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

Skip to comments.

Senate Panel Rejects Pickering
Yahoo/AP ^ | March.14,2002 | Jesse J.Holland

Posted on 03/14/2002 2:39:32 PM PST by Reagan Man

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Thursday to kill the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering to the appeals court, handing President Bush a stinging defeat in a racially-charged confirmation battle.

In a series of roll calls, the panel also snubbed Bush's request to allow a vote in the full Senate on Pickering, a 64-year-old Mississippian with more than a decade on the bench.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-243 next last
To: oldvike
I wonder myself about why he displays the reserved air that he appears to exhibit on issues that are important.

Of course, it would help if he had some party leaders that were worth a damn.

Trent LoTT must be about 3 foot 6 about now in Bush's eyes
21 posted on 03/14/2002 2:53:43 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
He was a scumbag before he was a turncoat.
22 posted on 03/14/2002 2:54:02 PM PST by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
At the risk of starting another argument on this board.... why in the hell did Bush wait until the day before this hearing to speak out in favor of Pickering? Why?!?!?!?!

I believe the timing, and the unusually high-profile choice of venue to make that announcement, were quite intentional on the White House's part. They don't even care about Pickering all that much; his nomination in the first place was just a sop to Trent Lott. But it does insure that a lot of voters are now aware of just how much partisan hate, and arrogance of power, exists amongst the Democrats in Congress. And if gives Bush the perfect excuse to play total hardball on truly important judicial nominations from here on out. Which he will do.

Once again, "stupid moron" George W. Bush is showing strategic brilliance.

23 posted on 03/14/2002 2:54:21 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Nay. Call it, good old fashioned "borking"!

It does have a nice ring to it, at that.

24 posted on 03/14/2002 2:54:52 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: double_down
"Now Bush should nominate some 40 year old, very conservative..."

Yes!! I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, Bush should nominate one a week with each one being more conservative than the last.

Come on, Mr. President...stay angry!

25 posted on 03/14/2002 2:55:32 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Speaking of taking back the Senate, Does the GOP have ANYBODY decent running against Cleland in GA, Laudreu in LA, Carnahan in MO? ANYBODY? Thune looks to be doing well in SD against that Kennedy boot licker, Johnson. Any news?
26 posted on 03/14/2002 2:57:09 PM PST by madison46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Yup, Strategerically, he is painting the taliDems in a corner from whence they will have a hard time explaining why they hate justice and that which is good for America.
27 posted on 03/14/2002 2:57:10 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Trent LoTT must be about 3 foot 6 about now in Bush's eyes

Lott makes me physically ill. To think, back in the early 90s the guy actually had a spine.

The only thing I can think of regarding Bush being somewhat reserved in his critisism of democrats is that he is reserving his "political capital" for the November elections in hopes of taking back the senate and strengthening the house. If that happens, maybe then he'll unleash hell on those son's of bitches giving marching orders to the congressional democrats.

28 posted on 03/14/2002 2:57:27 PM PST by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia
How about Bork himself? He's pretty conservative, no? Too old, perhaps?
29 posted on 03/14/2002 2:57:34 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Expect a number of recess appointments

I sure hope your right...

30 posted on 03/14/2002 2:57:46 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
What more will it take to persuade Zell Miller and John Breaux to switch? Jeffords set a precedent.
31 posted on 03/14/2002 2:57:47 PM PST by Choozer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Aren't the Democrats the ONLY ones to not let a nominee make it to the floor? Bork, Pickering..and someone else?
32 posted on 03/14/2002 2:59:14 PM PST by madison46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
At the risk of starting another argument on this board.... why in the hell did Bush wait until the day before this hearing to speak out in favor of Pickering? Why?!?!?!?!

What difference does it make, oldvike? These Democrats are nothing but a bunch of thugs. They've shown that they're going to do whatever the ____ they want.

The irony is that one of their complaints about Pickering was that he appears to have decided the outcome of a couple of cases in advance - which is exactly what these gangsters have done to him. They never had ANY intention of letting this go to a full Senate vote.

Those of you who are frustrated with Republicans and are vowing never to vote for them again, I hope you like this, because this is kindergarten recess compared to what you'll get if you stick to your guns.

33 posted on 03/14/2002 2:59:29 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
From Foxnews (the Senate would have confirmed Pickering and Daschle and Leahy knew this...thats why they refused the Senate vote, sound familiar?):

Bush had asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to bring the Pickering vote to the full Senate floor regardless of the committee's action, but he was summarily rejected.

If Pickering's nomination did get a floor vote, it would likely pass the 50-49-1 Senate, since three Democrats — Zell Miller of Georgia, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina, and John Breaux of Louisiana — have said they would vote with the 49 Republicans who support Pickering. The White House and Senate Republicans said that's the real reason Daschle won't budge.

"The Constitution says as we all know that nominations will be confirmed by the Senate, not by the judiciary committee," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. "The reason this committee apparently is going to turn down Judge Pickering on a party-line vote is because it is well known that if the nomination got to the floor that Judge Pickering would be confirmed."
Democrats Defeat Bush Nominee

34 posted on 03/14/2002 2:59:58 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Can we have a big amen here?

I know we're in a war right now. That is certainly a priority. But aside from that, the eyes/attention/minds/hearts/backbones of every conservative within the borders of the United States of America should be focused like a laser beam on holding the House and taking back the Senate in November. To say that is imperative is the greatest possible understatement.

35 posted on 03/14/2002 3:00:01 PM PST by GB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
I agree that the November elections will be one of the worse asswhupping a party has ever taken in this nation's history.

Bush may lose the skirmishes but he will win the war in November for this country's soul.
36 posted on 03/14/2002 3:00:08 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
They don't even care about Pickering all that much; his nomination in the first place was just a sop to Trent Lott. But it does insure that a lot of voters are now aware of just how much partisan hate, and arrogance of power, exists amongst the Democrats in Congress. And if gives Bush the perfect excuse to play total hardball on truly important judicial nominations from here on out. Which he will do.

Maybe you're right. I just truly hate seeing a good man like Pickering get crapped on for a month and not get defended until the last minute. It bothers me deeply.

37 posted on 03/14/2002 3:00:10 PM PST by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Choozer
I would love to see Zell Miller switch
38 posted on 03/14/2002 3:00:42 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I completely agree....they simply shot down a trial balloon...the next ones will be harder, and fought tooth-and-nail.

Let's just hope that the voters have memories.

39 posted on 03/14/2002 3:00:50 PM PST by NorCoGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: double_down
LOL! How true. Don't forget as a young Senator he had to resign from the Intelligence committee for giving classified material to a reporter. Add him next to the murderer, the plagerist, and the ambulance chaser.

And these people have the unmitigated gall to question Pickering's character. What a joke!

40 posted on 03/14/2002 3:01:14 PM PST by LaGrone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-243 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