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

Skip to comments.

Schumer Says Bush's Nominees Should Have to Persuade Senators to Give Them Judgeships
TBO.com ^ | 9/04/01 | Jesse J. Holland

Posted on 09/04/2001 4:15:03 PM PDT by kattracks

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's judicial nominees should have to fight to get lifetime federal judgeships instead of senators having to find reasons to keep them off the federal bench once they're nominated, a top Judiciary Committee Democrat said Tuesday.

"Given the stakes at hand, it makes sense that the burden should rest with the nominees," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., head of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on judges. "We require parties who appear before a court to prove their case. It is not unreasonable to ask those who come before the Senate seeking a lifetime appointment to the federal bench to do the same."

Conservatives immediately accused Schumer of trying to find ways to keep Bush's nominees from being confirmed in the Democrat-controlled Senate by changing the traditional deference senators give most presidential nominees.

"Democrats want an excuse to vote against a qualified nominee if he doesn't share their politics," said Thomas Jipping, director of the Free Congress Foundation's Judicial Selection Monitoring Project. "In advocating a shifting of the burden of proof, Democrats want an excuse to vote against a qualified nominee who doesn't answer their political questions."

The GOP has been complaining about the pace of approval of judicial nominations under the Democrat-controlled Senate. There are at least 107 vacancies in the federal court system, and there are 44 judicial nominations pending.

Only four judges have been confirmed by the Senate this year.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the subcommittee said he could see that very thing happening.

"The Democrats could say that they would vote against a nominee if he answers a question in a manner that shows he is conservative," he said. "On the other hand, the Democrats could say they would vote against a nominee if he refuses to answer their questions because he hasn't borne his burden."

Schumer, who held a hearing to explore whether nominees should have to prove they're worthy to get a lifetime judgeship, said forcing candidates to defend their nominations would net more qualified judges.

"Imagine a job interview where you walk in and it's up to the interviewer to either automatically hire you or find something in your past that disqualifies you," Schumer said. "Provided you sit there with your mouth shut, or at the most, voice meaningless platitudes, and as long as there's no major skeleton in your closet, you're a shoo-in for the job. Is that the best way to find the best person for the job? Of course not."

Republicans disagreed. "The most significant burden born by a candidate for a judgeship is to convince the president that he or she is the best person for the job," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Judiciary Committee's top Republican.

Added Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ken.: If nominees "are men and women of integrity, are qualified, have a judicial temperament, and will follow the Constitution and statutes as they are written and intended, then we should confirm them."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
""We require parties who appear before a court to prove their case. It is not unreasonable to ask those who come before the Senate seeking a lifetime appointment to the federal bench to do the same." "

You know what, Chuckie? I can actually agree with that............on principle.

HOWEVER...........

I find it interesting that you didn't give a flying fiddler's damn about such things during the Clinton administration. Check with your fellow NY Senator on that one. Oh yes.......and remember this, Chuck: What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so think twice about what this means in a Republican-controlled Congress with a, say, Democratic President.

2 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Senator Schumer should bear the burden of proving he is capable of being fair and impartial. No wait, that would be impossible for this flaming liberal who has already "pre-judged" Bush nominees.
3 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Memo to Chuckie: Putting aside the fact that you are a disgrace and intellectually bankrupt, your comments will go unnoticed by the sheeple as long as Condidit is the face of your party. Sorry Charlie...
5 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
No Schumuckie, the best way to find the best person for the job it to look at his/her record. Not the color of his/her skin, or their beliefs, but their past record.

Imagine a job interview where you walk in and the interviewer doesn't care about your qualifications and past record, but only what color you are and what your beliefs are concerning abortion.

6 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Another good reason for those states that went for Bush to vote their Democrat senators right out of office.
7 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Zoey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Schumer is amongest the worst of the worst of the corrupt and cowardly senate. He had his chance to do the right thing in the congressional judiciary committee but did his damnest to delay it's vote on Clintons's impeachment. Given another chance to do the right thing as a house member he again did the wrong thing by voting to let Clinton slide If that was not bad enough he had a vote again in the Senate and of course voted for the side of evil. Just the mention of his foul name fills me with utter disgust.
8 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Democrats' fanatical commitment to uphold the travesty of Roe v. Wade is what has turned the party into a pack of rogues. They don't seem to realize that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, most states could and would retain legal abortion in the first trimester.
9 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Schumuckie

I love the name.

10 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Random Access
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Senate has the power of advice and consent, not selection of judges, which the Constitution places with the President. They should stick to the question of whether a canidate is qualified and wether the canidate is disqualified by virtue of some disqualifying factor, such as being a pedophile, an intern diddler, swindler or something of that nature (even being a Democrat is not a disqualification per se). What Chuckie the Cereal Killer wants to do is select the judges himself based on his political litmus test of constitutes the "best person for the job". One that I'm afraid would not bode well for the Bill of Rights, and not just the 2nd either. If Chuckles was picking judges, only the 3rd amendment, might, be safe... maybe.
11 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nateman
Just the mention of his foul name fills me with utter disgust.

Bad as that is, the actual sight of old Lizard Face, often prompts me to a take quick trip to the head, just in case the contents of my turning stomach decide to break free, one way or the other.

12 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Schumer is a prick. I hope that President Bush starts with recess appointments as soon as possible.
13 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Pete53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
shumer wants some money for his vote
14 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linn37
Schumer is trying to out Hillary, Hillary.
15 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The New York senator is attempting to sound like a big-shot. Why? Because he's essentially being ignored.

Chuckles Schumer, Constitution-hater extraordinaire, is so overshadowed by his JUNIOR Senator that he must say some stupid things once in a while to get noticed by the media. He is obviously so green with penis envy of Hitlery that his modus operandi will certainly be to make himself as obnoxious as possible so that he will get at least a little press.

16 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Shummer the socialist is forgetting that what goes around comes around. They will lose the Senate in the next election and it will be are turn.
17 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by hickori (hickori@101link.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hickori
Senator Putzhead should just get back on that "Welcome to Harlem" stage with Impeached Billy and keep dancing with Charlie Rangle. Honestly, how do NY Freepers restrain themselves from just sticking their heads in an oven with Hillary & Chuckie as their senators? I couldn't do it!
18 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by dukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
When JFK was Pres., and his brother AG, the ABA protested this Dem. administration's liberal judicial appointments.

I guess Clinton really did try to emulate his hero in more ways than the adultery.



The Detroit News
February 20, 1962

Bar Hits Kennedy on Judges
1-Party Bench" Ignores GOP, Lawyer Says

Chicago, Feb. 20- President Kennedy was accused yesterday of naming too many Democrats to the federal bench.

The chairman of an American Bar Association committee expressed "disappointment" that of the 85 nominations for federal judgeships not one was a Republican.

Bernard G. Segal, head of the federal judiciary committee, told the association's house of delegates meeting here:

"When the President took office, the party affiliation of federal judges was just about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats for the first time in more than a generation. Now, imbalance has once again set in."

Segal said his committee also was concerned because the 68 persons thus far confirmed for judgeships, seven received "not qualified" from the committee in reports to Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy.

A few moments after Segal ended his talk, Byron L. White, deputy U.S. attorney general, made an unscheduled appearance and said the central question in choosing judges "is ability and not politics."

19 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

20 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 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