ndert2
Follow us on Facebook

Latest Comments

ND Outdoors Sites

FishingBuddy
NoDakOutdoors

Featured Link

Meanwhile

Login Form



Support NorthDecoder

Search This Site

Loading

Feature Stories

Personal
The Low Road

Amazon Search

JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
Senate Republicans Threaten Filibusters on Obama's Judicial Nominees PDF Print E-mail
Written by Adam   

I am incredulous.  (Bold is mine)

March 2, 2009
 
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20500


Dear Mr. President:
We look forward to working with you as you consider nominees for the federal judiciary.  Unfortunately, the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious.  We would very much like to improve this process, and we know you would as well.  It is in that spirit that we write early on to suggest two steps your Administration can take to achieve that shared goal.
First, in the beginning of his Administration, your predecessor demonstrated his desire to improve the judicial confirmation process by nominating to the circuit courts two of President Clinton’s previous judicial nominees, Judge Barrington Parker to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  It would help change the tone in Washington if your Administration would take the same bipartisan step.  Because the last Congress sadly set the modern record for the fewest circuit court confirmations in a President’s final Congress, there are plenty of well-qualified nominees with bipartisan support from whom to choose.  For example, Peter Keisler has been praised repeatedly by colleagues in both the public and private sector, Democrats and Republicans, and has earned accolades from major media observers, like The Washington Post.  And Judges Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond both enjoyed bipartisan support and have outstanding records on the federal trial bench.
Second, as our Democratic colleagues have emphasized for the last several years, the process of federal appointments is a shared constitutional responsibility.  We respect your responsibility to nominate suitable candidates for the federal bench.  And as a former colleague, we know you appreciate the Senate’s unique constitutional responsibility to provide or withhold its Advice and Consent on nominations.  The principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington.  Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the importance of maintaining this principle, which allows individual senators to provide valuable insights into their constituents’ qualifications for federal service.
We hope your Administration will consult with us as it considers possible nominations to the federal courts from our states.  Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.  Despite press reports that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee now may be considering changing the Committee’s practice of observing senatorial courtesy, we, as a Conference, expect it to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation.  And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.      
Because of the profound impact that life-tenured federal judges can have in our society, the Founders made their appointment a shared constitutional responsibility.  We look forward to working with you to discharge this important duty in the best interest of our country.
Sincerely, 


All Republican Senators

Cc: The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

I have not seen so much hipocrisy since the Republicans changed the rules they created in '95 to get rid of Dan Rostenkowski(D-IL) so that Tom DeLay could remain the Majority Leader while he was indicted.

These Republicans have either no memory or no conscience. They either don't remember just four years ago when they threatened to declare the filibuster unconstitutional for this exact purpose. I hate to sound so angry but this is the height of hipocrisy. Republicans are threatening to eliminate a maneuver that just four years ago they wanted to break the rules and defy precedent to eliminate. I have cataloged their efforts here.

This truly is the height of hipocrisy. Republicans campaigned on Democratic obstructionism of judicial nominations for four years. I suggest that republicans look at the statements of their former majority leader:

This Senate must do what’s right. We must do what’s fair. We must do the job we were elected to do and took an oath to do. We must give judicial nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve.

Now don't get me wrong, I do not at all disagree that it is the right of Senate Republicans to filibuster judicial nominations, but four years ago they were saying that filibusters on judicial nominations were unconstitutional. It is completely hypocritical to now say that they will use a maneuver that they argued to be unconstitutional four years ago.

We deserve better.


Comments (3)add comment

Truth said:

...
What is hypocritical is that a Dem is upset that tactics they used against others will now be used on them and then they whine and cry. As for asking to be consulted, the Dems cried the same, where was your outrage or your bold print on their request? Also the constitutionality of the fillibuster was never determined. Some one can say something is or is not so, but no determination was made. Perhaps the Dems should take up the challenge and see once and for all if its constitutional or not.

What are the Dems afraid of but this move? What are you and the members of the Daily Kos afraid of? Dems just don't like their own dirty tactics used on them. HYPOCRITICAL
 
March 06, 2009
Votes: +0

Adam said:

Really?
Again, I don't argue that the republicans have the right to filibuster Judicial nominations, I guess I just figured they would have the courage to stand by their convictions that they had a constitutional duty to confirm judges on an up or down vote. When the democrats used this tactic they were accused of violating their oaths of office. Now that they are in the minority the tactic is perfectly acceptable.

The only reason the Republicans have the ability to use the maneuver is due to the real bipartisan work of John Warner(R-VA) and Robert Byrd(D-WV) and the gang of 14.

Now you suggest the Democrats should test the theory that the republicans dreamed up. Despite the fact that such a maneuver would be as wildly hypocritical as the Republicans threatening a filibuster, I doubt that you could get Joe Biden to agree to such a blatant violation of senate rules and procedures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the post I linked to above.

Democrats care about the rules and procedures. Repbulicans have shown that they only care about their politics.

Shameful.
 
March 06, 2009 | url
Votes: -1

Adam said:

Also...
Take this interesting tidbit for what it's worth. Here's a list of the bipartisan "gang of 14" that diffused this situation in 2005:

Republicans:
Lindsey Graham(SC)
John Warner(VA)
Susan Collins(ME)
Olympia Snowe(ME)
Lincoln Chafee(RI)
Mike DeWine(OH)
John McCain(AZ)

Democrats:
Robert Byrd(WV)
Ben Nelson(NE)
Mark Pryor(AK)
Mary Landrieu(LA)
Ken Salazar(CO)
Joe Lieberman(CT)
Daniel Inouye(HI)

Here are who remain in that group:
Republicans:
Lindsey Graham(SC)
Susan Collins(ME)
Olympia Snowe(ME)
John McCain(AZ)

Democrats:
Robert Byrd(WV)
Ben Nelson(NE)
Mark Pryor(AK)
Mary Landrieu(LA)
Joe Lieberman(CT)
Daniel Inouye(HI)

Now Joe Lieberman, I will grant, Democrats were pretty ticked off with but after voting for the stimulus package I have seen and heard of multiple republicans that are suggesting primary challenges for Collins and Snowe(which is pure idiocy, because I can guarantee that the only Republicans that can win Senate seats in Maine are the ones that already have them), but overall, it seems to be that Democrats have done a better job of letting their moderates stay in the party(e.g. making their tent bigger) whereas the Republicans have done a better job of cutting cattle from the herd that were not in line with party discipline.

Seems democrats still have a better record of working across party lines to achieve common ground than Republicans do...
 
March 07, 2009 | url
Votes: -1

Write comment

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy