Bush Accused of Playing 'Chicken' Over Judge Picks

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20050301/pl_nm/congress_judges_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s bid to resurrect failed judicial nominations got off to a rocky start at a Senate hearing on Tuesday where a Democrat accused him of playing a high-stakes game of "chicken."


Afterward, Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Arlen Specter conceded he may be unable to avoid a crippling battle on the nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) that could turn the Senate into knots.


"I'm searching for a way to get the nomination through the Senate with everybody saving face," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. "I have some ideas, but I'm not sure it can be done."


Sixty votes would be needed in the 100-member Senate to clear a threatened Democratic procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against Myers. He is one of 10 circuit-court nominees blocked during Bush's first term by Democrats who cast them as "right-wing extremists."

[ohtransplant]

1. Where does Rueters come up with this sentence?

"He is one of 10 circuit-court nominees blocked during Bush's first term by Democrats who cast them as 'right-wing extremists'"

Of course theses nominees cast themselves as right wing extremeists.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I'm not terribly sure of the grammar here, but

I think what the sentence is trying to say is that the nominees were cast as right wing extremists by the Democrats. Or were you being sarcastic?

[gumby]

4. My Translation:

The Democrats are a bunch of wacky name-callers. There's nothing wrong with these nominees other than being the target of silly Democratic name-calling.

[NightOwwl]

7. I like seeing Dems playing the name game.

Repugs label Dems every name in the book, from loonie lefties to liberal nutcases. This guy is a right-wing extremist, and it's a refreshing change to see Dems come right out and say it.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Did you catch this?

"Sixty votes would be needed in the 100-member Senate to clear a threatened Democratic procedural hurdle known as a filibuster..."

Do you suppose it was really an accident that filibusters are here called 'Democratic' rather than 'democratic'?

[hatrack]

16. "Filibuster"? What is this thing you call "filibuster"?

Oh, that's right, it's a tactic of the evil Democrats, that's it! :eyes:

[Az_lefty]

19. Use to be a tactic of evil Repugs during Clintons term.

I guess the MSM has forgotten this.

[ohtransplant]

12. It just strikes me as an editorial comment

masquerading as news.

[stevedeshazer]

13. No kiddin'

How about this beauty...

"...a threatened Democratic procedural hurdle known as a filibuster..."

[ohtransplant]

14. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if this came from Faux News.

But Reuters...What's their political beef?

[Supersedeas]

18. planting the seed of irrational obstruction--but do they dare to take a

look at the nominee's actual judicial record.

Way to much homework for Ken and Barbie 'journalist' to do.

[98geoduck]

3. If Democrat's are calling them "right wing extremists" look out!

[snippy]

5. Has any republican ever explained why Bush should be entitled to be

the only US president in modern history to have all of his judicial nominations confirmed? Bush already has had a near record percentage of his nominees confirmed and the vacancy rate on the federal bench is near an all time low.

[Obviousman]

8. Because he's the president

We need to support our president. You're with us or against us

[gumby]

6. Why?

Why is Bush renominating these people other than as an in-your-face power play?

This shows that Bush has NO respect for the Democrats and is rubbing thier face in his power. He is demonstrating the Bush Policy of "Whatever I say goes, whenever I say it, and if you disagree at any time you are a target."

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneold1-4u]

10. We'll just change any 'ole rule if you don't let us win!

It takes less votes to change senate rules! So far they have changed just about anything they wanted, so their threats are pre-substantiated. Their only worry is that one day down the line when the Dems. might hold a majority, they would get even!
I do hope so!!!
Are there any up coming senate seats open for vote in 06? It would sure help the world situation if there were about 5 new Dems. seated.
That could help overcome some of those (Dems) who don't seem to know how the game is supposed to be played!

[ConstitutionGuy]

23. Rule XXII

Rule XXII (http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm) of the U.S. Senate rules requires a three-fifths majority, or 60, to close off debate (i.e. end a filibuster) but requires a two-thirds majority, or 67, to amend the rules.

This is where the so-called "nuclear option" comes in. A member offers a motion to declare that a filibuster against a judicial appointment is unconstitutional, the chair (in this case Cheney) rules in favor of the motion. An opposing member objects, which then puts the question on the motion to a vote. According to the Senate rules, a vote on a ruling from the chair needs only a simple majority, or 51, to pass. So the members vote and in one fell swoop, the use of the filibuster on the question of a judicial nomination is prohibited.

While the practical effect is to nullify the filibuster with a parliamentary end-run, technically the filibuster as a device is still intact - there's just been a ruling that it can't be used to block a judicial nominee.

