Posted on 04/03/2008 5:56:02 AM PDT by ZGuy
It's not every day that a Member of the world's greatest deliberative body stops by to chat about his plans "to close the Senate down." Especially if his name is Arlen Specter. But the Pennsylvania Republican tells us he's concluded that this is the only way to prod Democrats to vote on, or even hold confirmation hearings on, President Bush's appeals-court nominees.
A look at the numbers explains why the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is spitting mad. In the last two years of Bill Clinton's Administration, when Mr. Specter was in the chairman's seat, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed 15 appellate court nominees. (See the nearby table.)
Now, more than halfway through Mr. Bush's final two years, Chairman Patrick Leahy isn't returning the Constitutional courtesy. The Democratic Senate has confirmed a mere six nominees with no plans in sight to move the remaining 11 forward. Judicial nominees rarely are confirmed in the final months of a President's second term, so the clock is running out. Democrats figure they'll retake the White House in November, and they don't mind leaving the courts short-handed for another year or two as they stall for liberal nominees.
Mr. Specter says he has recommended that Republicans "go full steam ahead" until Democrats agree to hold confirmation votes. He has in mind a series of procedural stalls that would make it next to impossible for the Senate to get anything done. These could include refusing to accept the usual unanimous consent motion to have the previous day's deliberations entered into the official record without a formal reading, a process that would take hours. So would reading the text of many bills, which can run to hundreds of pages.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
So tell me again why Republicans, especially McCain, think they should go all out to promote unity with Democrats ?
Specter has taken 7 years to get to this point ?
Wasn’t Specter a gang of 14 member?
Seriously the Senate should be forced to vote on Presidential nominations, reject them if you want but you must vote. I support the use of the US Army to further this goal.
The democrats are marxists in tactics, among other things.
Recall, too, that GWB brought a new tone to Washington, 2001.
[And it has bitten him in the rear at every chance it has had.]
Excellent idea!
“But the Pennsylvania RINO...”
There, fixed.
Specter has taken 7 years to get to this point ?
The democrats used the unprecedented tactic of filibustering W's appellate court nominees when they were in the minority and the pubbies were in control; why did Arlene think the dems would suddenly become more conciliatory toward W's nominees when they had the majority. What an idiot, and with nobody to blame but himself for the current situation.
No huh? Good for him.
Arlen Specter is PATHETIC.
I’ts gotten to be the norm in the last year of a presidency. Democrats delayed acting on Bush, Senior’s appointments in the hopes that a Democrat would win. Republicans refused to approve Clinton appointments for the same reason. Now Democrats are back in the driver’s seat for 2008. Neither side is in any position to get all huffy over it happening again.
I agree about Specter but...forcing a vote on the president’s judicial nominees is a good thing and shutting down the Senate is a good thing. I see this as a win-win. Go for it Arlen...you stupid scottish twit.
More evidence that judgeships are political appointments and should not, therefore, be lifetime appointments. There is nothing in the constitution that requires any federal judge to have an automatic lifetime tenure.
Art3,Sec1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..."
The above does not say that they have lifetime tenure. It says they will hold their Offices during good behavior. It doesn't even say that their tenure is lifetime even if they demonstrate 'good behavior.'
The definition of the Courts are left up to Congress. They define them: Art3,Sec1 - "inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
They can limit them in any way Congress so chooses:
the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It is time to remove lifetime tenure from political appointees.
So what do you think that means if it doesn't mean lifetime tenure?
Really?
In the final two years of GHW Bush's term, democrats confirmed 20 of Bush's appellate court appointments, up from the 17 of Reagan's appointments in his final two years. Republicans confirmed 15 of clinton's appointments to the appellate court in his final two years, and they did not obstruct most of his appellate court appointments during his first 6 years like the dems have with W. To suggest that this is just payback for the GOP senate payback for the previous dem stalling is simply ignoring the available data.
Yes, really. In Clinton's last two years the Republicans approved fewer than half his nominees, and the time from appointment to confirmation for those that were approved averaged 245 days. Trent Lott was quoted as saying that if he had any regrets on the slow speed of judicial appointments it was that he had probably moved too many nominees through already. And in that the GOP was only utilizing the same slow down tactics that the Democrats had imposed on Bush Senior's appointments in 1991-1992. Now the Democrats are repeating the act, and Bush will be lucky to get half his appointments through this year. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he gets not a one approved. After all, the Democrats figure they've got a good chance at the White House in November and why waste life-time judicial appointments on Republicans?
I'm not defending their actions or justifying them, merely pointing out that that's the game both sides play. For either side to complain about it is sheer hypocrisy.
I think it means that they will lose their offices if they engage in bad behavior.
The nature of their offices and the regulations binding them were PREVIOUSLY given to Congress to make. Therefore, they are for Congress to define. As the Constitution says, “Congress gets to ‘ordain and ESTABLISH’ them.”
Therefore, the only court in which one can argue for a lifetime appointment is the Supreme Court itself. Even the SCOTUS, though, is subject to “good behavior” exceptions.
“Good behavior” can be interpreted as “good” in a variety of ways. It certainly means “legal” behavior. It also might mean: sane, industrious, or fair.
In other words, even a Scotus judge cannot remain on the bench if he is, “insane, lazy, or prejudiced.” It is not necessarily illegal to be insane, lazy, or prejudiced.
Heck. Right now we'd be celebrating if they'd move GWB's nominations in 245 days instead of years.
And yet somehow the chart above shows that Clinton got 15 judges approved.
Is the chart wrong, or are you?
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.