Bush Declares Judiciary 'Crisis'

The Associated Press | Friday, May 3, 2002; 11:56 AM | The Associated Press

[Lazamataz]

I could endanger the social security trust fund

Besides, America has forgiven him. Just let's everybody take a deep breath, and move on.

[houston1]

Yes, it's business as usual, and it's what the Republicans should have expected would happen when the tables were turned, after they stalled Clinton's nominees for the last 2 years of his term. If they had confirmed or at least given hearings to his nominees, they would now have the high ground, and could legitimately hammer the Dems on this issue. What can they say now? "it's all right when we do it to your guy, but now it's unfair when you do it to our guy" They don't really have a leg to stand on with this argument.

[Bonaparte]

Amen.

It's an outrage that AP and other purported "news" services routinely insert such blatantly partisan editorializing into these articles.

[sultan88]

...did not mention...

Beautiful analysis bump!!

[cogitator]

Late administration appointees rarely get confirmed.

Yeah, but if you read that one paragraph, it indicated that George Bush Sr. had considerably more success with last-year, late-term nominations than Clinton. (Probably because the Republicans in Congress were tired of letting Clinton mess with them and decided to just wait and see what happened with the election.)

[cogitator]

What can they say now? "it's all right when we do it to your guy, but now it's unfair when you do it to our guy" They don't really have a leg to stand on with this argument.

I disagree; I think they do have a leg to stand on with this argument because Leahy's tactics and penchant are more obvious and public than the holds that were being put on the nominations at the end of Clinton's term. Plus, didn't the "shared power" rules that occurred when there was still a 50-50 split (before the Jeffords jump) put some restrictions on the "hold" process, which was basically a secret ballot way that any Senator could block a nomination indefinitely? I seem to remember that, but it's very hazy.* If I am remembering correctly, the restrictions on that prerogative have made Leahy's block-and-stall more obvious and clearly more deliberate.

*Something about "blue slips"? Ring a bell anyone?

[MEGoody]

The Republicans did not do to Clinton what the Demheads are doing to Bush re: confirming judges. The liberals are so worried about keeping the right to kill babies as they exit the womb, they'd rather see persons who have been charged with a crime denied their right to a speedy trial than to pass through a judge who might, some day, maybe, hand down an opinion they wouldn't agree with. (On the other hand, perhaps they feel really close to criminals because of former prez Clinton and are hoping the criminals will simply be set free. After all, there are no judges to carry out justice.)

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Good groundwork for a large number of recess appointments.

[My2Cents]

This is really about who wins the Senate in November. But cutting through the fog and declaring the truth that Democrats obstruct court appointment for political purposes is a legitimate issue for the Senate elections in November.

[ncpastor]

I second the notion to send this list to the AP. What a lot of nerve for the writer to stick in that editorial comment. So typical...

[homeschool mama]

PING

[BibChr]

This is the slimy way they slant the news, then blink innocently and say "Biased? Us? We're shocked!"

The other way is that they'll spend a sentence on the statement (by Bush, or whoever), then quote at length five sources opposed. See? All objective. No editorializing there.

Dan

[mtngrl@vrwc]

Democrats have objected to the nominees on many grounds, including their contention that Bush's candidates tend to be conservative.

Imagine that! Bush, a conservative, nominating conservative candidates for these openings!

[homeschool mama]

Makes ya wonder, huh?

[Revel]

If GW and Ashcroft would quit obstructing Justice in the case of the Clinton's among others than I might have some faith in those he is trying to appoint. Until then I just have to wonder.

[SunStar]

If GW and Ashcroft would quit obstructing Justice in the case of the Clinton's among others than I might have some faith in those he is trying to appoint. Until then I just have to wonder.

It wouldn't be good for the nation to try the Clintons at this time... Sorry that I have to be the one to say it.

Bush wants to move forward, not dwell in the past. The GOP-controlled senate from 1994-2001 had AMPLE time to take Clinton down. They failed to do so -- end of story.

[anniegetyourgun]

Re #5 - AMEN

[McLynnan]

I love the way he pointed his finger right at the Senate. Little Tommy's moderate and conservative constituents aren't going to look too kindly on his obstructionist tactics.

[NordP]

Yeah, this is just another example of when the Dems get called to action, they decide not to show up.

Now, the Bush Babes are always there when you need 'em!

[NordP]

Wouldn't it just be fun to have a chance to pay Clinton back for what HE did to America? Answer: Yes.