Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices Let Stand Bush's Appointment of Judge
Reuters ^ | Mar. 21, 2005

Posted on 03/21/2005 8:16:47 AM PST by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: Crackingham
"Justice John Paul Stevens, however, issued a two-paragraph statement emphasizing that rejection of an appeal does not represent a ruling on the merits of any issue raised."

Someone else must have written this for him;
where's Harry Reid been the past couple of days?

41 posted on 03/22/2005 1:05:37 PM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Great, now that we all know (except for the press) that the President can fill appointments during a Senate recess, they can either stay in session all the time, or accept the appointments.

I know they will complain, but who cares. Their current tactics only make them insignificant - which we all knew. Now they won't get the T.V. air time that they all crave and can go on and on and on but all I can say it Ha Ha!

I hope they fill all the vacancies at the next recess!! Supreme Court too!!!!!


42 posted on 03/22/2005 3:32:31 PM PST by keving
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inwoodian
And I believe that none of Clinton's appointments got out of Committee. They were not filibustered.

Clinton had no real objections with his nominees not getting out of committe.

It was a quiet truce and favor between to the 2.

If they had gotten out of committee, the GOP could, at will, just point blank vote them down, and punish anyone who swayed.

Thats why Clinton never made a big deal about them being locked in committee, it would have been embarrassing, and the GOP did not want the bad press of just voting down judge after judge.

The GOP erred, they should have voted each and every one down, and forced Clinton to appoint more conservative judges, or get none at all.

The only judge to ever be successfully filibustered before now, was Abe Fortas by LBJ, and his nomination was pulled because half the democratic party was opposed to him too. The filibuster used in his case was probably not worth it, with the GOP and a chunk of the dems opposed to him, and, ironically (or not so) one of the dems opposed to him......was Senator Byrd.

43 posted on 03/23/2005 3:45:04 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

I'm with you:
Clinton's recess appointment of Willie Lann Lee was one of his most egregious abuses of power.


44 posted on 03/25/2005 10:11:39 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Inwoodian
And I believe that none of Clinton's appointments got out of Committee. They were not filibustered.

So it's OK to hold up a nominiation in committe but not by filibuster? Why is that?

45 posted on 03/25/2005 10:14:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson