Skip to comments.
Senate Democrats Threaten to Block More Bush Nominees
NY Times ^
| March 26, 2004
| DAVID STOUT
Posted on 03/26/2004 4:39:17 PM PST by neverdem
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"/>
|
 
March 26, 2004
Senate Democrats Threaten to Block More Bush NomineesBy DAVID STOUT
 ASHINGTON, March 26 — Senate Democrats threatened today to block all of President Bush's judicial nominations unless the White House promised not to name any more judges while Congress was away.
"These actions not only poison the nomination process," the minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said. "They strike at the principle of checks and balances that is one of pillars of American democracy." Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Mr. Bush's use of recess appointments "a finger in the eye of the Constitution." Five weeks ago, President Bush used a Congressional recess to install William H. Pryor Jr., the Alabama attorney general, in a federal appeals court seat to get around a Democratic filibuster that had blocked his nomination. Mr. Pryor will be able to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, until the end of the next session of Congress — meaning sometime in the fall of 2005. The Pryor appointment was the second time this year that Mr. Bush used a president's power to make appointments when Congress is not in session to name judges directly to the bench and thus skirt the Senate confirmation process. In January, Mr. Bush named Charles W. Pickering Sr., whose nomination had also been blocked by Senate Democrats, to a seat for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans. He, too, will have to step down before many months, unless there is a huge shift in the Senate and he is able to win confirmation. "We will be clear," Senator Daschle said today. "We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges, but only if the White House gives the assurance that it will no longer abuse the process and that it will once again respect our Constitution's essential system of checks and balances." President Bush and his chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, were in the Southwest today and thus not ready to respond immediately to the Democrats' move. Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader, called the tactic "posturing" and told reporters no administration would rule out recess appointments. Senate Democrats have blocked several of Mr. Bush's nominations on grounds that his choices are out of the judicial mainstream and have shown an insensitivity to civil rights. Mr. Bush has said the Democrats are playing politics and in so doing thwarting honest, highly qualified people.
| | | | | |
|
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: daschle; dems; federaljudges; judicialnominees; obstrictionists; senatedemocrats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-68 next last
Check Chucky. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What's Constitutional about a supermajority filibuster?
1
posted on
03/26/2004 4:39:18 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
I see the usual suspects making their Friday afternoon whine session.
2
posted on
03/26/2004 4:41:38 PM PST
by
Maigrey
(We don't need a thumbsucker in the White House. - azgopgal)
To: neverdem
Screw 'em. Recess appoint every damn vacancy that there is left. They want to play hardball? Make them sit in DC and confirm judges instead of being out on the campaign trail.
3
posted on
03/26/2004 4:42:21 PM PST
by
SCHROLL
To: neverdem
Duck the Femocrats!
To: neverdem
Precisely. Eff 'em.
5
posted on
03/26/2004 4:44:35 PM PST
by
My2Cents
("Well...there you go again.")
To: SCHROLL
At least recess appointments are CONSTITUTIONAL!
6
posted on
03/26/2004 4:45:05 PM PST
by
My2Cents
("Well...there you go again.")
To: SCHROLL
I too have two words for the 'Rats..."Recess Appointment"
7
posted on
03/26/2004 4:45:22 PM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
To: neverdem
The administration needs to tie together liberal judges appointed by Democrats, with gay marriage and the pledge case.
To: neverdem
""These actions not only poison the nomination process," the minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said. "They strike at the principle of checks and balances that is one of pillars of American democracy."
This from the guy who invented and then perfected the poisoning of the process.
9
posted on
03/26/2004 4:49:20 PM PST
by
Gringo1
(All contents of this post may be contrived,made-up,or just plain not true at all.)
To: neverdem
Pity party for the dems!! BOO HOO.......followed by LOLOLOL
10
posted on
03/26/2004 4:51:02 PM PST
by
OldFriend
(Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
To: neverdem
Up-Chucky Schumer; the living, breathing, defintion of pond slime; the kind of pond slime even bleach won't kill... The skid mark in humanities shorts...
The unwanted relative who won't leave... The very sight of this man revolts me.
11
posted on
03/26/2004 4:54:22 PM PST
by
gatorgriz
("The world is full of bastards - the number ever increasing the further one gets from Missoula, MT")
To: neverdem
Charles Schumer is a pustule on the buttocks of the goddess of Justice.
12
posted on
03/26/2004 4:59:12 PM PST
by
Argus
(If you favor surrender to terrorism, vote Democrat.)
To: I still care
"The administration needs to tie together liberal judges appointed by Democrats, with gay marriage and the pledge case."
Couldn't say it better myself!
13
posted on
03/26/2004 5:14:39 PM PST
by
Califelephant
(John Kerry has more positions than the Kama Sutra)
To: Maigrey
Aren't they pitiful! I love it! If they keep this up - the President's office will not be the only place where we have a landslide.
14
posted on
03/26/2004 5:18:53 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
(The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
To: neverdem
bush get ready for the next recess and make recess appoints of all those not approved...btw when is the next recess?
15
posted on
03/26/2004 5:22:39 PM PST
by
metoooo
To: neverdem
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Mr. Bush's use of recess appointments "a finger in the eye of the Constitution." If Dubya really wants to stick it to him, he'll recess appoint either Judge Bork, or Ken Starr during the next recess. I'd pay good money to see that!!!
16
posted on
03/26/2004 5:24:45 PM PST
by
Bush_Democrat
(Now EX-democrat!!)
To: neverdem
The President should immediately give a national speech in which he absolutely calls the Democrats on this threat. The speach should address the fact that recess appointments are specifically provided for in the Constitution, have been made by every modern president, are necessary because of the dim's refusal to provide consent as required by the Constitution, etc. As others have suggested, he could also tie this into judicial activism, the pledge case, the gay marriage issue, etc.
The dim's can either back down (in which case they look like fools), or follow through with their no votes on nominees threat. In the latter case, the Republican's should exercise the "nuclear option."
Frist can simply direct the Clerk of the Senate to schedule nominees before the full Senate for an up or down vote. He can do this on the grounds that, to the extent the Senate rules require a supermajority to pass the nominee to a full vote, they are in violation of the direct and specific constitutional requirement that the Senate provide affirmative advice and consent with respect to the President's judicial nominations.
The dim's could challenge Frist's ruling. But because this would be a challenge to the chair's interpretation of the rules, the issue would be resolved by a simple majority vote--in which the Republicans, if they stick together, could prevail.
Will it happen? I am not holding my breath.
To: neverdem
WELL... W should just appoint judges out the yang everytime the Senate goes out!
18
posted on
03/26/2004 5:31:10 PM PST
by
sonofatpatcher2
(Love & a .45-- What more could you want, campers? };^)
To: neverdem
Senate Democrats threatened today to block all of President Bush's judicial nominations unless the White House promised not to name any more judges while Congress was away. Like they wouldn't block the president's nominations anyway. Riiight.
19
posted on
03/26/2004 5:34:49 PM PST
by
lonevoice
(Some things have to be believed to be seen)
To: TheConservator
Bush should say out loud that he won't recess-appoint any judge who has been given an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
But that not allowing a vote will always lead to a recess appointment.
To: lonevoice
That's what the Democrats say. "Mr. Bush, play the game our way or we'll block your nominees. Don't play it our way and we'll still block you nominees."
21
posted on
03/26/2004 6:04:34 PM PST
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
To: Principled
"Bush should say out loud that he won't recess-appoint any judge who has been given an up-or-down vote in the Senate. But that not allowing a vote will always lead to a recess appointment."
You have stated the perfect solution. He should go on television and announce this policy. And then follow through.
22
posted on
03/26/2004 6:10:42 PM PST
by
Montfort
To: TheConservator
Or Bush culd pledge to not use his constitutionally mandated power if the Dems pledge not to use a filibuster to block his nominations.
23
posted on
03/26/2004 6:13:16 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
(I voted for this tagline... before I voted against it.)
To: neverdem
Refresh my memory, didn't the hero of the rat party Clinton use recess of congress to install judges?
Obviously it is legal, obviously a promise means nothing to a rat, so go well you know what yourself Tommy.
24
posted on
03/26/2004 6:15:51 PM PST
by
ladyinred
(Weakness Invites War. Peace through Strength (Margaret Thatcher))
To: Hillarys Gate Cult
That's what the Democrats say. "Mr. Bush, play the game our way or we'll block your nominees. Don't play it our way and we'll still block you nominees." No kidding. Democrats threatening increased obstruction is like Palestinians threatening increased terrorism. The threat only works if you assume that they are holding back as it is. I don't.
To: Montfort
Well, you know they lurk... we'll see!
To: neverdem
Translation: They know they're in trouble, and this is the best they can come up with.
27
posted on
03/26/2004 6:25:50 PM PST
by
Imal
(Capitalism appeals to optimists, Communism appeals to pessimists.)
To: neverdem
"We will be clear," Senator Daschle said today. "We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges, but only if the White House gives the assurance that it will no longer abuse the process and that it will once again respect our Constitution's essential system of checks and balances." Uh, excuse me, but how have the Demwits cooperated up to this point in the confirmation of Bush nominees?
28
posted on
03/26/2004 6:30:48 PM PST
by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
To: neverdem
Do the Dems say either you agree to our blackmail or we will engage in a complete strike of your nominees!
Seems treason to me.
29
posted on
03/26/2004 6:31:24 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: neverdem
Frist should have fought this to the bitter end the first time they tried it. Now he pays the price.
Make them filibuster 24-7.
30
posted on
03/26/2004 6:40:32 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(Environmental deregulation is critical national defense.)
