Posted on 08/07/2002 12:06:31 PM PDT by gubamyster
August 7, 2002 9:15 a.m.
Do Senate Democrats really intend to kill the judicial nomination of Priscilla Owen? It's impossible to say for sure. But consider their latest move in the battle over the Texas state supreme court justice who is President Bush's choice for a place on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:
Republicans long complained about committee delays in holding a hearing for Owen, who was nominated on May 9, 2001. After more than a year of waiting, Owen finally got her hearing two weeks ago, on Tuesday, July 23. As is customary at such sessions, Democrats not only asked Owen questions but said they would submit more questions in writing and would make sure she had ample time to answer. "Please understand that on the time, you have the opportunity . . . to expand on any of your answers," committee chairman Patrick Leahy told Owen. "Nobody wants to cut you off. If you have an area where you feel you did not have an opportunity to fully answer, of course you can add that for the record. And I will be submitting other questions."
Sure enough, the questions came. Leahy sent 21 inquiries to Owen on Thursday, July 25. New York Democrat Charles Schumer sent 11 the same day. Wisconsin's Russell Feingold sent 23 on Monday, July 29. And Massachusetts' Edward Kennedy sent 20 on Tuesday, July 30. All in all, there were 75 written questions, and Owen began the work of answering them all.
But on July 30, well before Owen had a chance to finish — it was actually the same day she received the inquiries from Kennedy — Leahy decided the committee had learned enough. He abruptly scheduled a vote on Owen's nomination for the next day, July 31.
Republicans were left scrambling. Democrats had moved slowly on the nomination for more than a year and then, before the hearing process was even completed, they were rushing a vote. "Common courtesy and fundamental fairness would seem to counsel affording [Owen] the opportunity to respond before any substantive review," said Viet Dinh, the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy. "After 439 days without a hearing, what is the drive for scheduling a sudden vote within a few hours of sending her complex follow-up questions she could not possibly complete?"
Leahy's action was even more troubling to Republicans because there is no indication that any Democrats intend to support Owen. The committee is divided between ten Democrats and nine Republicans, which means Owen needs one Democratic vote to win committee approval. So far, no Democrat has expressed support for Owen, and most are thought to be planning to vote against her. Going forward with a vote on July 31 would have been a risky, and possibly fatal, move for Republicans.
But no one believed a vote would actually take place on that day. Under committee rules, either party can ask for — and automatically receive — a one-week delay on a vote. So when Leahy announced the surprise vote, Republicans were forced to request that the nomination be held over until the committee's next meeting, which will not come until after the Senate returns from its August recess. According to the committee's rules, that can be done only once, which meant that Leahy had forced Republicans to "burn their hold" — that is, to use their only means to hold up the vote. When the Senate returns and Leahy schedules another vote on Owen, probably in early September, Republicans will be powerless to delay it, whether they have the votes or not.
It was not exactly a good-faith tactic from the chairman who had promised to accommodate Owen's desire to answer all the questions put to her. But it was the kind of hardball political maneuvering that sometimes characterizes judicial confirmation battles, and it will make it easier for Democrats to kill the nomination, if that is what they intend to do. If, for example, Democrats decide to vote Owen down but do not want to attract lots of news coverage, they might schedule the vote for a particularly newsy day, knowing the headlines will likely be dominated by other stories. The Senate's first week back in session is likely to be taken up with homeland security issues, and the committee might end up voting on a day when those stories fill the news.
The delayed vote controversy also gives Democrats a new talking point to use against the GOP. If they are asked about confirmation delays, Leahy and his party will be able to dismiss Republican complaints by saying: We were ready to hold a vote on Priscilla Owen, and Republicans postponed it! Who's really responsible for the delays here?
All that has left the White House trying furiously to find a Democrat willing to vote for Owen. "We are working very, very hard," says one administration source, "and exploring all available options." Two of those options appear to be Feingold and his fellow Wisconsin Democrat and Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. Not long after the hearing, President Bush invited the two senators to the White House for meetings to discuss Owen. The meetings are said to have gone well, but neither man has said he will support Owen. And that leaves administration officials nervously sorting out what they can do to save the nomination. "We have a month left," says one, sounding hopeful but not terribly confident
The main reason is because she opposes killing unborn children.
This is yet more reason that the GOP is increasingly percieved as the party of wimps. We supposedly have a leadership on the Hill that is supposed to be in the driver's seat, and can't get one nomination through the Senate. And rather than call the Democrats on their stunts, the GOP leadership (and I use the term loosely) sits back and twiddles their collective thumbs.
Is there any wonder that they keep catching grief from everyone else out there?
The new tone should be back-door meetings with Daschle and Gephardt, with threats of retaliation. Screw the DemocRAT bastards!
It was not exactly a good-faith tactic from the chairman
Whoa! Look out! Leahy’s gonna incure the wrath of Trent Lott with this hardball tactic.
I can hear Trent now:
Give me an ‘N’!
Give me an ‘O’!
Give me an ‘T’!
Give me an ‘N’!
Give me an ‘I’!
Give me an ‘C’!
Give me an ‘E’!
What does it spell?
NOT NICE!
NOT NICE! That was SO NOT NICE!
GO TEAM!!
That's a good question. When she first went up before the committee, the Republicans were saying they knew it would be a fight, but they were "very well prepared", and in a much better position to fight than in Pickering's case. We'll see......
"The main reason is because she opposes killing unborn children."
Actually, it's worse than that...Judge Owen simply ruled that it is not un-Constitutional to require that parents be notified when their under-aged daughters are planning on aborting an unborn child. The RATS are at the mercy of the most radical Leftists in their caucus, and it'll cost them in November if the GOP has the cajones to fight these anti-American Socialists toe-to-toe!!
FReegards...MUD
It totally captures the essence of that prissy panzy - Lott!
If these sheep (Rep. Senators) AND Dubya don't start playing hardball pretty soon, they will squander any pretense of leadership they had after the election.
Can you do that with judicial nominees?
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.