said Utah Republican Orin Hatch, the ranking minority member of the committee. "I'm sick of it and I'd like to end it."
Hatch charges that the "lynching" of Pickering's nomination "is the product of engineering by extreme left Washington special interest groups who are out of touch with the mainstream and have a political axe to grind."
One of those liberal special interest groups distributed a statement at the hearing.
"If the nomination of Judge Pickering is an indication of what we can expect with future Bush administration judicial nominees, then all his candidates should come with a warning label, 'Beware ... May be Hazardous to Women's Health and Civil Right,'" said a statement from Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. "No judicial nominee should be considered unless they affirm a woman's civil and human right to make her own childbearing choices."
But Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden warned his fellow Democrats to carefully consider their reasons for opposing Pickering at next week's vote.
"I know some from the outside have argued that, because Judge Pickering has personal views relative to abortion different from mine, we should vote against him. I'd be careful what we wish for," Biden cautioned. "Because if it is based ... not upon his judicial rulings but personal beliefs relative to a social issue, when we have a Republican Senate again, it'll be a cold day in hell before we have anybody on the bench who is 'pro-choice.'"
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) concurs that Pickering's nomination has, in large measure, deteriorated into a battle over abortion.
"I'm concerned also, that what we have here with Judge Pickering is a warm-up for a later confirmation battle on the Supreme Court. And there's been a suggestion by some on this committee about a litmus test on Roe versus Wade," Specter said. "My 'pro-choice' views are well known, but I have supported nominees who have held different than my own personal views."
Sen. Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.) urged his colleagues to overcome the temptation to judge Pickering on his personal beliefs rather than his judicial qualifications.
"All of us in politics have infinite capacity to rationalize. I believe that all of us look for reasons to oppose someone whose views are politically different from ours, to one degree or another," Kyl admitted. "And, to the degree that we do that, it's not a good thing."
Specter agreed.
"Maybe it's too late for Judge Pickering," he said. "But it's my hope that, without the context of a specific nominee, that we'll declare a truce, an armistice and we'll try to arrive at some protocol."
He reminded his colleagues that their role in the nomination process at the committee level is limited.
"As we all know, the Constitution provides for confirmation by the Senate, not by the Judiciary Committee," Specter said.
New York Democrat Charles Schumer challenged Specter.
"That is a rationale to abolish all committees," Schumer charged. "I fail to see why the committee structure is any more flawed in the selection of judges than it is in any other. I don't think it's flawed."
Biden, however, concurred with Specter's assessment.
"The Constitution does not say the Senate Judiciary Committee shall advise and consent, it says the Senate shall give its advice and consent," he agreed.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) also took issue with the view that the committee process is somehow "broken."
"I would disagree with my colleagues on the committee who suggest that the problem we face today is a failure of the process," Durbin claimed. "The process was very fair to Judge Pickering."
Durbin believes the White House is "testing" the committee to see whether Democrats will approve of a nominee he, Durbin, views as too conservative.
"President Clinton knew that if he sent a nominee to this committee that was not at least moderate to right he didn't have a chance," Durbin charged. "That nominee would never get a hearing. That nominee would never be seriously considered. That nominee was going to have rough sledding at best."
Hatch immediately contradicted Durbin.
"If you think only moderate to conservatives got through, you didn't watch the committee and you didn't watch the Clinton judges," Hatch responded.
Specter suggested that Pickering's nomination be moved to the full Senate for debate and a vote, even if the committee gives him an "unfavorable" recommendation. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said such a move would be "unprecedented."
"That's not accurate. There is, in fact, precedent for moving appellate and even district court nominees to the floor for a vote even when they have not received favorable support from this committee," Hatch explained. "Based on our research since 1950, this committee has moved at least six lower court nominees to the floor for consideration either without a recommendation or with a negative recommendation after the committee has voted them down."
The Supreme Court nominations of conservative Judges Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork were also both referred to the Senate after receiving unfavorable votes in the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee. Thomas was eventually confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. Bork was rejected.
The committee agreed to hold Pickering's nomination over until March 14.
"We're really at a pretty critical moment here," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) observed. "We could wisely use this week to think about, is there another way out of this mess, this train wreck we're headed into, before we get so far down the track that recovery from it becomes pretty tough."
I doubt it.
Looks like the GOP is stepping things up. Interesting to note that Lott does not appear to be among them.
I see one scenario where the judge may get a floor vote, and it is not necessarily a good one. If Daschle can cut a back room deal with 2 RINOs, he can say, "Ok, we will make a big concession in the name of bi-partisanship--unprecedented--we are so generous and fair."
Then the vote: Pickering gets 2 Dem votes (McClennan of Ga and Hollings of SC), but 2 RINOs defect (You name the prospects) and Pickering looses 51-49. Daschle says--"See, all this over nothing. Now it's the Republicans turn to be Bi-Partisan!"
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the pro-choice crowd might get their 2 RINOs
The part that scares them is that teh liberals know that they do not have political support for every crackpot social engineering scheme they want enacted, but the federal bench has been quite reliable in enacting it for them and preventing the people from having any say. They lose the judiciary and the liberals would be required to persuade the people of their positions, a feat they have never accomplished.
The kingpin is not the plagiarist Biden. It is not the murderer of Massachussets. It is not the dot com failure (who has no business being on a judiciary committee)from Washington, elected with the help of the LP. It is not the ambulance chaser (another person who has no business approving judges) from SC. It is not the California pro-abort (who didn't learn the rule that no gun is unloaded from the pics I saw).
It is the Leakster. National Review did an in-depth expose on The Leakster - and interviewed staffers, politicians, etc. It was posted here a while back. From the article, the partisanship of The Leakster makes Dash-hole and his trainer Mitchell look like rank amateurs.
I thought he was upset that Judge Smith had the gall to criticize Bidens's violence against women act - an act which virtually mimiced state laws already in place (and which was overturned by the US SC, backing up Smith). From what I read, Biden was a bit upset that a judge would dare think that federal supremacy over The States was not a given fact.
Meantime, let the scumbag Democrats play their game, the game they invented. I will be extremely disappointed if the Republicans capitulate to the scumbags in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Isn't there a day that goes by without the idiot Daschle sticking his foot in his mouth?
No, and I love it. He is getting the "Newt" treatment (granted though he would never get treated as badly as Newt did).
SC has some jerks in Congress but the ambulance chaser is from NC...
I was just thinking of that two days ago. Remember when Newt complained of not being wholly informed by the Clinton Administration and the media lambasted him as a crybaby? Gee, I wonder why Daschle isn't getting the same treatment for doing the same thing (worse, actually, because Daschle lied)?
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.