GOP Frustrated by Dem Filibusters May Sue Fri May 2, By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Stymied now on two of President Bush (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees, Republicans are considering an attempt to change Senate rules or suing to ban judicial filibusters, even against long odds. "It certainly could be taken to court," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said after Democrats on Thursday successfully blocked Texas Judge Priscilla Owen from getting a federal appeals court seat. The discussions reflect frustration among majority Republicans that Democrats have been able to sidestep Bush's popularity and undermine one of his platforms: putting more conservatives in key judgeships. Bush called the Owen filibuster "shameful" and "unfair to this good woman and unfaithful to the Senate's own obligations." "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to exercise its advice and consent function and hold up or down votes on all judicial nominees within a reasonable time after nomination," he said in a statement. Democrats are filibustering two nominees — Owen and Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada — and have promised more if divisive Bush nominees come to the Senate floor. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster and Democrats showed Thursday with a 52-44 vote that they had a solid enough bloc to keep Owen off the bench. They say they will win again on Monday when Republicans try for the fifth time to force Estrada through. "History will look kindly on us for doing so," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., "because never has a president of the United States been more ideological in his selection of judges." The White House, GOP senators and advocates aides have been saying for months that they think filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional, but to test that theory someone would have to sue. Republicans admit that they've thought about it. "One option that has been floated is the idea of a lawsuit," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas on Wednesday. Frist said he didn't know whether a lawsuit would be the right way to go. "I can't predict whether that will be done or not, but ultimately I think the United States Senate will decide for itself" how to solve the problem, he told reporters. Some observers say resorting to a lawsuit to ban filibusters would be futile. "Even the thought that the courts would get involved in Senate business is mind-boggling," said Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who studies the federal appellate nomination process. "If this isn't a separation of powers issue, what is?" Cornyn, a former Texas judge himself, agreed. "Another branch of the government — the judiciary — cannot come in and tell Congress how it must function." Frist and other Republicans are also looking at changing the Senate rules to eliminate filibusters of judicial nominees. Cornyn's Senate Judiciary subcommittee plans a whole hearing next week called "Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a majority is denied its right to consent" to explore the issue and plans to change the nomination process. "If filibusters are going to be made part of the judicial nominee process, I think you will see increasing discussion over whether the rules should be changed," Frist said. The fact that the GOP's November takeover of the Senate has not made it any easier for Bush's appellate nominees to get confirmed only stokes Republican fury. Democrats last year voted down Owen and Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering in committee and didn't hold hearings for others. The U.S. Appeals Courts are some of the most important courts in America, one step below the Supreme Court and deciding most of the nation's law. Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah — who is on the front line of the judicial battles — finally boiled over a Wednesday hearing. Schumer was strongly questioning appellate nominee John Roberts at his second hearing for his nomination for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, when Hatch finally tired of the questions. "Some I totally disagree with," Hatch said. "Some I think are dumb ... questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true." No comment
The Repubs should give the Dems a taste of their own medicine and scream RACISM is the reason for the Estrada filibuster and SEXISM is the reason for the Owen filibuster. But they won't. "divisive Bush nominees". Nice un-biased article...
I would sure like to see more Conservatives appointed to the Federal Courts, but I think the Republicans are being extremely short-sighted in this case. Our founding fathers devised a government of check and balances so a slim majority of citizens could not impose their will upon the country. One day, the Democrats will hold the slim majority, and any power grabs by the Republicans that are successful today will come back to haunt them. The Democrats are being equally short-sighted, because when the Democrats do regain power (next decade?), then the Republicans will play the fillibuster game with equal gusto. It seems to me that these Senators need to compromise and get some damn work done.
Damn, this sounds familier. I swear, if I didn't know any better, I'd say this happened for eight years during a previous adminsitration. I do think the Dems are being a little too stubborn though. Some comprimise would be nice. Heath is right, all this is doing is setting up a pattern that is gonna continue for a long time.
I'm just gonna say a little prayer every night that a Democrat is President when O'Connor and Rehnquist retire... but that's just me.
Correct me if I am wrong Max (I understand that you are in the legal profession according to Timing), but isn't the fillibustering of a Federal Judge appointee unprecedented?
i am a lawyer...i do not know if it's unprecedented. but it's certainly quite rare... the idea here is that you elect a president...you give him the power to make appointments...those appointments aren't to be challenged on idealogical grounds, but rather on grounds of whether or not the candidate is qualified. here, we have congressmen saying, "i don't like his view on this issue...so he's not fit to be a federal judge....and i'm gonna use a procedural delay to make sure it doesn't happen." that's outrageous. that's politicizing the courts in a whole new way.
