This is such an important point that is getting little discussion or airplay. I've yet to read about this, other than here on the BBS. I would think this would get at least a blurb and a little more media reporting from a major news outlet.
I can't believe he would actually say that since it's so easy to look it up and see that it isn't true. But I didn't hear him say it, so I don't know that he did (not that I'm not willing to take RM95's word for it).
They need to speed up that process, apparently. Estrada was nominated on May 9, 2001. I assume, too, that the ability to force a vote within two weeks would come after the nomination has left committee and the nominee is presented to the full Senate for a vote after hearings and whatnot. At which point, any background check would have already been long done.
No it wouldn't. If this was about Estrada, they'd make it about Estrada instead of making it about Estrada and about Owen and about Kuhl. And I don't recall any other nominees having to turn over the notes of their decision-making process to the Senate before being able to get a vote up or down (because his hearing has already happened). Nor do I recall any confidential material ever being turned over in previous confirmation cases. Let's assume that whatever material the Dems want is turned over, will a vote then immediately be scheduled? Or will they again fillibuster to prevent a vote? Are you actually claiming that the fillibuster would stop and a vote immediately taken if only the Dems got to read this material? Or do you think they might well want another hearing in order to bring these confidential materials to the public and grill Mr. Estrada on them? If that's the case, then they don't just want the materials, they want yet another hearing, probably in an effort to find something to bring Estrada down. I assume they'll be asking for his video rental records next.
That figure did seem high (all but 2 confirmed), but he did say it... From CNN/Inside Politics If Daschle's numbers are correct and I assume they are since he was quoted on the Senate floor, Bush deserves the headache he has created for himself and the Republican party.
Yes. Take his word for it instead of looking it up. So, if there are more than two nominees who have not been confirmed, does Daschle then deserve something bad because he's incorrect? Well, let's look at the list: Miguel Estrada, nominated, yet to be confirmed Priscilla Owen, nominated, yet to be confirmed Carolyn Kuhl, nominated, yet to be confirmed John Roberts, nominated, yet to be confirmed Terrence William Boyle, nominated, yet to be confirmed Richard Wesley, nominated, yet to be confirmed Michael Chertoff, nominated, yet to be confirmed Allyson Duncan, nominated, yet to be confirmed Claude Allen, nominated, yet to be confirmed Charles Pickering, nominated, yet to be confirmed David McKeague, nominated, yet to be confirmed Susan Nielson, nominated, yet to be confirmed Henry Saad, nominated, yet to be confirmed Richard Griffin, nominated, yet to be confirmed Steven Colloton, nominated, yet to be confirmed Carlos Bea, nominated, yet to be confirmed Consuello Callahan, nominated, yet to be confirmed Wlliam H. Pryor, nominated, yet to be confirmed Scott Coogler, nominated, yet to be confirmed J. Leon Holmes, nominated, yet to be confirmed David Campbell, nominated, yet to be confirmed Mark Kravitz, nominated, yet to be confirmed Frederick Rohlfing, nominated, yet to be confirmed Mark Filip, nominated, yet to be confirmed Maurice S. Hicks, nominated, yet to be confirmed Patricia Minaldi, nominated, yet to be confirmed John Woodcock, nominated, yet to be confirmed And there are more, but I'm tired of typing them out. Clearly, more than TWO people have been nominated for the bench and not yet been confirmed.
Daschle is obviously playing with the numbers. I wonder why more people aren't pushing him to account for his quote? From Patrick Leahy's site and of course there is a little back patting: U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY Judicial Nominations Update (1/23/03) FINAL Numbers For 107th Congress After Senate Confirmed 100th Bush Judicial Nominee __________________________ “WASHINGTON -- The Senate quit for the year Wednesday having confirmed 72 new judges appointed by President Bush, the best one-year record since 1994 for White House judicial nominees.” – Los Angeles Times, Thurs., Nov. 21, 2002 (100 in all for the six months of Democratic control in 2001 and for 2002) _______________________ AT-A-GLANCE FACTS ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS -- [FINAL for 107th Congress; numbers used are for District and Circuit Courts and for nominees to those courts (does not include the one nomination to the Trade Court)] NOMINATIONS SUBMITTED: President Bush in the 107th Congress submitted 130 District Court (98) and Circuit Court (32) nominations, some only late in the session. Early in President George W. Bush’s term, in a major departure from the practice followed by previous presidents, the White House front-loaded the pipeline with Circuit Court nominations, many of them controversial. At the time, Administration officials said their goal was to get as many ideologically chosen Circuit Court picks on the Senate’s plate as early as possible, in case the Senate changed hands, which it later did. HEARINGS: The Judiciary Committee in the 107th Congress had hearings on 103 of the 114 eligible for hearings out of the 130 District and Circuit Court nominations made. Of the 27 who did not have hearings, only 11 had completed files and were eligible for hearings (ABA peer-review reports, blue slips returned) by the time Congress adjourned. The Judiciary Committee therefore had hearings on 90 percent of judicial nominees who were eligible for hearings. COMMITTEE VOTES AND CONFIRMATIONS: In the 17 months of Democratic control of the Judiciary Committee, the committee has voted on 102 judicial nominations and approved 100 (the two not approved due to their records of activism on the bench were Charles Pickering Sr., to the 5th Circuit, and Priscilla Owen, also to the 5th Circuit). THE SENATE IN THE 107TH CONGRESS CONFIRMED ALL 100, with none remaining on the Senate calendar. VACANCIES: There currently (as of 1/23/03) are 61 judicial vacancies on the District and Circuit Courts (25 Circuit, 36 District). Democrats inherited 110 vacancies at the time of the Senate reorganization in July 2001, after the Senate changeover. Since then there have been another 50 vacancies, for a total of 160 vacancies that the Judiciary Committee has worked steadily to fill. By the time the Senate adjourned President Bush had not made nominations for almost half of the (then) 59 vacancies (29 lacked nominees). (The elevation of Judge Shedd fills a Circuit Court vacancy but also simultaneously created a new District Court vacancy.) The White House took more than a year to name 30 of the President’s judicial nominees. AVERAGE TIME FROM NOMINATION TO CONFIRMATION: The Republican record: 1999-2000 -- 375 days on average (for those who were confirmed; more than half of Circuit Court nominees in these years were not confirmed). The Democratic record: 2001-2002 – 150 days on average (even though the ABA vetting process is now on the Senate’s clock, instead of on the White House’s clock, as it was in previous administrations). YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISONS: Republican Control, 1995-2000: 1995: 56 confirmed (45 district, 11 circuit) 1996: 17 (17 district, 0 circuit) 1997: 36 (29 district, 7 circuit) 1998: 64 (51 district, 13 circuit) 1999: 33 (26 district, 7 circuit) 2000: 39 (31 district, 8 circuit) Democratic Control: (half of 2001, all of 2002) 2001 (July-Dec.): 28 (23 district, 5 circuit) 2002: 72 (60 district, 12 circuit) NON-JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS APPROVED BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE UNDER DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP: 25, to Justice Department positions; 84, as U.S. Attorneys; 75, as U.S. Marshals; 1, to other courts (an aide to Sen. Hatch, to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims). The President still has not yet made nominations to all open U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal positions.
