Okay, even the Log Cabiners are against this guy! Why does W. keep pushing these people if he's really "compassionate" and supposedly is governing from the middle?

This is one area where the Democrats have stood their ground, thankfully. They know being too wimpy could land us with more people to the right of Scalia AND Thomas.

Atlanta-Journal Constitution: Pryor, another contentious Bush nominee

I was listening to NPR this morning. The common thread( in Bushs nominations) seems to be a willingness to errode the seperation of church and state.

But Bush hasn't done anything negative towards gays, right PhillyFan?

Clinton signed DOMA
Clinton signed DOMA
Clinton signed DOMA
Clinton signed DOMA

I love this guy, Bill Pryor. Guess that's one of many reasons I'm not part of LCR crowd.

I loved it that someone finally had the guts to say what they thought, rather than giving vague, indecipherable nothing answers to Senators' questions. And Pryor spoke the truth about Roe v. Wade, which is one of the worst decisions in the American history as a matter of constitutional law (even if you agree with it as a matter of public policy). Even liberal law professors, who are in favor of abortion rights, such as John Hart Ely, have written as such about Roe.

Actually, I don't think the Bush administration expects Pryor to go through. I think the calculation is that nominees like Pryor make Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen and the unfairly maligned Charles Pickering, look more moderate relative to a "true believer" like Pryor. Just my opinion, though.

[ June 12, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I watched Pryor's Senate hearing last night and while I was surprised at some of his candid answers, his responses hardly made him more endearing to me. I find it odd that any gay man could "love this guy." I don't believe Mr. Pryor when he says that anyone that comes before will be treated equally under the law. I think he has an agenda and will use his position to see that agenda furthered, and I'm sure he is more than fine with seeing gays prosecuted for private consensual sex.

I also do not think Pickering is "unfairly maligned." I think he's cut out of the same sort of cloth that his friend Mr. Lott is from in that they have this bizarre nostalgic longing for the days of segregation. I wouldn't want Mr. Lott on the federal bench, and I don't want Mr. Pickering there either.

If you have any evidence to support that, rather than just your \"gut\" telling you how conservative Republicans think, let me know and I will certainly change my mind.

Trent Lott is a racist. I believe Charles Pickering is not. He testified against the Klan in a public trial in 1967. Profile in courage right there. Pickering's been endorsed by African-Americans in Mississippi, such as Charles Evers, who presumably would be the best judges as to whether Pickering is a racist or segregationist (or at least in a better position than Patrick Leahy). Charles Pickering was probably the only white man in Mississippi who sent his children to predominantly black public schools and not white private academies. That tells me more about what is in his heart when it comes to the issue of segregation.

Pickering is a conservative. More conservative than I would prefer. But he's no racist.

[ June 13, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

There are several things that make me think Pryor has a agenda. Of course he's not going come out an be explicit about it. He wouldn't be nominated if he did, and I assume even Jeff Sessions wouldn't push him if he did. A quote from one of his speeches I think gives some insight. I don't think that as a federal judge he is going to sit back and let others restore America's Christian perspective. I'm sure he'll do his best to do his part in that.

I completely understand that as AG he is going to have to defend some laws that he may not agree with. The problem seems to be that he goes out of his way to file amicus briefs such as in the Texas sodomy case. I find his comments in this case particularly offensive. Do you really want someone who believes this to be a federal appeals court judge?

I'm not going to say CITT is self-hating, but if he "loves" this guy who's writing obviously fanatical, antigay rhetoric supporting the unfair sodomy laws, really, doesn't that speak for itself?

I love the guy for having the cojones to speak the truth about Roe v. Wade. And at a judicial confirmation hearing, too. Contrast that with Clarence Thomas (who - cover your ears and shield the children -- I generally admire), who, at his confirmation hearing, virtually denied having knowledge that the Roe v. Wade decision even existed.

I will also add that I don't have a problem if he (or anyone else) thinks the U.S. Supreme Court should vote to uphold the Texas sodomy law on federalism grounds, which is the legitimate consititutional basis for Bowers v. Hardwick and for the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Texas sodomy law. Now, as I said, if someone has any evidence that he believes anti-sodomy laws are proper public policy -- and shawnq's snippet from an amicus Pryor filed is definitely evidence worthy of consideration on this point -- then I will temper my love for this man.

Now, fantomas, as far as me being "self-hating" ... really! While I occasionally have moods in which I'm mildly perturbed at myself, I'm definitely not a self hater. wink The only folks I hate are child murderers, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and most players on the Dallas Cowboys.

And while I'm a mass-attending Catholic (what a shock, given my dislike of the Roe v. Wade decision), I don't sit around beating myself up over being gay. Never have. I am who God made me (usually) and why should I hate that?

Only MOST of them?

Name names. There's nobody left to hate except Jerry Jones. Geez!