Sometimes you just have to do whatever you can to stop something that you feel is an injustice to the country even if it means stretching the rules. If in fact they are actually stretching the rules. If you would like to break down the legal aspects of the situation Max I will certainly take in what you have to say.
Here's something from a fox news article. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31601,00.html You can't trust Fox though, they must have made this up. Only Democrats employ stall tactics.
injustice to the country?? the president appointing people to serve as federal judges?? it it an injustice when democrat presidents appoint judges with views more to their liking? here's the injustice..you elect a president, knowing full well what his views are...knowing full well what sort of nominees he'll put up for the bench...and then the legislature says, "no...we're going to delay this thing out procedurally..we're going to 'stretch the rules' because we don't agree with this guy's views on things." that, my friend...is the rule of man...not the rule of law. and that's injustice.
isn't the difference that this is just a filibuster (procedural delay) to keep these judges from being appointed? the democrats don't have a majority in either house of Congress..so they can't keep them out with votes. they can only use procedural delay to keep the vote from happening. from the article: Cornyn's Senate Judiciary subcommittee plans a whole hearing next week called "Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a majority is denied its right to consent" to explore the issue and plans to change the nomination process. "If filibusters are going to be made part of the judicial nominee process, I think you will see increasing discussion over whether the rules should be changed," Frist said.
The Demos doing this feel it is an injustice so they are using a time honored procedure to stop what they feel is wrong. If the President would appoint someone who ideologically represents a greater portion of the country he wouldn't be having these problems.
KC, can you be more specific? What about voting on these two nominees would be "an injustice to the country" besides the fact that they're both EEEEVIL Republicans? Seriously, I'm not trying to call you out or anything, I'd just like to know.
Here is some differences between what happened during the first two years of the Clinton Administration in regards to judicial nominees and the first two years of the Bush Administration. Clinton nominated 140 total judicial nominees, of those 126 were confirmed, which would be 90%. Bush nominated 131 total judicial nominees, of those 100 were confirmed, a rate of 76%. Clinton nominated 22 to the Circuit Courts, of those 19, or 86% were confirmed. Bush nominated 32 to Circuit Court vacancies, of those 17 were confirmed, or 53%. And nominations that were returned during the first two years of the Clinton Administration: 14. Of the Bush Administration: 36. Not making any judgments. Just FYI.
For what it's worth, here's the knock against Estrada from the People for the American Way (granted, not an unbiased source): Reject Bush's Court-Packing Plan! Miguel Estrada Ultra-conservative lawyer Miguel Estrada has been nominated to the influential Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In his relatively short legal career, Estrada has given rise to serious doubts about whether he meets these criteria. His former supervisor in the Justice Department concluded that Estrada “lacks the judgment” and is “too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge.” The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund are opposed to Estrada’s confirmation. Estrada’s record shows: # Estrada has expressed the disturbing view that Americans should not be permitted to turn to the judicial branch when legislative decisions harm fundamental constitutional freedoms. In fact, it is precisely when a legislature has used its power to violate the freedoms of the less powerful that judicial review becomes crucial. Estrada’s argument would mean that religious and racial minorities and others whose constitutional rights are threatened would have no recourse but to submit to the will of the majority. # As a lawyer in private practice, Estrada has sought to defend so-called anti-loitering statutes and ordinances, which have been demonstrated to disproportionately harm African-Americans and Latinos in much the same manner as racial profiling. Federal and state courts, including the Supreme Court, have invalidated a number of these provisions as violating the First Amendment freedom to assembly and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Estrada has even tried to argue that the NAACP should not be allowed to challenge such ordinances. # Estrada has sought to use the First Amendment as a shield for a large company that had been found guilty of deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including several judges appointed by Republican presidents, unanimously rejected his line of reasoning. # Despite his troubling record, Estrada refused to answer key questions at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his judicial philosophy, such as his views about important Supreme Court decisions. For example, he refused to name a single Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years that he thought was wrong. In light of the Senate’s co-equal role in judicial appointments, the Senate should not confirm a nominee who refuses even to answer such critical questions.
they feel what is an injustice?? democrats appoint judges who lean their way...republicans appoint judges who lean their way. it depends on who is in power... the dems lost the election of 2000..and got their ass handed to them in the mid-term elections. that's not gloating, that's fact. you would expect, then, for judicial nominees to lean conservative. voters are voting that way. to use a procedural delay in this situation is ridiculous. we talk about politics and how dirty they can be. neither side is above this kind of measure, so please don't think i'm saying republicans would never do this. but this is about as underhanded as you can get...it messes with separation of powers and basic concepts our government's structure is founded on.
