Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gary Bauer Calls Senate Judicial Deal a 'Sell Out'
US Newswire ^ | 5/23/05 | Kristi Hamrick

Posted on 05/23/2005 8:19:01 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

Former Presidential Candidate Gary Bauer issued the following statement late Monday as news of the "travesty" to justice deal on stalled judicial nominees was released.

The President of American Values said: "This is a sad day for our nation. The desire of millions of Americans to restore balance to our federal courts has been thwarted behind closed doors by 14 senators. Only three of President Bush's appointees are guaranteed an up or down vote under this sell out.

"Under this agreement it is now more likely that radical social change will continue to be forced on the American people by liberal courts committed to same sex marriage, abortion on demand and hostility to religious expression. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all."


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; bauer; filibuster; nominees
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 next last
To: TeatimeTim
TeatimeTim

Teatime Tim?

You either British or gay as hell.

Do tell.

101 posted on 05/23/2005 9:18:11 PM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

it may not happen for a while, but the history of our country shows that the pendulum swings both ways. Frankly, you are right about one thing, the Republicans should take advantage of the situation while they can. I a democrat, and if the roles were reversed, that's what I would want.

As far a judicial activism, both sides use it, that is the name of the game.


102 posted on 05/23/2005 9:18:51 PM PDT by all_views
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

(Republicans got nothing from this deal that they couldn't have gotten by cutting off the filibuster. This was no horse trade -- it was a give away.)

If Frist was sure to win the vote, do you think this compromise would have happened? Basically the Dems were very nervous about losing the fight outright and the rules be changed. Since they were scared they gave up a few judges in the hopes that something changes electorally and they get some help. The Republicans get a bunch of judges and they still have the option to change the rules. Strategically though the Democrats are the ones who dictate when the fight happens as they can wait to filibuster someone they think they can paint as an extremist. The Republicans understand that and will be may be nervous about nominating a really strong conservative.


103 posted on 05/23/2005 9:19:56 PM PDT by winner3000 (part)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
Lindsey Graham: "Democrat by night"

Well, according to a former Daschle aide, Graham was quick to work with Daschle and the minority on a number of issues. After one such meeting, Graham emerged from Daschle's office, walked to the door, turned around, and proclaimed loudly for the Daschle's entire staff to hear:

 
                                                  Senator Lindsey Graham

104 posted on 05/23/2005 9:20:48 PM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Nite Hypocrites


105 posted on 05/23/2005 9:21:42 PM PDT by TeatimeTim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

I agree. This deal postpones the showdown, while immediately putting on the bench 3 judges who might be nominees for the Supreme Court one day. If the Dems continue to stonewall judges because they are women or because they are minorities, or just because they're too darn smart, the Republican Seven are free to declare the original commitment in breach, and vote for the nuclear option. Meanwhile, the Democrat Seven are bound by their word to try to be selective in filibustering judges. Maybe the smarter play would have been going for broke, but who knows how that scenario would have played out. The two parties pulled back from the precipice because they perceived risk in going forward with a confrontation. Now, maybe this group of 14 can try to address other contentious issues, like Social Security.


106 posted on 05/23/2005 9:24:19 PM PDT by maro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

I don't agree. I think when Rheinquist retires, Scalia becomes Chief Justice, and there is no way that they will put up a moderate. Why should they? Who has the majority anyway?


107 posted on 05/23/2005 9:24:40 PM PDT by all_views
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: onyx

The 50th senator is always in charge. After all, do you think that the farthest-right senator is going to actually threaten to vote AGAINST a republican nominee becuase he is too far to the left?

Remember that while some on the right actually want solid social religious conservative judges, the real goal is judges who don't write the law. You can find moderates and conservatives, and even the occasional liberal, who won't write law,and all of them should be acceptable.


108 posted on 05/23/2005 9:26:57 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (http://spaces.msn.com/members/criticallythinking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

The same document states that a simple majoroty will determine Presidential appointments.


109 posted on 05/23/2005 9:27:04 PM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: all_views
I think when Rheinquist retires, Scalia becomes Chief Justice, and there is no way that they will put up a moderate.

Perhaps. The political masterstroke, however, would take place in the Rose Garden of the White House with Dubya flanked by Justice Thomas and a hispanic nominee. In one fell swoop, Dubya would nominate the 1st black CJ and the 1st hispanic nominee. That would give the Dem 7 something to chew on.
110 posted on 05/23/2005 9:27:46 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TeatimeTim

We are giong backwards. Yesterday, it took 45 Senators to rule. Today, it is down to 14. The deal sucks.


111 posted on 05/23/2005 9:28:07 PM PDT by abenaki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
. . . the real goal is judges who don't write the law.

Precisely.

112 posted on 05/23/2005 9:30:31 PM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt

"More to the point regarding Frist, doesn't this show how totally ineffectual he is as a leader?"

Frist will never be a serious candidate for POTUS, much less get elected. He needs to see and orthopaedic surgeon about having a spine installed before he attempts any work that requires standing up.


113 posted on 05/23/2005 9:30:33 PM PDT by ArmedNReady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

Actually I am assuming the Dims elect a president some day in the future. In that case I think the seven have committed to supporting any filibuster a group of GOP Senators decide to mount.

