Apparently, Senator Frist (you know, the Dr. Frist who looked at Terry Schiavo’s video and declared her to not be in a persistent vegitative state) has agreed to promote or appear in a video that proclaims that those (particularly the Democrats) who block Bush’s judicial nominees are “against people of faith”.
This is like Ashcroft’s claim that anyone who criticizes the government is giving support to the terrorists.
Another “uniter, not a divider”.
It seems pretty clear that such a charge would be pretty accurate. Some of the judges being held up are supposedly being held up because they are too religious and thus the Senators question their ability to follow the law rather than the nominees personal policy preferences.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, religious people need not apply for high appointive office.
Tell me again who is being the divider. One would think it is the Democrats who, for the first time in the history of the Republic, are fillibustering qualified judicial nominees who would be approved by a majority.
It seems pretty clear that such a charge would be pretty accurate. Some of the judges being held up are supposedly being held up because they are too religious and thus the Senators question their ability to follow the law rather than the nominees personal policy preferences.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, religious people need not apply for high appointive office.
Tell me again who is being the divider. One would think it is the Democrats who, for the first time in the history of the Republic, are fillibustering qualified judicial nominees who would be approved by a majority.
Art, go compare the number of judicial nominees blocked by Republicans during the Clinton presidency to the number of such nominees blocked by Democrats during the Bush presidency, then get back to us.
a video that proclaims that those (particularly the Democrats) who block Bush’s judicial nominees are “against people of faith”.
If what he means is that the Democrats have blocked qualified nominees because of the nominees’ faith, he’s right.
a video that proclaims that those (particularly the Democrats) who block Bush’s judicial nominees are “against people of faith”.
If what he means is that the Democrats have blocked qualified nominees because of the nominees’ faith, he’s right.
That’s crap, and you know it. If what you mean is that “Democrats have blocked otherwise qualified nominees because they have let their religious beliefs interfere with their judicial responsibilities”, I might agree that it might have happened.
Feel free to give me examples.
It is not that appointees are blocked, though that is a problem on both sides. It is the method of blocking. Clinton’s blocked appointees for the most part could not get majority backing in committee or on the floor, so they couldn’t get through.
Your point was about religious affiliation. It is very amusing to see the likes of Ted Kennedy berating nominees, sometimes Catholic nominees, for being too religious.
When you see internal Democratic Judiciary memos explaining that they can’t let Miguel Estrada win confirmation since it will strike at the heart of Democratic minority support, it is hard to argue these judges are being evaluated on their merits.
What is a guy like Frist supposed to do? Back in the 70’s, when Robert Byrd got frustated about nominees, he threatened to get rid of these fillibuster rules and the Republicans caved. Frist has tried that, the Democrats have held solid despite repeated electoral defeats on the issue, and the same Robert Byrd has compared the tactic to Hitler’s rise to power.
Through an enormous amount of work, Republicans elected four more Republican Senators this term. Judicial nominations were a big issue in all close elections, especially in the Daschle defeat in which it was basically the only issue. The supporters delivered the votes and they expect the Republicans to deliver on their promises.
Frist is in a tough spot. Like most politicians, he would prefer to avoid making a decision. He probably doesn’t have that luxury. If he doesn’t get the judges through, he will be a failed Majority leader, though at least the media will love him because of his failures. If he is effective, the media will hate him forever.
Presumably the reason one wants to be a leader is to be able to make such calls. We will see.
That’s crap, and you know it.
It most certainly is not.
If what you mean is that “Democrats have blocked otherwise qualified nominees because they have let their religious beliefs interfere with their judicial responsibilities”
No, that’s not what I mean, and that’s not what happened. Estrada is a good enough example, I guess.
That’s crap, and you know it.
It most certainly is not.
If what you mean is that “Democrats have blocked otherwise qualified nominees because they have let their religious beliefs interfere with their judicial responsibilities”
No, that’s not what I mean, and that’s not what happened. Estrada is a good enough example, I guess.
