Tigermike 3,035 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 June 4, 2005Judicial Appointments & 'Extraordinary Circumstances' By Jon Kyl For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate. In the last session of Congress, however, the Democratic leadership broke with this tradition, routinely filibustering (requiring a 60-vote supermajority to end debate) 10 of President Bush's nominees to appellate courts and threatening the same treatment of six more. As a result, President Bush had fewer circuit court nominees confirmed in his first term than any president in modern times. The effect was not only to deny these nominees a confirmation vote, but also to prevent the Senate from exercising its constitutional obligation to vote. Last month, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) planned to break this obstructionist deadlock by restoring the tradition of voting on all nominees. Although this was characterized in near-apocalyptic terms by opponents, similar parliamentary steps were taken four times by former Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) during his tenure as majority leader in the 1970s and 80s. At the last minute, a group of 14 senators precluded Sen. Frist's plans to invoke what some have taken to calling the "Byrd option," by agreeing to move forward with three long-stalled judicial nominations along with a promise that others would not be obstructed except under undefined "extraordinary circumstances." This group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats effectively took control of the process by denying the Majority Leader the votes he needed for the "Byrd option," but also denying Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) the votes he would need to continue filibustering. Shortly afterward, the Senate confirmed Judge Priscilla Owen of Texas to the 5th Circuit Court. One of the first filibuster victims, she had languished for more than four years awaiting a vote. This week should see the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, both of whom have waited two years for their votes. Other qualified nominees like Henry Saad, Terrence Boyle, and William Myers may have to continue to wait. The 14-senator agreement did not guarantee them votes. Whether the agreement holds will, obviously, depend on how it is implemented. Although one hopes for a return to the tradition of allowing up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees, signs are not encouraging; no sooner had Judge Owen been confirmed than the Democrats filibustered the nomination of John Bolton to represent the United States at the United Nations. While his was not a judicial position, it had been hoped that all of the expressions of goodwill that accompanied the judicial agreement might carry over to other nominations as well. Apparently not. Nonetheless, if there are no more judicial filibusters, the matter is resolved, at least for now. But if the minority party resumes filibustering in circumstances that some of the seven majority party signatories to the agreement do not agree are "extraordinary," then Majority Leader Bill Frist could exercise the "Byrd option" to ensure that votes occur. In that event, I would support restoring the 200-year-plus precedent in the Senate that allows up-or-down votes on judicial nominees who have majority support. The whole matter could arise again very quickly, given the increasing speculation that Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist may soon announce his retirement. If he does, and his replacement's nomination is filibustered, we'll be right back where we started. One more thing: to those who say the Senate should quit wasting its time bickering over judicial nominees and get on to "more important business," I say, we can, and should, do both. Given the increasing role that the courts play in our society today, the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide "advise and consent" on presidential nominations is important business. Senator Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...-6_4_05_JK.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate. See, there's that disclaimer that the republicans will always have to throw in. They feel like that makes the difference. Somehow, in Kyl's world, one Senator putting an anonymous hold on a nominee to keep him or her from even getting a hearing is fine but at least 41 Senators filibustering one is...wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,035 Posted June 4, 2005 Author Share Posted June 4, 2005 For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate. See, there's that disclaimer that the republicans will always have to throw in. They feel like that makes the difference. Somehow, in Kyl's world, one Senator putting an anonymous hold on a nominee to keep him or her from even getting a hearing is fine but at least 41 Senators filibustering one is...wrong. 162318[/snapback] See you continuously bring up that incident, but never without prompting tell whether or not the judge you are referring to had an up and down vote. Did he/she? Inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate. See, there's that disclaimer that the republicans will always have to throw in. They feel like that makes the difference. Somehow, in Kyl's world, one Senator putting an anonymous hold on a nominee to keep him or her from even getting a hearing is fine but at least 41 Senators filibustering one is...wrong. 162318[/snapback] See you continuously bring up that incident, but never without prompting tell whether or not the judge you are referring to had an up and down vote. Did he/she? Inquiring minds want to know. 162321[/snapback] Inquiring minds would already know. Several did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,035 Posted June 4, 2005 Author Share Posted June 4, 2005 For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate. See, there's that disclaimer that the republicans will always have to throw in. They feel like that makes the difference. Somehow, in Kyl's world, one Senator putting an anonymous hold on a nominee to keep him or her from even getting a hearing is fine but at least 41 Senators filibustering one is...wrong. 162318[/snapback] See you continuously bring up that incident, but never without prompting tell whether or not the judge you are referring to had an up and down vote. Did he/she? Inquiring minds want to know. 162321[/snapback] Inquiring minds would already know. Several did not. 162324[/snapback] And those were? Got a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit), Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit). LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,035 Posted June 5, 2005 Author Share Posted June 5, 2005 H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit), Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).LINK 162329[/snapback] Looks like a bunch of left wing extremists to me, voted against because of their "deeply held personal beliefs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit), Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).LINK 162329[/snapback] Looks like a bunch of left wing extremists to me, voted against because of their "deeply held personal beliefs." 162399[/snapback] Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit), Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).LINK 162329[/snapback] Looks like a bunch of left wing extremists to me, voted against because of their "deeply held personal beliefs." 162399[/snapback] I'm just impressed with how quickly you were able to research each one of them and reach a well-thought out conclusion on each one of them as individuals. So you're saying if a Sentor views a nominee as an extremist, he can "obstruct." Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Looks like a bunch of left wing extremists to me, voted against because of their "deeply held personal beliefs." 162399[/snapback] Could well be. So does that mean the cherished up-or-down vote is only for the judges you like, when your party is in power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,035 Posted June 6, 2005 Author Share Posted June 6, 2005 H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit), Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit), Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).LINK 162329[/snapback] Looks like a bunch of left wing extremists to me, voted against because of their "deeply held personal beliefs." 162399[/snapback] I'm just impressed with how quickly you were able to research each one of them and reach a well-thought out conclusion on each one of them as individuals. So you're saying if a Sentor views a nominee as an extremist, he can "obstruct." Okay. 162441[/snapback] There was no need for me to do any research whatsoever was there. The dems have been doing it and you have been completely OK with it. I have heard so often from you two that the dems are right to do what they did, I only assumed it was right for those nominees as well. Are you implying that it wasn't? Looks like a bunch of left wing extremists to me, voted against because of their "deeply held personal beliefs." 162399[/snapback] Could well be. So does that mean the cherished up-or-down vote is only for the judges you like, when your party is in power? 162455[/snapback] No it only means I choose to use the same language the dems were using. Since the dems are always correct in all they do, I assumed their language and tactics were correct. Are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Bill Pryor was just appointed. Oh , it has to be hard to be a democrat. Howard Dean' probably foaming at the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.