Posted on 01/09/2003 1:29:17 PM PST by Dog Gone
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Key Senate Democrats, eager for a high-profile debate on civil rights, said on Thursday they believe they will have the votes needed to block the appointment of Charles Pickering, who was renominated this week by President Bush as a federal appeals court judge.
Republicans control the Senate, 51 to 48 with one independent but under Senate rules, Democrats would need just 41 votes to prevent confirmation of Pickering, whose appointment is strongly opposed by civil rights activists.
"I haven't done a count but my sense is that we will have 41 votes," said Senate Democratic Whip Harry Reid of Nevada.
The battle promises to be reminiscent of the racially charged furor that last month brought down Pickering's friend and fellow Mississippian, Trent Lott, as Senate Republican leader. Lott bowed to public pressure and stepped aside as leader after making remarks seen as supporting segregation.
Democrats are calculating that a Senate debate on Pickering could enhance their credentials as allies of minorities and undermine Republican efforts to reach out to them.
Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York agreed with Reid's assessment there would be the votes to block Pickering.
Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat helping lead the charge, said: "I'm hopeful, very hopeful. We are working on it hard. We are getting a very good response."
Republicans and Democrats traditionally permit up-or-down confirmation votes on the Senate floor on judicial nominees, and Republicans warned it would be a mistake for Democrats to stage a vote-blocking filibuster.
"If they hope to ever regain the Senate, they might want to think twice about this," Sen. Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Thursday. "Two can play this game."
Nickles said he was uncertain if Democrats could defeat Pickering with a filibuster, but he does not expect Bush to withdraw the nomination.
NOMINATION CARRIES A MESSAGE
"The president sent a message with the nomination that Pickering wasn't treated fairly by the last Senate and deserves to be voted on by the full Senate this time," said Nickles.
Last March, the Judiciary Committee, then led by Democrats, in a party-line vote rejected Bush's bid to elevate Pickering from a federal district judgeship in Mississippi to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The panel did so largely because of criticism of his civil rights record, which included his efforts as a judge to reduce the sentence of a man convicted in a 1994 cross-burning case.
Pickering was opposed by a number of groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Yet he was backed by some key community leaders in his home state, including Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers. They noted the former state senator had the courage to oppose the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s.
Bush marked the opening of the new Republican-led Senate on Tuesday by renominating Pickering and 30 other judicial nominees who failed to get confirmation in the previous Democratic-led chamber.
The Congressional Black Caucus, which helped topple Lott, on Thursday took aim at Pickering as well as many of these other conservative nominees.
"Confirming many of these nominees ... could completely overturn the progress toward national reconciliation that our nation has made during the last 50 years," said Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the group's chairman. The caucus is composed of 39 members of the House of Representatives.
Just so these so-called civil rights activists know...Pickering once testified AGAINST THE KKK at great peril to himself,and his family. They endured death threats & the like.SO, now EXPLAIN to me how he can be racist??? Because YOU want him to be. Because it's the EASIEST way to cry foul?
Why not let our elected officals DO THEIR JOBS?
Exactly correct. Their box that Bush is putting them in is getting smaller.
Wow! Did you know that, Kevin? Apparently ALL "civil rights activists" oppose this guy — every last mother's son of them! ALL of them!
...and if not, the opposition had better start grabbing cameras and microphones, and making itself heard. Doncha think?
Dan
Too often, the GOP just wimps out, withdraws the nominee and says, "There's nothing we could do! They had enough votes for a filibuster."
Wow! Did you know that, Kevin? Apparently ALL "civil rights activists" oppose this guy — every last mother's son of them! ALL of them!
...and if not, the opposition had better start grabbing cameras and microphones, and making itself heard. Doncha think?
Dan
(#9 was supposed to be to you! Sorry!)
Amen...the best counter to Clinton's most lasting legacy(the Federal bench) is a two term W getting some real jurists seated.
It would have been very easy not to nominate him again. And they knew it would be a battle.
I have to assume that they intend to wage that battle.
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.