If Estrada is your standard, then you’ve failed. Estrada was blocked, and rightfully so, for having no judicial background and refusing (with the White House’s blessing) to release any of his DoJ legal memos, or answering questions put to him as part of the nomination process.
Ha ha ha ha ha ! ! !
Where’d you get the idea I was in the market for a bridge, Ken?
It has not happened that Democrats have blocked nominees because of those nominee’s allowing their beliefs to interfere with their rulings. Blocking on that basis would be legitimate, but has not happened so far as I am aware. The Judge Moores of the world would not typically be nominated in the first place.
Both Kennedy and Schummer have cited fears that particular nominees they were attacking had beliefs that were so firmly held that they might do such a thing. Sorry, they have blocked so many, I can’t keep them all straight any more. I think the MS judge to whom Bush eventually gave a recess appointment might have been one of them.
The DoJ legal memos are not his. They are the property of the Executive branch of government. The Legislature has no power to access internal documents of a coequal branch of government. That is why a subpeona was never issued. It would have been laughed out of court.
The Legislature has no more right to those documents than the Executive has a right to access, say, all papers reflecting coordination between Democratic Senators and Moveon.org.
You must be joking to suggest that Estrada is not qualifed. It is difficult to imagine a more qualified jurist, or human being for that matter. He was defeated for exactly the reasons stated in the Democratic memos. His successful nomination would strike at the heart of Democratic support in the minority community.
Can’t let those uppity minorities off the liberal plantation. Those that escape need to be taught a lesson or two about how things work.
Anyone who is a potential SC nominee, especially if female or minority, will be fillibustered by the Democrats. Estrada got both barrels.
I work with a lot of DC lobbyists and the funny story of the year thus far inside the beltway has been the mailbags of video tapes and photos arriving at Frist’s office from people asking for diagnoses.
By all accounts there have several photos of assorted genetalia with notes asking the Senator if the subject had the clap or not.
Hilarious.
a few points:
ok, maybe estrada’s memos were property of the doj. but if the admin was serious about getting estrada nominated, i’d think they’d have released the info that the democrats wanted.
moreover, to say that clinton’s nominees wouldn’t have secured a majority and thus wouldn’t have been confirmed is, at best, not something that can be ascertained. the repubs favorite trick to block clinton nominees was to simply refuse to allow them a hearing before the judiciary committee. that’s precisely what happened to the democratic analog to miguel estrada, enrique moreno, as well as others. (and just to be clear he’s not simply an analog based on race, but rather because of other shared characteristics, such as receiving the highest rating from the aba).
if you read ALL the memos pertaining to estrada(and i have), it becomes abundantly clear that he was NOT filibustered based on race, but rather for reasons more along the lines of what ken mentioned.
frist cozying up with the religious conservatives on this issue is turning it into a “vote against judge x, is a vote against god”. it’s patently ridiculous and borders on theocratic.
lastly, i found this from the washington, 6/5/99: At the beginning of the year, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) proposed Stewart, a political friend, for an opening as a federal judge in Utah. But so far the Clinton administration has been unwilling to nominate Stewart for the post. In response, Hatch has essentially shut down the confirmation process for existing nominees: He has not scheduled a confirmation hearing for any nominee to the federal bench – 42 are now pending – since January. “I am concerned about my Utah recommendation,” Hatch told committee Democrats at a recent meeting.
The conflict appears to mark the first time in 40 years that a senator has blocked all judicial confirmations. And as the battle drags on, its impact is extending far beyond the Beltway, affecting the pace of cases nationwide and potentially altering the long-term complexion of the federal bench and Clinton’s judicial legacy.
“I couldn’t say this is a perversion of the process,” said Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts who has studied court appointments extensively. “But I could say you are going to the brink of a constitutional crisis when you say, ‘My man or nothing moves.’ That’s ominous.”
Estrada’s papers are DOJ property, and releasing them would have been a terrible precedent. Let Schummer and Kennedy release all their political papers both internal and with outside groups first.
I was also against Condi Rice’s testimony last year when she was National Security Advisor. It was a terrible precedent, though I did enjoy the controversy and the testimony. Bush should have held firm on that issue.