I can imagine a senario with a Dim president, a radical judicial nominee, a majority of Dims/RINOs including some of the 7 willing to vote for the nominee. But by taking this deal, they are implicitly promising us not to vote for cloture on any GOP future judicial filibuster whether they agree with it or not.

You are right. The Dims are imploding. They may be years from another President which would let the 7 off the hook on that implied part of the deal. That may be why the made the deal. Certainly McCain is not long for the Senate one would think.


114 posted on 05/23/2005 9:31:52 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

I bet that doesn't happen, though it wouldn't be a bad move. they need to consolidate their power before 2006, and in my view they are following the NeoConservative agenda


115 posted on 05/23/2005 9:32:10 PM PDT by all_views
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I would say a state trending toward the GOP and a Dim trending toward Moveon.org is the combination most likely to lead to an incumbent being defeated in 2006. Wouldn't you agree?


116 posted on 05/23/2005 9:32:56 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: JLS

[quote]Also as part of the compromise, the Democrat moderates promise to prevent any future filibuster of Bush appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. While Democrats were able to have their "exceptional circumstances" clause inserted in the deal, no one anticipates that such a situation will arise, assuming Democrats keep their promise. And it appears, that a number of promises were being tossed around the negotiation room on Monday afternoon.

Several Republican senators involved in negotiations swore that not only will the six Bush nominees be given an up or down vote, but that Democrats in the room were aware that Republicans involved in the negotiations had agreed to vote cloture on Myers as well, and that Democratic negotiators had agreed that such a move could take place, thus also allowing Myers an up or down vote in the Senate. "Assuming that our guys hold themselves to that promise," says another Republican staffer working on the Judiciary committee, "then we're looking at a clean sweep for confirmations."

That said, Republican Judiciary Committee staffers said it would have been difficult to clear Saad for confirmation, regardless of the Democrats' unethical behavior in his case. Democratic Judiciary Committee staff and Senate Democratic leadership coordinated an attack against Saad by providing and then sending Sen. Harry Reid a memo detailing uncorroborated raw interview notes from Saad's confidential FBI background check.

"Saad has served on the bench in Michigan, he has been a public figure for years, he has had close associations with several Senate and House members from the state of Michigan," says a Washington lobbyist who has met with Saad on occasion. "This is an honorable man whose nomination was badly damaged by Democrats. Any future nominee should be aware of what the Democrats will do to destroy a good conservative."

If there are any potential losers in this deal, it is the moderate Republicans who have put their reputations on the line with not only their Republican colleagues, but also conservative voters. "If Myers doesn't get a vote, if a reasonable Supreme Court nominee does not receive a vote, or has his or her nomination blocked, then those moderate Republicans should be held accountable by not only the caucus but their constituents," said the Republican Judiciary staffer.


HOW TRUE TO THEIR word Democrats will be may become apparent in about a month, when Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is expected to announce his retirement. Already in Washington rumors are swirling that current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be under serious consideration for the empty slot left vacant after one of the sitting justices is elevated to fill Rehnquist's role.. "You look at what he hasn't done in his few months at Justice," says a former White House staffer, "and it makes you think he's really been looking ahead and trying to keep as clear from controversy as he can."

Gonzales has managed to sidestep taking a position on the Terri Schiavo legal battle, and beyond stating his basic support for the eight judicial nominees in limbo, he has avoided being embroiled in this current debate. As well, he has made very few public appearances where anything remotely controversial could have been uttered.

"Everything points to a Gonzales nomination," says a lobbyist aware of the White House thinking on prospective judicial nominees.[/quote]


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8209


117 posted on 05/23/2005 9:33:01 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
If Frist was sure to win the vote, do you think this compromise would have happened?

As far as I can see from the breaking news Frist wasn't even in the room. This whole thing was held in McCain's office. So, we don;t really know what the vote may have been.

Basically the Dems were very nervous about losing the fight outright and the rules be changed.

If they were so nervous about losing the fight why would the Republicans make a deal? You don't deal away something you may win.

Strategically though the Democrats are the ones who dictate when the fight happens

This is true. We've given the Democrats the ball and we're playing in their court now. One Democrat can say the magic words: "Extreme Circumstances", and we're back to square one.

The Republicans understand that and will be may be nervous about nominating a really strong conservative.

So, what you're saying is that the Dems win by default? Republicans are so afraid of a fight that they give the Dems the kind of activist judges they want? How long will Conservatives back a Party that does that?

118 posted on 05/23/2005 9:33:23 PM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The same document states that a simple majoroty will determine Presidential appointments.

Actually, it reads:

[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for

Article II, section 2, clause 2

The US Constitution doesn't explicitly state that a simple majority is required, but a simple majority is traditionally used by parliamentary procedure if a supermajority is not specifically required.
119 posted on 05/23/2005 9:33:25 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT


You've neglected to mention the litmus tests!

My definitions:


Extraordinary circumstances = pro life; pro gun ownership

extreme = a trail (however short) of conservative judicial opinions;

Acceptable attributes: pro abortion; gay rights and anti 2nd Amendment


120 posted on 05/23/2005 9:35:22 PM PDT by onyx (Pope John Paul II - May 18, 1920 - April 2, 2005 = SANTO SUBITO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson