Courtesy of Josh Marshall's
TPM.
:eyes: :nuke:
Information provided by Senate Republican Conference
GIVING QUALIFIED JUDGES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE
Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is expected to bring up Justice Priscilla Owen (TX) and Justice Janice Rogers Brown (CA) for Senate confirmation. To help put a face on the debate, Members could highlight the qualifications of these very qualified nominations:
• Both Justices Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown have bipartisan, majority support and are well qualified to serve on the bench.
• Both will make good judges who will strictly interpret the law, not make the law.
Top Five Message Points
1. Do not refer to the “nuclear option” – it should be called the constitutional option.
2. The Senate will not be changing the rules – if we use constitutional option, it is restoring precedent and 200 years of tradition.
3. Repeat, repeat, repeat these statements – “The Democrats’ judicial obstruction is unprecedented,” and “All judicial nominees deserve a fair, up or down vote on the Senate floor.”
4. No one is trying to remove the legislative filibuster – if the Senate acts, it’s only to end the unprecedented judicial filibusters of majority-supported nominees that started in 2003.
5. Democrats used filibuster to block votes – other cloture votes in past were to work out differences to bring nominees to a vote – that’s the difference – all 10 filibustered nominees (seven re-nominated) have bipartisan, majority support and would be serving on the bench now if it weren’t for the Democrats playing politics.
Democrats’ partisan obstruction of President Bush’s judicial nominees is unprecedented.
• Never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
• In 2003, the Democratic minority unilaterally changed the rules to require a new confirmation standard of 60 votes, instead of 51, for certain judicial nominees.
• A minority of Democrats used partisan filibusters to permanently block votes for 10 qualified, majority supported appeals court nominees, and threatened 6 others.
• Now with seven of the 10 re-nominated, the minority is making irresponsible threats to shut down the Senate if they don’t get their way.
Republicans’ Exhaustion of Debate and Deliberation
• Republicans have sought only one thing in the standoff – a fair, up-or-down vote – but Democrats refuse to compromise.
• Democrats can’t blame their partisan obstruction on a lack of deliberation. The Senate devoted far more time to debate in the 108th than any previous Congress.
• When asked how many hours Democrats needed to debate Priscilla Owen, Sen. Harry Reid said, “There is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient.” (Congressional Record, April 8, 2003)
This is an issue of fairness and constitutional duty to provide up-or-down votes for all nominees who reach the floor.
• Every judicial nominee deserves a fair, up-or-down vote.
• All Senators have a duty to give advice and consent by voting yes or no.
• Republicans have devoted more than 150 hours to debating judicial nominees and tried repeatedly to reach a compromise that would allow up-or-down votes.
Ending judicial filibusters safeguards the balance of power and will not affect legislative filibusters.
• Constitutional principle demands that the Senate act to restore more than 200 years of precedent and guarantee fair treatment for all judicial nominees.
• The majority continues to support the legislative filibuster due to its longstanding place in Senate tradition, unlike the judicial filibuster, which always was rejected.
• The majority is committed to upholding the separation of powers and our system of checks and balances, which includes an independent judiciary.
###
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