Because the Church says so, that is, if you're a practicing homosexual who's not a Catholic priest.

Alabama Attorney General, and nominee for a federal appellate court judgeship, BILL PRYOR, is in hot water again for another controversial position: \"Commandments Backers Urge Ala. Attorney General to Resign\".

AG Pryor, himself a religious conservative, taking his duties seriously, has enfuriated hardcore ultra-religious ultra-conservatives, with his position enforcing the law requiring the removal of the Ten Commandments statue from the Alabama Supreme Court building. Pryor is a principled man who is demonstrating that he knows where the line is drawn between church and state. His judicial confirmation remains in jeopardy and this stand could hurt is electability in Alabama. After all, grandstanding Roy Moore won an election to get his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Some folks were questioning me when I said I supported Pryor. Now, more than ever, he looks like a profile in courage. On the other hand, Moore is a hack who advocates mob rule (as long as he's running the mob), and who lacks even a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law.

You're kidding, right? The attorney general of Alabama is being "courageous" for following a federal court order? Those are some pretty low standards for a profile in courage. The guy is up for a federal judgeship and he dares follow a federal court order--that's not courage that's political expediency. His troubled nomination would be in even worse shape than it is now if he did anything else.

Mr. Trees (sorry, CITT sounds like a part of a woman I would never touch) has made a good point, actually. Supporting Roe seems to be the congressional litmus test for Senate approval in nine out of ten cases. What a waste. They should start asking them if they support decisions like Marbury v. Madison. A frank discussion about that case would probably yield more information about a nominee's judicial philosophy than Roe would.

Federal court nominations have been reduced to ridiculous arguments over one tiny piece of social policy. However, the Supreme Court DID ask for it when they ruled in Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, that decision IS an example of questionable judicial activism. But, I'm 100% pro-choice, and no matter how firm a belief in seperation of powers I hold, I think the decision gave necessary rights to a lot a people who desperately needed them.

As a piece of American legal scholarship, it is poorly argued. If you want to discover the right of a woman to control her body, you cannot prescribe phases of control ... at least, you cannot extrapolate said phases from the 14th amendment.

Reading the Roe decision is like listening to James from Boy Meet Boy try to hunt for straight people. "So, tell me a secret that like 25%-60% of your friends know, but maybe ony 10%-23% of your work friends know, but, you know, 75% of your immediate family knows ..." Jesuz, can I get a flow chart?! Why does the word "vapid" always jump into my mind when I watch that show?

[ August 27, 2003, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

This anti-gay fanatic is doing the least that's expected of him as a senior officer of the court and upholder of the bar--FOLLOWING THE LAW! If that's all it takes for support, then we've really sunk to the lowest standards possible.

Irony of ironies, Moore and the zealots surrounding him would easily be at home among the mullahs of Iran or the Taliban, except that they'd probably be tortured and killed because they're Christian fanatics and not Muslim crackpots.

I think Pryor is going to have to face the voters of Alabama before he faces a confirmation vote before the full Senate. His 11th Circuit nomination is likely dead. And Moore got elected by a voting majority of Alabama voters specifically because of his 10 Commandments stance. Pryor could've ducked the issue, and not alienated the voters, but unlike many politicians (of both parties), he addressed it head on.

Isn't it at least possible that Pryor is trying to salvage his nomination by forcing the state of Alabama to follow the federal court order? Given that this controversy got huge right at the same time he was under consideration by the Senate, he very well could have decided to play a "tolerant" card and distance himself from Moore's theocratic legal views. After all Pryor himself has been criticized for relying on his religion, and not the rule of law, to argue legal points.

CITT, not if Bush had the courage to simply name him, along with the other stalled ones, as recess appointments. This would be the right thing to do in light of the horrible obstructionist behavior of the Democrats.

If the president won't do that, then the Republicans ought to force a ruling from the Chair to declare such filibusters impermissible, thereby negating them and allowing a full floor vote. Such Chair's ruling would itself go to the floor for a vote, where the majority would approve it. Hell, the Democrats did this in the late 1960's and 1970's when they had a substantial majority in the Senate. They changed the rules to their advantage. It's about time the wimpy Republicans did the same to bring justice back to the judicial nomination process.

I wailed loud and long when Republicans tried their games of stopping judicial nominees, but I admit that unlike the Democrats, the Republicans never filibustered an appellate nominee. They might not have liked a lot of Clinton's nominees, but at least they let them get to the floor for an actual vote.

How ironic that the Democrats scream and whine about "counting all the votes," "letting the votes decide it," etc., yet they won't even let Bush's nominations get to the floor for a real vote. Typical hypocrisy.

The Democrats' actions are deplorable and an affront to the Constitution.

I find it nearly breathtaking that a gay person would want Pryor on the bench given his history. Even the Log Cabin Republicans oppose this guy, and I suppose that if you don't find Pryor to be offensive then there aren't a lot of people on the right you would oppose.

Also, this bit about Bush's nominees not getting through is a load of crap. The Democrats have only one tool to stop Bush's extremist nominees. So far they have used it on only 3 or 4 nominees. Everyone else gets through. As of May of this year, 22 circuit nominees had been confirmed, and 101 district court nominees had been confirmed. Those numbers are surely higher now. Unfortunately the same could not be said for Clinton's nominees. 55 of Clinton's nominees never even got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary committee. This whole thing about obstructionist Democrats is just blather fit for the likes of Rush, Hannity and the rest of their ilk.

I would agree that some reforms may be needed with the whole advice and consent thing. But what I find deplorable is a President who doesn't recognize that a majority of people who went to the polls in November of 2000 didn't want him nominating judges in the first place. He could recognize that fact by nominating more moderate judges.

[ August 28, 2003, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: shawnq ]

MIB-

I don't understand why you think the Democrats are hypocrites in this case. They are opposed to an illegitimately elected president filling the judiciary with his nominations. As such, it would not only be consistent with their overall philosophy of restricting W's long-term influence, but it would be completely sanctioned by the Constitution and the rules of the Senate.

So, the Dems are playing hard ball and the Repubs are bitching. C'est la vie in the world of politics. Like the tables have never been reversed ...

Pryor is a bad choice selected to appease southern voters who are nervous Bush might be too left-wing for them (I know, what do they feed those people?). He doesn't support gay-rights, in fact directly opposes them, and his views on race are equally unsavory.

Come on, Neocons, let this one go.

[ August 28, 2003, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

shawnq,
i see from your member number, you're relatively new, so i'll bring you up to speed quickly. mib doesn't like to let mere facts, such as those you cite regarding judicial nominees, taint his opinions. and he sees hypocrisy everywhere -- except when bush has a rose garden ceremony that would make the producer of the oscar telecast proud, to announce some initiative (leave no child behind, global AIDS funding, the environment) that gets front-page headlines, but insufficient funding.

as for pryor, i, too find it hard to get too worked up over the fact he DID HIS JOB! this makes him a hero? i don't remember this type of hyperventilating on the right about blocking rightfully nominated judges when those judges were kimba wood, lani guinier, et al.

the senate is empowered to advise and CONSENT, not advise and rubberstamp. yet those who bemoan an activist judiciary, accusing them of ever expanding a relatively simple document (the constitution) to include ever more and more rights, have no problem glossing right over the consent half of advise and consent that is the bedrock of our checks and balances system of government.

hypocrisy, indeed!

[ August 28, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

Just to correct the record here in light of a rather condescending tone taken toward a true patriot in the person of another genuine American Hero, MIB:

Kimba Woods judicial appointment did go through. She was a judge when she was nominated to be attorney general after the Zoe Baird disaster. Her appointment was withdrawn by President Clinton long before a vote, due a second consecutive illegal nanny issue. Lani Gunier was never nominated for a judgeship. Ms. Guinier (a nutbag opposed to the basic tenets of democracy, such as "one person one vote") was nominated for an assistant attorney general position. President Clinton withdrew her nomination in response to the firestorm over Ms. Guinier's extremely controversial writings. You could look it up before you stoop to condescension.

In both cases, the Democrats controlled the Senate and never put the two nominees up for a vote prior to the president withdrawing their nominations.

Sorry for having to point out "mere facts" that might "taint" your opinions.

[ August 28, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Damn, this means I will never be president!

And you know what? This is fine with me. I don't want a nominee to support or oppose "rights" for a specific class, whether it be a class to which I belong or not. "Gay rights," "women's rights," children's rights," and on and on. I've said it before, I'll say it again: The more rights we profess to have, the less free we become.

All these newfound rights demand laws and protections, resulting in more governmental intrusion, regulations, you name it. How about simple human rights?


Shawn, the percentage of judges nominated by Bush and approved by the Senate is lower than it was for Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. What the Democrats are doing is petty and foolish. Yes, they're abiding by the rules of the Senate, rules they themselves changed to their favor over 30 years ago. It's time the Republicans, if they had any balls (which they don't), get up and change the rules to permit floor votes.

I was disgusted when Republicans refused hearings on some judicial nominees. Every nominee deserves a hearing and a vote. To not even allow either is wrong. Regardless, the Republicans have never filibustered an appellate nominee.

BTW, here's an interesting thing to ponder: Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, years ago adopted a standing rule to permit a full floor vote on any nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of the Judiciary Committee's vote or anything else, because of the importance of the nomination to the high court.

How much do you want to bet that the Democrats will ignore this rule, one which they trumpeted, if a conservative nominee is named Bush? Watch their hypocrisy then. It will trump their current BS.

Excuse me, MIB, but once again, an anti-Democratic Party and conservative bias is showing through in your comments.

