Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Professor Carl Tobias Responds to Senator Orrin Hatch on Judicial Nominations

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 08:12 PM
Original message
Professor Carl Tobias Responds to Senator Orrin Hatch on Judicial Nominations
Senator Orrin Hatch recently criticized my suggestion that Senate Republicans are preventing President Barack Obama from appointing federal judges and urged me "and other apologists facts straight, tell the whole story, and realize that our nation's leaders are responsible for their choices and priorities." We actually agree on more than his critique suggests. However, with all due respect to the senator, who has long served with distinction on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I disagree with several of his ideas.

The Whole Story

Unfortunately, Senator Hatch seemed to discount his lengthy experience with the confirmation process and recounted an abridged story. The senator repeats the assertion made by numerous mainstream media reporters that Obama has nominated too slowly, tapping half the number whom President George W. Bush had at the same juncture of his administration. However, the White House is not the source of delay. Obama has steadily nominated sufficient well qualified nominees for the committee to efficiently process, and there is little reason to nominate more candidates than the Senate can effectively review. Obama's approach strikingly contrasts with those of Bush and President Bill Clinton, who often submitted large nominee packages as the Senate recessed, thus complicating smooth processing...

The Judiciary Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), has promptly assessed, conducted hearings for, and voted on, nominees. However, the tendency of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member, to place automatic holds on nominees, most of whom the panel then unanimously approved, has caused some delay.

The major confirmation bottleneck has been the Senate floor. As Senator Hatch knows, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nomination and confirmation processes consumed three months during which time little other judicial selection activity occurred. Over this period, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Minority Leader, insisted that lower court nominees not receive floor consideration. Thus, the Senate evaluated no Obama nominee until September because Justice Sotomayor was confirmed as the Senate recessed in August. Senator McConnell has also not cooperated as much as possible with the majority by entering into time agreements on floor debates and votes.

Delay as well has occurred on the Senate floor due to the GOP practice of placing anonymous holds on uncontroversial nominees. Republicans have concomitantly asked for much time to debate nominees on the floor but then used little of that time. A trenchant example is Judge Roberto Lange for whom the GOP requested two hours of floor debate but took five minutes after which the Senate confirmed him 100-0.

More:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20091204_tobias.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ellie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Don't confuse Orrin Hatch with the facts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newdood Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nelson-Hatch amendment
Apologies as required for any errors in posting here - I'n new in forum and tryin' to learn!

Unfortunately, I'm a registered voter in Utah. I have to say I'm DISGUSTED (again!!) with sen Hatch about mirroring the Stupak amendment from the House and trying to get it installed in the Senate version of health-care reform.

I just sent him the following, but I'm NOT holding my breath in anticipation of his actually seeing the light:

This amendment MAY be intended to save innocent human life but it will have consequences that can be pretty easily foreseen by anybody willing to open their eyes to reality.

In the real world, this amendment will have the effect of pushing vulnerable women one BIG step closer to the back alley or (God help us!!) the COAT CLOSET!!

This amendment represents a GIANT LEAP in a BAD direction. I urge you to reconsider your support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC