Skip to comments.Judge Leon Holmes Confirmed
Posted on 07/06/2004 3:16:28 PM PDT by pookie18
Glad he got confirmed despite one of my Texas senators voting against him. Grr--!
Thanks for the update.
Here's the take on him from a liberal source, the Alliance for Justice:
"Throughout his career, J. Leon Holmes has actively worked to undermine a woman's right to reproductive choice. His zealous advocacy for doing away with such a fundamental right, along with extreme statements he has made about the separation of church and state, gay rights, and gender equality, raises serious questions about his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench."
Sounds good to me.
I agree wholeheartedly!!!
How did Kerry vote -- or was he too busy?
Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me!!!
How did the Breck girl vote?
Scottish Law MacSpecter must not have gotten the RINOs lined up behind him on this one. And shame on Hutchinson. Unbelievable.
Good the Johns were probably out holding hands and kissing each other on their first date. So they missed the vote.
Someone posted that Specter voted FOR confirmation. Maybe it was collection time for Bush's support in the primary.
"Throughout his career, J. Leon Holmes has actively worked to undermine a woman's right to reproductive choice."
To AFJ: What if that little woman just happens to be in the womb? Wonder what choice she would make for herself?
Absent. He was working a rope line in Pennsylvania.
Yes, Specter voted for Holmes as did Dems Landreau, Lincoln & Pryor (sp. ?) as well as 3 others. The 2 (porta) Johns were there. There's probably a site with individual votes, but I'm not sure where it is. I didn't see the entire vote on C-SPAN.
Fox reported that the 2 Johns did not vote.
About bloody time we got one through.. he sounds like the right man for the job too....
Just reread what I'd hurriedly written & saw that I left out "not". :-(
Perhaps she voted no after she knew it would have no effect.
I have serious questions about this nominee's commitment to a woman's constitutional right to choose! Is it too late to do anything about this anti-choice extremist?
Yeah, but his view of a woman's role in a marriage, let alone society, is questionable, to say the least.
all the Freepers who were on Bush about the trade of no recess for 25 nominations, well this was one of the 25. So that's a win for W!
Right to choose what? :)
Doesn't matter. It's the principle of the thing. The ONLY objections the other side came up with to oppose Holmes was 1) He is pro-life, and 2) He is a Christian and had the audacity to write about it.
There were no problems with his legal qualifications whatsoever. The ABA gave him a "well-qualified" endorsement.
Hutchinson announced her opposition in advance of the vote. Look at it this way, if Texans were stupid enough to give us Lyndon Johnson, and give themselves Ma Richards, they certainly wouldn't want to break the mold when it came to KBH.
Here is some official data about the details of the confirmation vote:
Not voting: Edwards, Kerry, Murkowski;
Republicans voting against: Chaffe, Colins, Hutchison, Snowe, Warner;
Dems voting for: Breaux, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson (of Nebraska), Pryor.
AWESOME! No thanks to Ms. Hutch.
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!
Fundamental my foot.
The Alliance for Justice can stick it up their fundament as far as I'm concerned!
George, let me suggest that his ASSURED confirmation was WHY one of your Texas senators could vote against him. This was one of those, "if it's close, I'll vote for the guy, but if it is a lock, I want to be able to 'vote my conscience.'" I'm not too sure I'd be that upset with KBH over this.
Sounds good to me, too.
The usual (scumbags) suspects, although Hutchinson is a little surprising. And Specter has an election coming up.
Enh. To me it's the principle of the thing. In the email I wrote her via her Senate website I pointed out that we've got too many leftists blocking Bush's judicial nominees (as well as the usual RINOs) without getting help from the Right. Just doesn't sit well with me.
That's the way I read it as well. And isn't Murkowski in a fight in AK, so she was able to not vote and look moderate"? Right now, it's all about the numbers and the rest is just theater for those who aren't paying close attention.
You are correct!
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation J. Leon Holmes, of Arkansas, to be U.S. District Judge ) Vote Number: 153 Vote Date: July 6, 2004, 05:45 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed Nomination Number: PN279 Nomination Description: J. Leon Holmes, of Arkansas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Vote Counts: YEAs 51 NAYs 46 Not Voting 3
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---51 Alexander (R-TN)
NAYs ---46 Akaka (D-HI)
Not Voting - 3 Edwards (D-NC)
Why should it be against her conscience to vote for Holmes?
I thought there was only one "fundamental" right -- that being the right to LIFE.
And, I agree with your assessment. Judge Holmes seems to be on the side of good. We need a few hundred more like him asap.
Not a single suprise on that list.
Six 'Rat Senators supported Holmes, including two women. Intersting. I thought this nomination was doomed.
And then I came of age and crap like that isn't supposed to happen anymore. Heck, I want my governor back, you know, the one you guys captured and made into a President. I want him back in 2008. As governor. Dagnabit!
Sounds like my kinda guy.
Why, if he's a second amendment purist, he's darn near perfect!
She's a pro-choicer.
I know what you are saying, but what if her PRINCIPLE is "pro-choice," and this allowed her to vote as she really wanted, rather than as the party needed her to vote? As long as it doesn't affect the outcome, I don't think it really matters.
You can tell a man by his enemies. Judge Leon Holmes seems to have made the right ones.
You mean the Metrosexual running with the Second Black President?
They are a joke.
You can have him back on January 20, 2008. But we expect a little something in return.
Not a single suprise on that list.
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.