To: neverdem
You would never know without a scorecard, that the majority are Republicans. Sometimes I think Bush may be too nice a fellow to be president. He and most fellow Dems simply don't respond in kind, and it doesn't look like high moral ground, it looks like weakness. Filibusters, supermajorities, Memogate getting turned around on us, inquisitional commissions---the Dems are fighting dirtier than ever before, and mostly getting away with it.
To: Graymatter
D'oh! Make that he and fellow Reps. Too much Nyquil again.
:(
To: neverdem
"We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges,"
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH!!!!!
Qwinn
33
posted on
03/26/2004 6:47:18 PM PST
by
Qwinn
To: neverdem
It's so touching when the Dims express their fervent regard for constitutional processes. Feh.
34
posted on
03/26/2004 6:56:56 PM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(Any day you wake up is a good day.)
To: neverdem
When President Clinton made recess appointments, the Democrats backed them. Their demand is election year politics - and if they allowed an up or down vote on the judges before the Senate, it goes without saying it wouldn't be necessary for the President to resort to recess appointments in the first place. For folks concerned about upholding the Constitution, they're a veritable bunch of hypocrites.
35
posted on
03/26/2004 6:58:12 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: rogue yam
Democrats threatening increased obstruction is like Palestinians threatening increased terrorismThat's exactly right... I was thinking along those same lines. It seems that Hamas is now really really going to murder some Israelis (as if they weren't already going to do exactly that). And now the Demos are threatening to really really obstruct the President's judicial nominations (as if they weren't already going to do exactly that).
Is the comparison between a murderous bunch of thugs and a group of law-hating Communist thugs too strong? I don't think so...
36
posted on
03/26/2004 7:28:31 PM PST
by
Zeppo
To: neverdem
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.Enough with the racism!
These Dems crack me up. Really. They must all leave the building and go to a room where they laugh like hell out of reach of the microphones.
37
posted on
03/26/2004 7:29:49 PM PST
by
Glenn
(The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
To: A CA Guy
Seems treason to me. I'd say it was just hardball. I don't think it's too smart though, not when the pubbies have national security as an issue again for the foreseeable future.
The next rat president, God forbid, will need 60 rats in the Senate to get their nominees confirmed. That's assuming all the pubbies have real spines and memories.
38
posted on
03/26/2004 7:33:08 PM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: neverdem
What a coincidence! Al Qaeda threatened today to attack the United States unless the White House promised to stop doing things that made them angry and frustrated.
To: SCHROLL
Screw 'em. Recess appoint every damn vacancy that there is left. They want to play hardball? Make them sit in DC and confirm judges instead of being out on the campaign trail. I'm with you! Are these characters really Americans or imposters? i.e. "Face Off"
To: Graymatter
You would never know without a scorecard, that the majority are Republicans.A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Sadly, included in the Republican Senate majority of 51 are some pretty weak lnks: Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Specter, McCain...
41
posted on
03/26/2004 8:16:58 PM PST
by
possible
To: Principled
Very good idea. You should send it to President Bush and his advisors.
To: neverdem
"finger in the eye of the Constitution"; a foot needs to be planted up the asses of Shumer, Dashle and the other obstructionist Democrats in the Senate. Effem!
To: TheConservator
The dim's could challenge Frist's ruling. But because this would be a challenge to the chair's interpretation of the rules, the issue would be resolved by a simple majority vote--in which the Republicans, if they stick together, could prevail. Yes, but there could come a time in a Democrat administration when a Republican supermajority is the only gate left on the highway to hell.
44
posted on
03/26/2004 8:25:30 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Bush_Democrat
OOOOHHHH, me too; there ain't enough cows, goats and sheep to make the cheese necessary to handle the whine that would create. Where do I pay up?
To: TheConservator
if they stick together There's the rub. None of the Northeastern Republicans will stick with the party.
46
posted on
03/26/2004 9:37:49 PM PST
by
RobbyS
(Latin nothing of atonment)
To: Principled; neverdem; Coop
47
posted on
03/26/2004 9:51:30 PM PST
by
hobson
To: neverdem
Senate Democrats threatened today to block all of President Bush's judicial nominations unless the White House promised not to name any more judges while Congress was away. Hey, let's go for this deal. We can trust them. /sarcasm
"These actions not only poison the nomination process," the minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said. "They strike at the principle of checks and balances that is one of pillars of American democracy."
Man, this is rich. How do Democrats face their families, their colleagues, and themselves in the mirror everyday? So, denying an up or down vote, and fillibustering judicial nominees is a checks and balances pillar?
To: Imal
Translation: They know they're in trouble, and this is the best they can come up with. Explain this to the "Bush bashers", in detail, that have no political patience. Paawlease??
49
posted on
03/27/2004 12:30:22 AM PST
by
EGPWS
To: neverdem
If they do this then its more likely we could get 51 R's to take the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-68 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson