Posted on 11/18/2003 6:41:00 PM PST by nickcarraway
Confidential Democratic memos downloaded from a Senate Judiciary Committee database and leaked to the press show that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) overcame the reservations of 15 Senate colleagues to convince Democrats to wage filibusters against some of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
Republican lawmakers and conservative activists have accused Kennedy since the early days of the Bush administration of being the mastermind behind the Democratic decision to block, if possible, the confirmation of such nominees as Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering Sr.
Fourteen internal documents pilfered from a Senate computer system illustrate Kennedy’s leading role in the current judicial battle. Their unauthorized disclosure has triggered an investigation by Sergeant at Arms William Pickle.
The documents also show in detail the evolution of Democratic opposition to Bush’s controversial nominees, from an initial hesitancy over blocking nominees with no obvious negative marks on their records to being fully committed to blocking those considered well qualified by the American Bar Association, such as Estrada, who subsequently withdrew his name from consideration.
The Democratic strategy has been to require 60 votes for confirmation of targeted nominees, a tactic the Republicans say has no precedent in Senate annals.
At times Kennedy and committed allies such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) discussed leaning on the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), to slow down the nomination process. That indicates Leahy was at times more open minded toward those targeted nominees than some of his harder-line colleagues, who ultimately prevailed.
The memos also cast light on the considerable influence liberal interest groups such as People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund have had on Democratic decisions to delay and ultimately filibuster the nominees.
On the basis of the memos, a Wall Street Journal editorial and The Washington Times first reported that Democrats followed a recommendation by Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to stall the nomination of Judge Julia Gibbons to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit until after that court decided on two major affirmative action cases.
Graham said he has not read the internal memos.
Over the course of this year, sentiment among Democratic senators toward filibustering judicial nominees has changed dramatically, as shown by one of the documents.
A memo prepared for Kennedy in April stated that Democratic staff had “heard that several Democratic senators have expressed concern about any filibuster of a judicial nominee that is based on substance, as opposed to process.”
The memo listed 15 senators who “may be wavering or opposed to extended debate.” They are: Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Graham (Fla.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mary Landrieu (La.), John Breaux (La.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Fritz Hollings (S.C.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Zell Miller (Ga.).
Now, some seven months later, only two Democrats, Ben Nelson and Miller, have voted to end the Democratic filibuster of three pending judicial nominees.
The same memo suggested that Kennedy speak out against 5th Circuit nominee Priscilla Owen during a Democratic Caucus meeting, after charging that Owen was “extremely bad on choice issues, worker’s rights, civil rights, [and] environmental protection.”
Two months earlier, the committee’s Democratic staff prepared talking points for Kennedy to use in meetings to convince colleagues to oppose Estrada and Owen.
One document opposing Estrada argued that “the D.C. Circuit is far too important to appoint someone about whom we have so many questions. Key labor, civil rights, environmental, and administrative law cases are decided there, and we know it is a ‘feeder’ circuit for the Supreme Court… . We can’t repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.”
A memo accompanying those talking points dated February of this year showed Democrats most adamantly opposed to Bush’s nominees were able to sway their colleagues through a series of one-on-one lobbying sessions.
“The senator-to-senator conversations continue and things appear to be going well,” the document stated. “That being said, we’ve heard that Breaux will support Estrada. Landrieu is a problem, but many are focused on her. Bayh is also on the fence. [Sen. John] Edwards [D-N.C.] spoke with him without much luck, and [former] Senator Bayh, Sr. [D-Ind., Bayh’s father] is going to speak with him, too.”
The document also noted efforts to involve Sen. John Kerry [D-Mass.] in the lobbying effort.
The tone of memos penned at the beginning of this year vary significantly from those crafted last year, when Democrats such as Kennedy, Durbin and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were still framing their plans.
In February, the Democratic staff suggested Kennedy urge colleagues that “we must filibuster Miguel Estrada’s nomination” while a memo to Kennedy, Durbin, Schumer and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) seven months earlier warned Estrada would be difficult to defeat. A memo to Durbin in November 2001 suggested against filibustering Estrada.
At times, Kennedy, Durbin and Schumer apparently pressured Leahy to delay hearings despite Leahy’s preferences.
Mark Pryor (Ark.)
Tom Carper (Del.) Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
John Breaux (La.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
Kent Conrad (N.D.)
Max Baucus (Mont.)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)(retiring)
Robert Byrd (W.Va.)
Bob Graham (Fla.) (retiring)
My money's on that theory.
LIBERAL MEDIA SPIN ALERT! Either the tactic has no precedent or it doesn't. The Hill could without a doubt confirm this. Instead they simply throw in the leftist style-book "Republican said" to lack credibility.
I'm reading this as Teddy-boy being a thrall for some women he has his balls caught in a zipper for.
Who? Is this Lindsey Graham the report refers to? Where does The Hill find these pathetic writers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.