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

Skip to comments.

Boxer Blocks Impeachment Congressman
Newsmax ^ | November 30, 2007 | Newsmax Staff

Posted on 11/30/2007 2:05:11 PM PST by Turret Gunner A20

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is blocking the nomination of former Republican Congressman James Rogan to the federal bench, due largely to Rogan’s leading role in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Rogan served in the U.S. House from 1997 to 2001, and due to his background as a prosecutor, was selected as one of 13 House managers for the impeachment trial.

“U.S. Rep. Rogan was one of the most enthusiastic backers of impeachment — he thought President Clinton had committed high crimes and misdemeanors,” Boxer’s spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz said.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 110th; barbaraboxer; blacklist; clintonimpeachment; democratparty; housemanagers; jamesrogan; obstructionistdems; partisanpolitics; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: XenaLee

“I don’t even recall hearing his name.”

He was one of the major guys during impeachment.


21 posted on 11/30/2007 2:22:05 PM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

What makes this “blue slipping” all the more remarkable are two facts:

1. District-court nominees almost never are blocked. They’re trial court positions; the power largely lies in the Courts of Appeals.

2. Rogan was a “consensus nominee” reported back to the White House by the so-called Parsky Committee, whose members include folks who are put there by Boxer and Feinstein, among others, including Republicans.

If such a nominee is filibustered / blocked-from-advancing, then, all the more reason to scrap such hand-holding committees. They obviously offer little guarantee that a nominee will be treated substantively, or even procedurally, fairly.


22 posted on 11/30/2007 2:27:07 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
Just when did a Senator get veto power over a judicial nominee? There is no authority for this in the constitution, at least as far as I am aware of. Please advise folks if you know better. These people need to be run out of DC on a rail.
23 posted on 11/30/2007 2:28:48 PM PST by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

When will the voters in California wake up and elect somebody else for this Senate seat? Sen. Boxer needs to go home.


24 posted on 11/30/2007 2:28:50 PM PST by kevinm13 (The Main Stream Media is dead! Fox News Channel and Freerepublic Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinm13

Maybe next time the California GOP will actually wage a campaign against her - if they did the last time, I completely missed it.


25 posted on 11/30/2007 2:33:02 PM PST by Right Cal Gal (Remember Billy Dale!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Barbie is tied to the cliton gang..Barbies grandson is a nephew to hillary and a nephew to the other Rodham brother. the fat one and druggie..


26 posted on 11/30/2007 2:35:11 PM PST by JoanneSD (illegals represented without taxation.. Americans taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

What I fail to understand is why 51 Senators cannot just sign (with some sort of notarization, perhaps by a suitable employee of the Clerk Of The Senate) a letter stating something like,

“We, the undersigned Senators, having reviewed the nomination of XXXXXXXXXX to the office of XXXXXXXXXX as set forth in XXXXXXX [formal doc whereby the nomination was sent to the Senate], and having exercised our Advise and Consent power as set forth in the Constitution, hereby formally vote to confirm said nomination.”

If the nominee gets 51 notarized Sens’ sigs, we just swear him in. Let Reid try to get a court to void the confirmation, I dare him.


27 posted on 11/30/2007 2:35:56 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

If a Democrat wins the presidency in ‘08 is there ONE Republican senator who will have the nerve to filibuster every one of their judicial nominees? They’d better. Give them a taste of their own bitter medicine.


28 posted on 11/30/2007 2:37:06 PM PST by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fantom
He is a good man , lets hope bush does not leave him twisting like some of the others...

Would love to say something here about Bush, but I'd take a wait and see attitude about whether or not Bush leaves him twisting in the wind.

I hope Mr. Rogan has a firm grip on the rope he is hanging onto to. My gut tells me he'll need it.

29 posted on 11/30/2007 2:37:21 PM PST by Popman (My doohickey is discombobulated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Living while Republican is THE criminal offense to Speaker Botox.
30 posted on 11/30/2007 2:38:25 PM PST by Jacquerie (Hillary - Our Lady of the Darkside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

I swear that Boxer and Pilosi are ruining all of the advances that the women’s movement have made. A more petty, vindictive, and positively stupid set of females existeth not in the modern world. Bimbo, thy name is senatewoman.


31 posted on 11/30/2007 2:42:10 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

The difference between Dems and GOP. Dems from Deep Blue Staes are tireless fighters for the cause. Republicans from Ruby Red States are too busy in scandals (see Craig and Stevens) to fight for the cause.


32 posted on 11/30/2007 2:42:40 PM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Gun fight: Rogan .357 Mag. Maxine Waters oops, only a knife.
33 posted on 11/30/2007 2:45:25 PM PST by fish hawk (The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
A more petty, vindictive, and positively stupid set of females existeth not in the modern world.
That is a fact.
34 posted on 11/30/2007 2:46:37 PM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee
Funny, but I don’t even recall hearing his name.

He's a good, up-by-the-bootstraps kind of guy.
Definitely not born with a silver spoon in the mouth.

I know of him because I lived west of his district when I was
in California (in Henry Waxman's district!!!).

Rogan's district trended Democratic and the Dems went all-out
to nail him; thus Adam Schiff won in the next election (and
still holds the office, I think).

I suspect virtually all Dems and maybe a few weasely Republicans
would opposse Rogan for any post...too much principle and too
much spine.
35 posted on 11/30/2007 2:47:20 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

I love Jim Rogan. I sent him an email once after I heard an interview he gave regarding a book he wrote a couple of years ago. It seems he grew up very very poor in California. He is a self made man. What was so touching was his personal encounter as a young man with Ronald Reagan and how Reagan changed his whole life in those few moments. Rogan is a true blue conservative and the kind of man the Republican party needs as a leader.

By the way, he graciously answered my email and said he would never be ashamed or regret his part in the Clinton impeachment.


36 posted on 11/30/2007 2:48:28 PM PST by AnnGora (I voted for Pedro, but my dreams did not come true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinm13
When will the voters in California wake up and elect somebody else
for this Senate seat?


I don't know the specifics...but I think there is some sort of
rule set by the Senate that allows a sitting Senator to veto any
nominee for a judgeship...that is nominated from their state.

I don't know how often it's employed or the partisan nature of
it's use.
37 posted on 11/30/2007 2:49:40 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

It’s a common practice referred to as Senatorial Courtesy...usually it’s used to allow the state’s senator to introduce the nominee at his/her Judiciary Committee hearing...not to slam or block the nominee. Boxer is a shameless jackass.


38 posted on 11/30/2007 2:50:30 PM PST by Keith (ANY REPUBLICAN in 2008 -- it's about defeating Mrs. Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
They are divorced now.
39 posted on 11/30/2007 2:51:16 PM PST by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

Boxer cannot block the nomination if the president decides to nominate him. Clearing it with the senators from the state the nominee comes from is a mere formality and not a constitutional requirement.


40 posted on 11/30/2007 2:51:41 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 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.

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