Senate Panel Rejects Pickering

Yahoo/AP ^ | March.14,2002 | Jesse J.Holland

[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.

[skeeter]

Time for an interim appointment in-your-face.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for the post! Now we know what to expect with Supreme Court nominees -- time to get everyone on board to TAKE BACK THE SENATE! There will be very few judicial nominees out of this committee IMHO until we TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

[antaresequity]

Jeffords is a scumbag for what he has done.

[womanvet]

Resubmit his name for as long as it takes.

Time for Bush to use those high approval ratings and stand up for the beliefs of the people who elected him. Veto CFR, and nominate more conservative jurists.

[Reagan Man]

-- time to get everyone on board to TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

Ditto!

[shiva]

I hope Bush always remembers this slap in the face!

[deadhead]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

I agree PhiKapMom!

[Howie66]

Looks like little Tommy DascHOLE and his can of worms (aka fellow democRATS) are tossing down the gauntlet.

Okay, President Bush....time to take off the gloves!

LET'S ROLL!!!!!!!

[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?!?!?!?!

[Ben Hecks]

Without doubt, there is a special little corner in Hell reserved for Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein and Daschle.

[LaGrone]

These sorry liberals do nothing but pit one group against another; Black vs. white, rich vs. poor, etc. It promotes hatred and it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I would send conservative after conservative for them to deny. I also like the previous post advocating recess appointments. Fight back, it's the only way.

[Reagan Man]

Time for Bush to use those high approval ratings and stand up for the beliefs of the people who elected him. Veto CFR, and nominate more conservative jurists.

Taking back the Senate should be the #1 priority for all republicans and conservatives this November. Without Republican control of the Senate, Bush has little, if no chance of getting conservatives on the federal judiciary. That includes the USSC too!

[NormsRevenge]

Bush was pre-occupied with the WaR on Terrorism? Maybe?

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

So are we going to refer to this kind of thing as 'Jeffordsing' or 'Pickering(ing)' like is done with Robert Bork?

[Timesink]

Mark my words: The Democrats are going to rue this day. They launched an all-out Borking of a comparative gnat in the grand scheme of things. This guarantees that they'll look like partisan jerks in the eyes of the voting public (especially after Bush's impassioned statements on the matter at the beginning of his press conference yesterday), and guarantees that all potential goodwill at the White House has already been exhausted. That they did this over such a minor nominee ensures that there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy on Bush's part. It will be all-out war. Expect a number of recess appointments, and a lot of intentional snubbing of the Senate Democrats on a whole host of issues. (If they think they're not getting enough information about the war now, just they wait!)

In addition, this will ensure that the GOP will be far more partisan and intentionally obstructionist towards anything the Senate RATS want once the RATS become the minority party in that chamber come January.

The Democrats have dug themselves one hell of a grave on this one. I fully believe that historians will look back on this moment as one of the biggest blunders the Democratic Party made in the first decade of the 21st century.

[double_down]

Now Bush should nominate some 40 year old, very conservative, less visible man or woman without an extensive paper trail. Someone the dem's can't knock down on some trumped up charges of racism, ethics, etc. This judge will sit on the court of appeals for 30+ years. By the way, how disgusting was it to watch Leahy talk about voting against Pickering based on ethics. He is sitting next to a murderer, someone who plajarizes other's works, and a shyster plaintiff's attorney. Leahy must have polished off a bottle of gin at lunch to say that with a straight face.

[oldvike]

Uhhhm, okay. That answer will wear thin on people real fast.

[Bogie]

Thoughts should now turn to the November elections.

[Reagan Man]

So are we going to refer to this kind of thing as 'Jeffordsing' or 'Pickering(ing)' like is done with Robert Bork?

Nay. Call it, good old fashioned "borking"!