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

Skip to comments.

Bush Disappointed with Alito Hearing Date
FOX NEWS ^ | November 4th 2005 | AP

Posted on 11/04/2005 11:40:32 AM PST by CarlEOlsoniii

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) said Friday that he is disappointed he won't get a new Supreme Court justice by Christmas as he wanted.

Senate confirmation hearings for Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito (search), are set to begin Jan. 9, with the intention of a final confirmation vote on Jan. 20. The president had called for a pre-Christmas confirmation for the conservative judge.

"I'm disappointed in the date but happy they do have a firm date for his confirmation hearing," Bush said while in Mar del Plata, Argentina, for the 34-nation Summit of the Americas.

The president plugged his nominee, whom he announced Monday as his pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), a swing vote on contentious issues such as abortion and affirmative action. Alito is Bush's second nomine for the job; White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination last week after withering criticism from conservatives.

"Sam Alito Jr. is an incredibly intelligent, well-qualified person who should be on the court," Bush said.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: half-cajun
Can't Arlen EVER be a true republican. Just once. It's also worrisome because methinks that they're delaying it strategically to keep O'Connor on the bench to hear particular cases.

That may well be the deal they struck to get Alito through without filibuster...that O'Connor stays for these few last cases.

41 posted on 11/04/2005 12:59:00 PM PST by ez (If you're the party of tolerance, then tolerate my intolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Yeah, Arlen and Patrick were quite the duo yesterday explaining the 3 branches of government and how they are representing 100 votes and the President just 1.

Morons. They represent 2/100ths of one bramch while the President represents 100/100ths of a branch.

42 posted on 11/04/2005 1:01:20 PM PST by ez (If you're the party of tolerance, then tolerate my intolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tucker_is_in_texas
From National Review...

Presidential Pryorities

Here is a snip...

Presidents have recess-appointed more than 300 federal judges, including 15 Supreme Court justices. The practice is as venerable as George Washington, who named John Rutledge chief justice in this way.

43 posted on 11/04/2005 1:01:26 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CarlEOlsoniii
I am so tired of these dolts in Congress getting nothing done on both sides of the Ilse.

Rice's nomination and Gonzale's nominations were stonewalled by the likes of Levin and now our Geldings on the GOP side can't get the job done before Christmas.

UN-%*(&(%*%% believable I am so tired of Frist and Specter we need 60 Coburns, I am so tired of comity and process.

Will someone with a pair please stand up, Hillary not you...

44 posted on 11/04/2005 1:12:13 PM PST by taildragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tucker_is_in_texas

Once again everyone, recess appointments are only for Executive Branch positions that require approval from the Senate. There are NO - Nada "recess appointments" in regards to the Judicial Branch, sorry everyone - that is what the Constitution requires.



Google would be your friend in examining your false assertion above.


45 posted on 11/04/2005 1:41:30 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tucker_is_in_texas

Where'd ya go?


46 posted on 11/04/2005 1:41:37 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Christian4Bush
This problem has arisen before. If a Justice leaves the Court between the argument on a case and its final decision, usually about three months later, and the vote of that Justice would be dispositive, here is the solution: The pending decision is discarded, the new Justice is seated, and the case is reargued.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Democrat Official Outed as 'Sleaze' Source on Mayor O'Malley; Washington Post Ignored Story it Had (Updated)"

47 posted on 11/04/2005 2:38:23 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Do you think Fitzpatrick resembled Captain Queeg, coming apart on the witness stand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Sorry, I am correct. President Bush recess appionted Judge Charles Pickering. William Pryor as well. Also, a little digging found that 2 chief justices of the supreme court and 6 assoc. justices were recess appointed. But then I also found something saying 16 judges have been recess appointed to the supreme court, but it didn't provide any names. So, in conclusion, judges can be recess appointed. Even to the Supreme Court.

I'm doing a little research...the source document is called "Judicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments" from the Federalist Society. The website is http://www.fairjudiciary.com

I'll come back with specific names.

48 posted on 11/04/2005 3:03:31 PM PST by Christian4Bush ("A gov't big enough to give you all you want is a gov't big enough to take all you have." G.Ford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord; Congressman Billybob; All

I found the information to which I earlier referred. Again, this is from the document "Judicial Recess Appointments: A Survey of the Arguments", from the Federalist Society.

A few stats, and then the names:

Fifteen (15) Supreme Court justices--including two Chief Justices--were appointed by recess. Of those fifteen, only one--John Rutledge--was not subsequently confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime position (though not due to objection by the Senate to the recess appointment...dude had character issues).

Here is the list of Presidents, the judges, their recess appointment date, and the date of their permanent confirmation (except for Rutledge). This is for SCOTUS only.

By DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER:

--Potter Stewart
Rec. Appt: 10/14/1958. Perm Confirm: 5/5/1959
--William J. Brennan
Rec Appt: 10/15/1956. Perm Confirm: 3/19/1957
--Earl Warren (Chief Justice)
Rec. Appt: 10/2/1953. Perm Confirm: 3/1/1954

By THEODORE ROOSEVELT:

--Oliver Wendell Holmes
Rec. Appt: 8/11/1902 Perm Confirm: 12/4/1902

By RUTHERFORD B. HAYES:

--John M. Harlan
Rec. Appt: 3/29/1877. Perm Confirm: 11/29/1877

By ABRAHAM LINCOLN:

--David Davis
Rec. Appt: 10/17/1862. Perm Confirm: 12/8/1862

By MILLARD FILMORE:

--Benjamin R. Curtis
Rec. Appt: 9/22/1851 Perm Confirm: 12/20/1851

By JAMES POLK:

--Levi Woodbury
Rec. Appt: 9/20/1845 Perm Confirm: 1/3/1846

By MARTIN VAN BUREN:

--John McKinley
Rec. Appt: 4/22/1837 Perm. Confirm: 9/25/1837

By JAMES MONROE:

--Smith Thompson
Rec. Appt: 9/1/1823 Perm Confirm: 12/19/1823

By THOMAS JEFFERSON:

--Henry B. Livingston
Rec. Appt: 11/10/1806 Perm Confirm: 12/17/1806

By JOHN ADAMS:

--Alfred Moore
Rec. Appt: 10/20/1799 Perm Confirm: 12/10/1799
--Buhrod Washington
Rec. Appt: 9/29/1798 Perm Confirm: 12/20/1798

By GEORGE WASHINGTON:

--John Rutledge (Chief Justice)
Rec. Appt: 7/1/1795 NO PERM CONFIRMATION (character issues)
--Thomas Johnson
Rec. Appt: 8/5/1791 Perm Confirm: 11/7/1791


So there is precedent, but not in the MoveOn.org era.


49 posted on 11/04/2005 3:30:45 PM PST by Christian4Bush ("A gov't big enough to give you all you want is a gov't big enough to take all you have." G.Ford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: deport

You are correct, deport...ping to #49. And there are more...I only listed SCOTUS judges, for purposes of brevity.


50 posted on 11/04/2005 4:03:43 PM PST by Christian4Bush ("A gov't big enough to give you all you want is a gov't big enough to take all you have." G.Ford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 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