Bush Declares Judiciary 'Crisis'

The Associated Press | Friday, May 3, 2002; 11:56 AM | The Associated Press

[SunStar]

Bush Declares Judiciary 'Crisis'

The Associated Press
Friday, May 3, 2002; 11:56 AM

WASHINGTON –– President Bush accused Senate Democrats on Friday of "endangering the administration of justice in America" by balking at many of his judicial nominees.

Declaring a vacancy crisis on the federal bench, Bush said, "Justice is at risk in America and the Senate must act for the good of the country."

The sharp challenge to the Democratic-controlled Senate reflected a mounting fight between the White House and Democrats over the shape of the federal judiciary. Democrats have objected to the nominees on many grounds, including their contention that Bush's candidates tend to be conservative.

The standoff is a warm-up for what both sides predict will be an enormous fight if Bush gets a chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

Bush said he has nominated 100 candidates to the federal bench and the Senate has confirmed half. Only nine of his 30 nominees to federal appeals courts have been confirmed, Bush said. Of his first 11 nominees, announced a year ago, only three have been confirmed.

Bush said his nominees "are in the solid mainstream of American legal opinion."

He said more than 10 percent of federal judgeships are vacant. He did not mention that the shortage is partially due to Republican senators who derailed many nominees of former Democratic President Clinton.

"By its inaction, the Senate is endangering the administration of justice in America," Bush said.

"I want you all to spread the word about how serious this vacancy crisis is," Bush told lawyers and law professors at the White House.

[Lazamataz]

BRILLIANT move on Bushes part. Term the obstructionism a 'crisis'. Nice job!

[StriperSniper]

Term the obstructionism a 'crisis'.

Fight fire with fire bump!

[Diddle E. Squat]

Hah, this is great, that a'boy Bush!

And for a day at least it forces the B___ and Moan Republicans to silently grumble and search for another topic to proclaim the end of the world.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

All the more reason why we people operating at the grassroots of politics to work even HARDER to get GOP senators elected this fall.

[T. P. Pole]

In the other post on this, I pointed out the following quote:

"He said more than 10 percent of federal judgeships are vacant. He did not mention that the shortage is partially due to Republican senators who derailed many nominees of former Democratic President Clinton."

Who wants to post the stats on this?

[rintense]

Obstructionism = crisis
Democrats = Obstructionists
Therefore, one can conclude that Democrats = crisis.

Yep uh huh. Let's see how the Dims spin this. Has Daschole been on yet?

[BibChr]

Yeah, and did you note the AP's helpful little addendum?

He did not mention that the shortage is partially due to Republican senators who derailed many nominees of former Democratic President Clinton.

If it's true, it's fair enough. But I am going to want to see A WHOLE LOT MORE "did not mention" 's in future stories! Like these:

• "...Sen Daschle did not mention that Anwahr is a barren wasteland that has been compared to the surface of the moon, and that caribou and elk have thrived in comparable drill-sites...."
• "...Senator Boxer did not mention that no medical group has found a medical necessity for 'partial birth abortions'...."
• "...Senator Clinton did not mention that credible witnesses had accused her husband of rape and sexual abuse...."
• "...Senator Leahy did not mention that the Constitution gives the power of advize and consent to the Senate, and not to one committee in the Senate...."

You know, stuff like that.

Dan

[Lazamataz]

AP stands for Absolutely Partisan.

[xzins]

As if the rhetoric will change the Judiciary Committee Democrats.

I think Bush just signaled that rather than attempting a legal way out of this logjam that he's putting his eggs in the election basket come November.

1. He could make recess apptmts.
2. He could ask for Supreme review of committee obstructionism of full Senate vote NEGATING a constitutional provision: separation of powers.
3. He could go after a constitutional amendment clarifying the REQUIREMENT for a full Senate vote.
4. He could wait for an election to change the balance of power in the Senate.
5. He could exert other type political power....tradeoffs, compromises, money,etc.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles:

Pickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002;
Author: Jeff Johnson

Make them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002;
Author: David Limbaugh

The GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002;
Author: Byron York

Pickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002;
Author: Mort Kondracke

Still Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002;
Author: John Nowacki

Dismantling Democracy through Judicial Activism
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 12, 2002;
Author:Tom Jipping

'A Troubling Pattern': Ideology Over Truth In Judicial Confirmations
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: February 10, 2002;
Author: Paul E. Scates

Democrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002;
Susan Jones

The Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002;
Author:Byron York

SYMPOSIUM Q: Should the Senate Take Ideology into Account in Judicial Confirmations
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 4, 2002;
Authors:
Ralph G. Neas -- YES: The ideology of nominees for the federal judiciary matters more now than ever
Roger Pilon -- NO: Since judges apply law, not make it, the Senate's concern should be with judicial temperament

What is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Blasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002;
Matt Pyeatt

Judicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001
Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Senator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001
Author: By John Nowacki

Senator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001
Author: Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

A Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published December 3, 2001

Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001
Author:Editorial

Sen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001
Author: Paul E. Scates

Judicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001
Author: Audrey Hudson

Patrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001
Author: William A. Mayer

Judicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001

Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001

Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Partisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001
Author: John Nowacki

Leahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Author: John Nowacki

Obedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001
Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Why is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published:October 26, 2001
Author: Mary Mostert

Pat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001
Author: John Nowacki

Operation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001
Author: T.L.Jipping

Daschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001
Author: Dave Boyer

Leahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001

Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001
Author: Tom Jipping

Dems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping</blockquote

[onedoug]

Yes, Bush should stick to his guns judicially. But when we see in his character, how easily he equivocates on principle, such as in his appeasement to terror and Arafat, to where Congress just rolls over him in, thus far at least, "non-binding" resolution, it gets a little harder - and unsettling - to think that all his strutting, posturing and rhetoric isn't just that.

[Lazamataz]

As if the rhetoric will change the Judiciary Committee Democrats.

Nobody believes that. But, it will change the hearts and minds of the squishy middle, the undecided in the American electorate.

And the elections are only months away.

[palo verde]

billclinton is gangster, and represents gangster interests
all the federal judges he appointed are corrupt (and remain in his pocket)
slick willy is Head of Dem Party and rules Senate Dems with iron hand
he won't let them confirm President Bush's judges, because they are honest
to dupe liberals, he pretends problem is ''they are right-wing''
President Bush's appointees are excellent, our Republic depends on honest justices
Love, Palo

[EllaMinnow]

Brilliant post!! You should email it to AP.

[sanchmo]

Finally.
Let's go George...

Democrats have objected to the nominees on many grounds, including their contention that Bush's candidates tend to be conservative.

Uh...
pro-2nd-ammendment & pro-life = conservative.
pro-gun-control & pro-choice = apolitical??

[dead]

Way to hit the nail on the head, Dan!

[livius]

any stats on this? [Repub. rejection of Clinton nominees]

I'd like to know the answer to this, too. I recall reading, in an earlier discussion of this, that most of Clinton's judicial nominees were actually confirmed, even when there were serious reservations about some of them. Again, I don't have any facts at hand, unfortunately. Anybody else?

[xzins]

That was my take on it, too. It was political rhetoric and one of the early volleys fired in the 02 campaign.