Posted on 03/27/2002 7:06:54 PM PST by JohnHuang2
The editorials of the New York Times long ago gave up any pretense to persuasion, and now serve only to illumine the Left's latest version of history. This is useful to the general public in the way windsocks and lighthouses are useful. Judging from Monday's wonderful exercise in revisionism, "The Politics of Judgeships," the folks these writers represent are digging themselves a hole from which they will not easily emerge.
That hole is a series of lies and half-truths dressed up as sweeping generalizations that cannot be supported by specific facts. The issue of judicial nominations was focused sharply on the circuit courts of appeals by the Pickering fiasco, and that focus does not serve Democrats well.
The key fact is that of President Bush's 29 nominees to the circuit courts, only seven have been confirmed. Twenty nominees have not even had a hearing, including eight nominated in the first batch of nominees on May 11 of last year. All of the nominees have been reviewed and rated by the American Bar Association. And the vacancy crisis worsens each month.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, for example, is authorized to have 12 judges. It has only eight. Two nominees were sent up last May 11, Miguel Estrada and John Roberts. Both have been given the ABA's highest rating. The hard-left Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee have refused a hearing for either nominee. For Roberts this is familiar. He was first nominated by the first President Bush. The Dems ran the committee then and they ran out the clock then. It is hard to imagine they would stall for four years, but Patrick Leahy, the chair, has refused to answer questions on Roberts and Estrada.
Then there is the Sixth Circuit, where half of the Court's 16 positions are vacant. Again, nominees were sent up nearly a year ago, but still no hearings for them.
In the face of such stonewalling, the New York Times mixes lies with obfuscation – an admission that Leahy's obstructionism is on very weak ground, supported in fact only by the indifference to Democratic blockading by a sympathetic media.
First the Times argues that "the vacancies actually result from stalling by Republicans that prevented President Bill Clinton's choices for the Appellate Division from being approved."
That's an interesting charge, but no facts are produced to back it up. Which judges got the freeze from Republicans, and when were they nominated? Were they like John Roberts in 1992 – nominated in a presidential election year, where the odds of a hearing are predictably slim, or were they nominated in 1993 or 1997, the first year of a new presidential term? The lack of names and dates should tell you all you need to know. The facts aren't there to back up Leahy on any apples-to-apples comparison.
Then there is this line: "Dozens of Mr. Clinton's nominees were not even given the courtesy of a hearing or a vote, and delays on judges, especially at the appellate level, were much worse in that period than they are now."
Oh? Well then, lets have some numbers, some names, some dates of nomination and the facts on individual delays. Predictably the specifics are left out because they aren't there, especially when election year slow-downs – a tradition begun by Dems in 1988 – are factored out.
Yes, Jesse Helms played hardball on the Fourth Circuit nominees during Clinton's tenure. Rightly or wrongly, he administered payback for the 1988 freeze on one of his candidates for the bench. And there are a handful of other nominees that languished a long time in the twilight zone.
But as Sen. Hatch points out early and often, he ran a fair committee within the rules of the Senate that extend to Helms and every other senator unique powers to block some nominees. Thus did Barbara Boxer doom the Ninth Circuit candidacy of Congressman Chris Cox, and thus was very little protest heard.
These particular jousts do not explain the Pickering disgrace, however, or the Leahy led shut-down of the appellate nominees. The Times knows this and thus concludes that "many" of these nominees "remain troubling, and divisive, just as Judge Pickering was, from the standpoint of their records in protecting mainstream rights." So, we see it is not really about payback, but about ideology. And again note the lack of names and specifics. The former would embarrass the Times and the latter doesn't exist. So it is easier to double-down on the Pickering slander and spread it to all nominees currently in the Leahy black hole.
Any real journalist would insist that the Dems come up with some specifics and would hector Leahy on schedules and motives. Leahy gets a pass because the press is in bed with the Vermonter's inclination to wait out the process as much as is possible.
So it will be up to voters in South Dakota, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia and elsewhere to decide whether the Senate Judiciary Committee can sail off into uncharted waters of delay and defamation. Those are the contests to defeat Democratic incumbents in the Senate. If the actions of Leahy and the like and the words of the Times' editorialists and their guides at People for the American Way upset you, then visit the website of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and pony up. Reclaiming the Senate for moderation in the confirmation process will be an expensive process, but the alternative is an empty bench in a time of war.
For Sen. Leahy, his refusal to do his job in wartime obviously creates no conflict in his conscience, but it is a good bet that Americans generally view his personal power lust with a great deal of disgust.
BTW, are you up early or late?........;)) Thanks for all the pings John,I do check em all out.
How great IS it that we now have the internet plus Conservative talk show hosts so that we know immediately what the rascals are up to? This is a disgusting situation and "it's just typical politics" doesn't cut it any more.
I have a hunch the old-time pols like Leahy just don't get it yet that times have changed and shenanigans can't be easily swept under the rug.
Nothing new here. That's a fact of life.
Winning control of the Senate is essential....I've decided to make donations to these campaigns.....we must take back the Senate for the 'long term' victory!
EXACTLY ...
His show has a live internet stream from his anchor station, KRLA:
Also, there is a station listing at his homepage:
oki-
My first, cynical feeling was to say, "No, it won't change anything - - and they will continue to get away with anything."
But it is near Easter, so hope springs eternal. One thing I have learned is that cowards hate the light of day. This forum, talk radio, sites like "WorldNetDaily", et all---have made an incredible difference. Evidence?
The fact that:
TedKopplePeterJenningsDanRatherStonePhillipsSamDonaldsonKatieKouricBillPressp> are nervous.
Yep! (big grin) And ratings dropping like a rock.
I've been cynical for so long, I'd about given up hope. But I listen to the adults who are in charge now, and their reasoning, and watch the results of their actions, and - well, call me a cockeyed optimist.
In the face of such stonewalling, the New York Times mixes lies with obfuscation - an admission that Leahy's obstructionism is on very weak ground, supported in fact only by the indifference to Democratic blockading by a sympathetic media. The lack of names and dates should tell you all you need to know. The facts aren't there to back up Leahy on any apples-to-apples comparison.
Good article. Thanks John.
If I were in Bush's place, here's how I'd play hardball...
I'd have any judges whose nominations have been ignored by the Senate march into their respective courtrooms tomorrow and start working at the jobs to which they have been appointed.
Then when the Senate starts screeching, I'd pull out my copy of the Constitution, and say, "hmm, it says here that I have the power to appoint judges. I just did. It also says that I may do so with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate. And since you guys didn't register any objections in a reasonable amount of time, I can only conclude that you don't care to weigh in on these appointments with advice, and have no opposition to them. Silence implies consent."
Then let 'em scream. The resulting noise would finally get the public's attention as to who is playing games with what.
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.