Sen Tim Johnson on "Borking"

Ted Miller

[miller831]

All of you, and especially any of you from South Dakota, will love this. In response to a letter I sent Sen Johnson (Tom Daschle's silent sidekick from SD) about the "Borking" of Judge Pickering, the good Senator sent me a letter more full of spin and lies than the propaganda sheets I've received from Daschle himself ... and THAT's a lot of spin and lies!

Johnson started by citing the Constitutional charge for the Senate to provide advice and consent regarding Presidential nominees. The fallacy here, of course, is that the Constitution calls for the FULL Senate to advise and consent .... not Pat Leahy and his little band of partisans. Only the full Senate can confirm or reject a given judicial nominee.

Then Johnson claimed that Bush's nominees have received hearings far earlier "than for the years 1996 through 2000." He went on to claim that current processing of judicial nominees is "a significant improvement over the years the Senate was in Republican control where judicial nominees were routinely denied hearings and sometimes waited literally for years to have their nominations considered." For anyone who has followed the "Borking" issue, Sen Johnson's outright lies are readily apparent.

To ice the cake Johnson pledged to "continue to encourage [his] colleages to move as expeditiously and responsibly as possible on judicial nominations ..." ..... Is it just me, or does this guy have one impressive set of cojones? ..... He not only twisted a Constitutional mandate to legitimize Leahy's un-Constitutional efforts to obstruct Bush's nominees. He not only twisted his party's shameful record to appear more honorable than the GOP's. He not only suggested that the GOP, not the Dems, were the ones guilty of obstruction. He actually attempted to claim the moral high ground by announcing his encouragement for his colleagues to act fairly. .... ???

..... Johnson, like most Democrats, assumes that we Republicans are both ignorant of the Constitution and too stupid to know when we are hearing blatant, brazen lies. He erred seriously in making that assumption. I have forwarded his incredible message to dozens in South Dakota, dozens more South Dakotan and other media outlets, and to still dozens more e-mail contacts across the nation.

I urge you to do the same. In addition, if you share my incredulity and disgust with my South Dakota Senatorial delegation, I invite you to contact me. I am determined to spread the word of Johnson's (and Daschle's) lies and anti-American activities across South Dakota and the nation. Hopefully we'll be rid of at least one of them after this fall's elections.

(miller8310 ["at" sign] msn.com)

Ted Miller Colorado Springs, CO

[ken5050]

Two points re your fascinating post:

It's almost unhgeard of for pols to reply to letters from out of state residents......his staff must be imploding....

Check out today's NY TImes...there's a fascinating article about the Senate race in SD.....you'll enjoy it

[Russ]

Johnson is assuming(and rightly so) that the average South Dakota voter, not Republicans, is both ignorant of the Constitution and too stupid to know when we're hearing blatant, brazen lies. He depends on those assumptions to get reelected. It will probably succeed again, too.

[Rodney King]

..... Johnson, like most Democrats, assumes that we Republicans are both ignorant of the Constitution and too stupid to know when we are hearing blatant, brazen lies.

No. He assumes that all non-republicans are both ignorant of the Constitution and too stupid to when they are hearing blatant, brazen lies. As long as he has all of them, it does not much matter what the Republicans think.

[mlo]

the Constitution calls for the FULL Senate to advise and consent...

Actually, not true. The Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. It also gives the Senate authority to make its own rules. If the Senate wants to make a rule that allows a subcommittee to block its consent then it can do that.

[DLfromthedesert]

I would not expect any kind of honor from this guy. He defended Clinton while his son was serving in Bosnia, even though Clinton was discussing Bosnian policy while he was being serviced by Lewinsky.

A man who has no respect for his own son who was risking his life in Bosnia cannot be expected to have respect for his constituents, the Constitution, or the rule of law. He is beneath contempt.

[EternalVigilance]

Interesting, very interesting.

Thanks.

EV

[KC Burke]

I guess it needs to be said that the Senate can make its own roles as to how to consider matters...hence the Judicary Committee holding hearings on Judicial Appointments.

Article I states: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." and the Judiciary Committee was one of the original standing committees dealing with these appointments throughout its history from 1816 at its formation.

Later the Constitution says, in Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The case could easily be made that the full Senate has to deal with a supreme court appointment but it seems that some discretion by the Senate was contemplated by the portion I have emphasized.

When a matter is long settled and become a matter of settled traditon and convention, the move to change it, even for supposed misdirection in the past, must be made vary carefully. I have not yet seen the historical detail of full Senate action on ALL appointments argued out with the supporting documantation and reference to US Code and similar applicable standards.

[nutmeg]

BUMP for later reading

[Cboldt]

. . . but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments

You are right that the Constitutionally-provided Presidential power to appoint judges extends only to the judges of the Supreme Court (U.S. Const. art II, Sec. 2). The snippet above shows that Congress has the power to prescribe laws relating to the appointment of lesser federal officers.

The relevant cites are 28 U.S.C 44 for circuit judges, and 28 U.S.C. 133 for district judges. The statute relating to circuit judges has its roots in the first Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789.

An interesting subject. It appears that Congress has no direct Constitutional obligation to act on a Presidential appointment. However, both of the above-referenced statutes recite the following,

"The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, circuit [district] judges for the several circuits [judicial districts] as follows:"

the following text in each statute names the circuit or district, and number of judges in each.

[ken5050]

Here's the link to the thread on the NY Times article on the SD race today:

South Dakota Senate Campaign: Bush Versus Daschle ( by Proxy)