Bush names Miss. Judge Charles Pickering to federal appeals court

MSNBC.com ^ | DocCincy

[DocCincy]

This is posted as breaking news on msnbc's website. Did a search and didn't see it anywhere. Nothing follows for now. Anyone know anything?

[Texas Federalist]

I was specifically referring to those who say they will not vote for President Bush again because of the immigration proposal (or whatever issue du jour rankles them). It is they who are discarding the whole person over one policy disagreement, not I . . . am a conservative. Have been one all my adult life, although I don't know how self-professed "real" conservatives define the term

You used the term "real" conservative. I never did. You also assumed that I was voting against him because of one policy disagreement. You are only hearing what you want to hear and making a lot of unsupported assumptions. My point was that the case cannot be made that Bush, as a "whole" has been more in line with the Republican party platform than the Democratic platform in his domestic agenda. I still haven't heard an argument that this statement is wrong. Perhaps you can outline Bush's extensive conservative domestic agenda for me.

[Texas Federalist]

Whenever I "meet" a naysayer, either in person or on FR, I ask them to consider the matter they are upset with the president about. And then to ask them if they truly believe a Democrat would handle things better. Chances are, in every instance, a Democrat would make worse policy changes, more liberal, and less protective of the nation's security.

I think most "naysayers" recognize that a Democrat would at least attempt more liberal policy changes and be less protective of security. I think the reasoning behind throwing their support to another candidate is twofold: (1) Republicans in Congress are better able to block liberal policy proposals with a Democrat in office and (2) a loss of the conservative vote will "whip" the party to the right like it did in 1994. The reasoning is that, in the long run, this will be better for conservatives, even though there is a risk of short term harm.

[Peach]

Very good points in your post.

[T Lady]

To quote a line from Frank & Moon Unit Zappa's "Valley Girl" (which I just bought as part of an '80s compliation):
'Oh m'god!...like, totally!'

-Regards, T.

[Two Thirds Vote Aye]

NEXT.......BORK! BORK! BORK! Oh, please, President Bush....while you are on a ROLL...Judge BORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lasereye]

My point was that the case cannot be made that Bush, as a "whole" has been more in line with the Republican party platform than the Democratic platform in his domestic agenda. I still haven't heard an argument that this statement is wrong. Perhaps you can outline Bush's extensive conservative domestic agenda for me.

It depends whether you mean what's actually been passed or what he would like to do.

1. His judicial appointments have been consistently conservative - USUALLY THE SINGLE MOST ENDURING THING FROM A PRESIDENCY.
2. Two tax cuts passed, including dividend and cap. gains.
3. He signed the partial birth abortion ban.
4. He tried but was unable to open Alaska north slope to drilling.
5. He wants but was unable to have school vouchers at the federal level because of the Senate, although I believe some money was put in to have a pilot program. Some people may not get excited about that - their big issue is "End the Dept. of Ed", which isn't going to happen. I think it's important because first of all, they work, and second it involves choice, a major conservative principle. It's also clearly NOT a Democratic idea.
6. He wants to have social security investment accounts but they wouldn't pass the current congress. Also clearly not a Democratic idea.
7. The Bush Justice Dept. argued against the University of Michigan's affirmative action admissions before the SCOTUS. He didn't to condemn the SCOTUS decision in favor of UM, which is meaningless in the real world, but seemed to be real important to some people.
8. Has opposed the Kyoto global warming treaty, and reversed some of the more extreme Clinton administration EPA actions.
9. Has been more robust in my view in going after domestic terrorists than most Democrat administrations would.
10. Wants to reform medicare to use the free market.

Against that there is what?

1. Signed CFR
2. Passed prescription drug plan - but even here the Dems wanted one about double the size.
3. His illegal alien amnesty proposal.
4. Has not made a significant effort to cut spending.
5. Supported renewing the "assault weapons" ban.

What else is there? Many objected to his steel tariffs, although there's a lot of self described conservatives who want to stop free trade, so I don't know how you characterize that.

[txrangerette]

Estrada, Pricilla Owens & Janice
Brown all declined the offer, so
Fred Barnes reported. It IS a very
tough sell for the appointee.

[tame]

Estrada, Pricilla Owens & Janice Brown all declined the offer, so Fred Barnes reported. It IS a very tough sell for the appointee.

I don't buy it. BTW, there are many qualified judges who could have, and would have been willing to be recess appointed to the 5 Circuit Court of Appeals.

[txrangerette]

Many? you said Estrada. I tried
to answer about the fillibustered
nominess. Both Owens & Brown have
long futures ahead on St. Supreme
Courts. Estrada is with a fine
law firm & is concerned for the
welfare of his wife & children.

Fred Barnes said Admin. sources
told him all three were offered
it & declined.

Believe what you will.

[Texasforever]

Pickering also declined a recess appointment in January 2003.

[GrannyAnnie]

Thank God for George W. Bush!!!

Skimming through the discussion here makes me think I might need hip-waders, or someone needs more fiber.

Thanks for your voice of reason and wisdom, lasereye

[Marysecretary]

His head already looks like it's exploding. He has gotten so fat and ugly. Alcohol will do that to a person, as I know only too well. If we're lucky, all the democrats will turn on each other. That will be quite a sight to see, won't it? Tee hee.

[Impy]

But it doesn't say "Owned". :)

[Mr. Silverback]

But it doesn't say "Owned". :)

Heh-heh! OK, I'll put it this way: You provided quality, I provided quantity!

[Texas Federalist]

Thanks, I'll actually use this as a base for my own reference. I agree with your lists, for the most part. I would not count #5 as a conservative accomplishment, but rather put it on the bottom list since the vouchers were the conservative cornerstone of that bill. The Dem Senate took it out and Bush didn't veto it. Also number 7 belongs on the bottom list because Bush rejected Ted Olsen's original amicus brief that called for the end of affirmative action in favor of Gonzales' proposal that advocated position that the Supreme Court took. I would also add the extention of the child tax credit to families that don't pay taxes. I also agree with your assessment of the steel tariff.

[lilylangtree]

After W's immigration proposal, he did something right this time.

[RayFrederick]

Judge Pickering will now sit on the 5th Circuit for life. Nothing in the Executive (Art. II) or the Legislative (Art. III) branches has the power to Limit the term of an Article III Judge. It is a loophole with three conflicting powers in the Constitution.

Art. III judges serve an uninterrupted term as long as they have "good behavior". The President has the power to make "recess appointments" which last until the end of the congressional session. The Senate has the power to "advise and consent" normal nominees.

However, since the appointment was made while Congress was in recess, and since an Article III judge serves for life, the appointment cannot be reduced and it is a lifetime appointment.

I believe that this is the first Test Case that President Bush will submit.

The precedent is a 1985 (9th Circuit case - yes that 9th circuit) which upheld the validity of such a judicial recess appointment.

[RayFrederick]

Judge Pickering will now sit on the 5th Circuit for life. Nothing in the Executive (Art. II) or the Legislative (Art. III) branches has the power to Limit the term of an Article III Judge. It is a loophole with three conflicting powers in the Constitution.

Art. III judges serve an uninterrupted term as long as they have "good behavior". The President has the power to make "recess appointments" which last until the end of the congressional session. The Senate has the power to "advise and consent" normal nominees.

However, since the appointment was made while Congress was in recess, and since an Article III judge serves for life, the appointment cannot be reduced and it is a lifetime appointment.

I believe that this is the first Test Case that President Bush will submit.

The precedent is a 1985 (9th Circuit case - yes that 9th circuit) which upheld the validity of such a judicial recess appointment.