Clinton’s nominees couldn’t get out of committee for lack of majority support. That is not to say they were treated fairly or appropriately or well. I am sure many were not. They were not filibustered by a minority after receiving committee approval. That is without precedent.
If you actually think Estrada was not stopped because he was Hispanic, Brown because she is a black female (two strikes right there) or Prior because he is religious, I have a bridge you might be interested in.
** is turning it into a “vote against judge x, is a vote against god”. **That’s not what he’s saying.
** it’s patently ridiculous and borders on theocratic. **It’s not ridiculous, and it doesn’t even come close to bordering on theocratic.
Before January 1, 2001, was there ever a filibuster to the confirmation of a nominee to a federal district court?
Before January 1, 2001, was there ever a filibuster to the confirmation of a nominee to a federal circuit court of appeals?
There were at least two filibusters of controversial US Supreme nominees where the cloture vote revealed that the nominee did not have the support of 50% of the US Senate and the nominees were withdrawn because of what the cloture vote revealed. Before January 1, 2001, has a filibuster ever continued regarding the confirmation of any nominee to any federal court after a cloture vote has shown that the nominee had at least the support of the majority of the US Senate?
The answer to all of these questions is no. If you are going to claim otherwise, then please give me the name of the nominee in question.
Now, as to post January 1, 2001, let’s just consider the great state of Michigan where I live. All four nominees to the Sixth Circuit are currently being filibustered. That is four more than have been filibustered in the entire history of the Republic until this President and this minority in the US Senate. I also believe that both nominees to the Eastern District of Michigan are being filibustered. That would make six more filibusters as to lower court judges than in the entire history of the Republic. No credible objection has been made to qualifications of any of these six nominees. What has been done to them and to numerous other nominees across the country by a minority of US Senators is completed unprecedented. It is also having a significant effect upon the administration of justice as Sixth Circuit cases take far longer to resolve than they should solely because of these four vacancies.
“is turning it into a “vote against judge x, is a vote against god”. That’s not what he’s saying”
Actually, if the quote in the first post is accurate, it is exactly what he is saying. At the very least, it is the way he is trying to present the issue in an effort to rile up religious people. Notice the quote didn’t say that Democrats who filibuster these candidates are against “people of faith holding Judicial office.” It said that these Democrats are against “people of faith.” That means they are against you Vitus, and me, and anyone else who believes in God. If you think Frist isn’t smart enough to know that’s how a vide statement saying those words is going to be interpreted, then you’re selling him short on political savvy.
Clinton’s nominees couldn’t get out of committee for lack of majority support. That is not to say they were treated fairly or appropriately or well. I am sure many were not. They were not filibustered by a minority after receiving committee approval. That is without precedent.
If you actually think Estrada was not stopped because he was Hispanic, Brown because she is a black female (two strikes right there) or Prior because he is religious, I have a bridge you might be interested in.
your first statement is patently false. or rather, no one would know how much support they would receive because clinton’s nominees were never permitted a hearing before the committee. not the full senate, the judiciary committee. to say they lacked majority support at any level is wrong. this on multiple occasions.
i have no idea as to brown or prior, but again, having read the memos, it wasn’t about race with estrada. in other passages of those memos, they reference hispanic groups that oppose estrada’s nomination. the dems repeatedly mention how they didn’t know anything about estrada or what he stood for and highlighted an inability to see his “paper trail” as reasons they felt uncomfortable with him.
frist isn’t saying that explicitly, but some of the people he is cozying up with most certainly are. they paint this as a “judicial war on faith” and they are portraying the dems as “anti-god”.
and when a group is pushing a candidate for a position based on his religious beliefs and on the platform that he/she will bring religion back into gov’t, legislation, etc., that most definitely borders on theocratic.
**and when a group is pushing a candidate for a position based on his religious beliefs and on the platform that he/she will bring religion back into gov’t, legislation, etc., that most definitely borders on theocratic. **
What groups are pushing a candidate based on his religious beliefs, and in the explicit hope that he’ll bring religion “back” into government?