Posted on 05/03/2002 9:28:39 AM PDT by SunStar
Bush Declares Judiciary 'Crisis'
The Associated Press
Friday, May 3, 2002; 11:56 AM
WASHINGTON President Bush accused Senate Democrats on Friday of "endangering the administration of justice in America" by balking at many of his judicial nominees.
Declaring a vacancy crisis on the federal bench, Bush said, "Justice is at risk in America and the Senate must act for the good of the country."
The sharp challenge to the Democratic-controlled Senate reflected a mounting fight between the White House and Democrats over the shape of the federal judiciary. Democrats have objected to the nominees on many grounds, including their contention that Bush's candidates tend to be conservative.
The standoff is a warm-up for what both sides predict will be an enormous fight if Bush gets a chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
Bush said he has nominated 100 candidates to the federal bench and the Senate has confirmed half. Only nine of his 30 nominees to federal appeals courts have been confirmed, Bush said. Of his first 11 nominees, announced a year ago, only three have been confirmed.
Bush said his nominees "are in the solid mainstream of American legal opinion."
He said more than 10 percent of federal judgeships are vacant. He did not mention that the shortage is partially due to Republican senators who derailed many nominees of former Democratic President Clinton.
"By its inaction, the Senate is endangering the administration of justice in America," Bush said.
"I want you all to spread the word about how serious this vacancy crisis is," Bush told lawyers and law professors at the White House.
Also, I wonder how many additional vacancies are those of justices who did not want to retire and leave their seat up for grabs while Clinton was in office. I imagine that it would be difficult to find out the numbers (of newly vacated seats that now need to be filled), but I suspect that while there may have been a log-jam of rushed-in Clinton appointees at the end of Clinton's term, there may also have been a bulge of newly vacated positions at the beginning of the Bush term.
In any case, I'm glad Bush is challenging this, because the Dems are really going out of their way to kill his nominees. I think they're still high on their Bork victory, lo these many years later.
as if the AP will ever be "fair and balanced!"
Belated agreement.
This entire game must be brought to the light of day and argued vigorously.
Judicial appointments are the Holy Grail for the dim ones. They will fight to the death over them. Pubs better get in shape for the fight of the century. The "grapple" at the "capital". It WILL be a blood feud.
Democrats = Obstructionists
Therefore, one can conclude that Democrats = crisis.
Ipso Facto.
A Yes! vote, from the "Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia"!
Not much hope here in CA. But I contribute to other races where it may help.
It would have been ugly.
OH NO!! not conservatives, and on the federal bench? Well we can't have anything like that.
< /sarcasm>
"The President's nominees have been right-wing extremists who tend to support the Constitution, and stuff like that. Totally unacceptable." said Tom "Puff" Daschole, Senate majority leader.
And the author of this piece did not mention that it was the Scumocrats who started this whole problem when they invented "Borking".
I hear Ya. And I hope this comes to pass. My concern is that an impression in the voters' minds must be made early and reinforced regularly. It is true that the democrats in the Senate are blocking not only judicial appoitnts but ALL legislative efforts of the Pubs to move their agenda, but it is also true that the Pubs are not making this fact widely known at this time. They should be beating the dims with this like a drum, in the contested areas.
Defeating a regional candidate takes a regional focus. The national discussion really doesn't matter much. From what I have read, Senators are often vulnerable because they spend so little time "back home", and only return every six years for a brief campaign stint. Have heard that Daschole is very weak at home. Maybe this IS happening and I am not aware -- I live in "The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia", where the Republican Party has been on life support for over two years. I do what I can to help them, but the situation is pretty depressing. Gray-out Davis is ruining this State.
And now, thanks to daschle&co, "early administration appointess rarely get confirmed..."
I have to research this issue, but it is my understanding that the Constitutionally named President of the Senate is the Vice President, NOT the Majority Leader. Apparently, the current protocol, where the ML leads the Senate, has arisen from some time in the past. Nonetheless, it seems to me that if the ML refuses to allow judicial appiontments and legislation to be sent to the floor for a vote, the VP should be able to step in and take charge. I believe this is permissable under the "original" Constitution.
The country is being harmed by this obstructionism, at a time when we are at war. The House enacts popular legislation that the President and a majority of the Senate would sign (example drilling in ANWR) and the vote is blocked by a handfull of radical senators. And instead we get CFR. It's simply outrageous.
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.