Such an argument actually isn't that far out. Passing ordinary legislation is within the sole powers of Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to take up and consider any particular piece of legislation. Some Senator might think it would be a good idea to designate pig latin as the official language of the United States, but the Senate has no obligation under the Constitution to take up such a measure.

On the other hand, advice and consent on presidential appointees (and approval of treaties for that matter) is an explicit duty of the Senate and the use of a parliamentary tactic to indefinitely delay or otherwise block the Senate's ability to carry out that duty could be interpretated as unconsitutional abbrogation of the Senate's responsibilities under the Constitution. The use of the filibuster in such a case gives one Senator the power to block the Senate from carrying out an action that it is explicity required to perform under the Constitution.

[w4rma]

25. You need to read up on the history of our nation, 'Constitution'Guy.

…
Unfettered debate, the right to be heard at length, is the means by which we perpetuate the equality of the States. In fact, it was 1917, before any curtailing of debate was attempted, which means that from 1789 to 1917, there were 129 years; in other words, it means also that from 1806 to 1917, some 111 years, the Senate rejected any limits to debate. Democracy flourished along with the filibuster. The first actual cloture rule in 1917 was enacted in response to a filibuster by those people who opposed the arming of merchant ships. Some might say they opposed U.S. intervention in World War I, but to narrow it down, they opposed the arming of merchant ships.

But even after its enactment, the Senate was slow to embrace cloture, understanding the pitfalls of muzzling debate. In 1949, the 1917 cloture rule was modified to make cloture more difficult to invoke, not less, mandating that the number needed to stop debate would be not two-thirds of those present and voting but two-thirds of all Senators elected and sworn. Indeed, from 1919 to 1962, the Senate voted on cloture petitions only 27 times and invoked cloture just 4 times over those 43 years.
…
http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=1237
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1277896

[Catherine Vincent]

11. They don't call him "Chicken George" for nothing!

[bizkit]

15. On a "reality" based soapbox...

Americans have a variety of political and social values, and are looking for judges that represent the majority of these views. These nominees have been blocked because the politicians representing a vast group of Americans find their views partisan and extremist. It is time to unite this country again with leaders acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum, or we weaken the very backbone of diversity that gives all Americans, even those with minority opinions, faith that their views are represented in our government.

[Tyler Durden]

17. Two words:

Get Stuffed.

The Judiciary is the watchdog over the Executive and Legislative branches of government by being the abiter of what fits the constitution. Diversity of opinion HAS NO PLACE in the appellate judiciary, where IMPARTIALITY, not JEHOVAH must always and forever be GOD ALMIGHTY.

I take it you haven't seen the statue of Justice...holding a BALANCED SCALE and BLINDFOLDED? They have one at almost every courthouse because that is the ideal of how it is supposed to work: not LEFT or RIGHT but FAIR AND IMPARTIAL; that's what EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW means, I think.

[bizkit]

20. Impartiality yes, but

The diversity I refer to is in the interpretation. For example, some seem to think "rendition" to other countries for torture is acceptable, to overlook "quaint" legal restrictions regarding torture, indefinite detainment without charge is justified, civil rights erosions are a necessary evil. I would look in the judiciary for a majority who found these practices unacceptable and unlawful. If all "impartial" opinions found these practices justified, then they become legal but still immoral and repugnant to those people whose opinions are not represented.

[colexmas]

21. Judicial selection

For decades the ratio of senators required for a senate judicial conformation was 50%-50%. When the Democratic party was in the majority, and a Democratic president presented a nominee, there was little debate, as the Republicans believed that a president had the right to his choices. SP Justice Ginsberg a card carrying ACLU member and radical left leaning Judge, was confirmed because it was the right thing to do. When a Republican was elected president, the Democratic senate changed the rules to require a 60%-40% confirmation vote. The Democratic move was a senate rules change,to overturn a practice that had been in effect for decades, and done for political advantage, and not for the benefit of the process. Both parties need to have a fair and balanced hearing on its nominees, but the hatched jobs going on now, have no business in senate hearings. If this continues, both parties will regret this action, because who in there right mind would subject themselves to this horrible Inquisition, and the public will suffer because of this childish behavior.

[bagnana]

22. please

Bush and the Republicans have exacerbated the problem by Bush's attempts to nominate idealogues instead of impartial judges. The Republicans allowed far fewer judges to be nominated during the Clinton administration.

[Art_from_Ark]

26. Ever hear of Abe Fortas?

He was Lyndon Johnson's nominee to be Chief Justice in 1968, but a filibuster blocked his nomination and Johnson was forced to throw in the towel.

Senate confirmation should not be a rubber stamp process, especially when considering people who are nominated today by a half-witted ideologue whose legitimacy is questioned by a huge segment of the population.