First, Bill Pryor doesn't just oppose "gay rights," he has expressed anti-gay sentiments more than once, and these have guided his rulings. If you truly believe in human rights, then you would not support a candidate for a judgeship--a federal one, no less--who, instead of following the laws as legislated by the Congress and set forth by judicial precedent and the Constitution, allows his biases and prejudices to color his thinking.

Second, the Democrats in the Senate have approved the overwhelming majority of Bush's nominees. In fact, Republicans used a number of tactics, such as holds, to prevent Clinton judicial and diplomatic nominees from going forward. If you have proof that Democrats are holding up a higher percentage than Republicans did under Clinton (and not simply from a right-wing online outfit, since nearly all of these buttress the GOP agenda, understandably), please show it. In fact, under Clinton the GOP went so far as to press to have judicial seats left unfilled rather than approve ABA-approved moderates--because Clinton was not appointing liberals--to the bench.

Finally, CITT, Lani Guinier is hardly a "nutbag." Her voting rights ideas have been adopted by municipalities across the US, as well as nations across the globe, and are the standard in several countries for parliamentary elections.

[ August 28, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Just so there's no doubt where I stand, as an admitted anti-Democrat, law and order libertarian/realist (according to the latest poli-test), Lani Guinier's ideas are not only the stuff found in nutbags, but she is even more dangerous because of the position she has managed to insinuate herself into in what passes for much of American academia these days.

That the ideas she embraces (cf. "her" [own] ideas) happen to be part of how other countries choose to govern themselves is irrelevant. The concept of national sovereignty is as alive and well as is traditional, one person, one vote, American democracy, even if it does resemble an endangered species at times.

Lani & Hillary: the two greatest threats to American democracy alive today.

Oh gmg, come on! Didn't you just scold me for hyperbole? The pot calling the kettle.... Aren't you a lawyer? Or is that the excuse? wink

Seriously, the anti-democratic actions of people like John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney are far greater threats to our sovereignty and democratic republic. These are the people who are daily subverting the values on which this republic was founded--they and their master, the unelected W.

How either Hillary Clinton or Lani Guinier is a threat to democracy is beyond me. The people of New York obviously felt fine exercising their democratic right to elect Hillary (she won in a landslide), and most of the people I've met who've studied with Guinier at Penn or Harvard have only the highest praise for her acumen, her professionalism, her fairness as a professor, and her ability to think about new ways to reinvigorate democracy.

As I noted, Guinier's proportional representation ideas are used by US--not just foreign--but US municipalities (like Peoria, Illinois, with success) as a way of assuring an end to racial, ethnic and religious gerrymandering in elections. Not only liberals and progressives, but some conservatives agree with this idea.

Rather than bandy about easy insults about this woman or Senator Clinton, why not discuss their ideas and why they frighten you so much?

[ August 29, 2003, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

MIB: What convoluted reading of history would lead you to believe that the more a nation grants civil rights, the less free we become?

Tell me how women and people of color have suffered less freedom because of the civil rights movements of the 20th century?

And why wouldn't you advocate the same rights for gays and lesbians?

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that MIB follows those who argue that the Constitution already guarantees the rights we (gays, lesbians, blacks, whites, etc.) seek, and that we only work to restrict our liberties when we go out of our way to explicitly extend one right to one group of people. Essentially, by stating which rights we HAVE, we are implying that those rights not listed aren't included.

It is a terribly convoluted logic.

Since the country was founded, the POLITICAL debate over legislation has involved this very premise: do we have, by virtue of being born, every right imaginable with the exception of those restricted by the Constitution, or do we only have those specifically granted to us through constitutional means. This was the major distinction between the first political parties in this country.

I think most of us agree that ideally we have all freedoms except those taken away for the benefit of national interests, and I agree that by continually spelling out exactly what rights we DO have, it only goes to strengthen the idea that the Constitution is the source of our rights, not the exception.

However, the problem with MIB's argument is that it presupposes that certain legislation or customs don't act to repress a specific group of people, thereby making it necessary to directly extend a right to said group of people. The ERA was lost to this ridiculous argument, and now gender inequity is still dealt with using heightened scrutiny by the courts. Consequently, both women and gays are clinging onto the 14th amendment as the only hope for equality.

I'm sorry, but homophobia is rampant in much legislation and years of court rulings. If a Constitutional amendment GUARANTEEING me the rights that the straight people have is necessary to revert 200 years of anti-gay legal history, then I HARDLY think it will work to restrict my freedoms in the long run.

[ August 29, 2003, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

I admit that at times there appears to be this bias, but it runs both ways. I didn't like it when Republicans played games with judicial nominees, I don't like it now. I can't emphasize the past because it's just that, the past. I'm focusing on the here and now.

If Bill Pryor is as discriminatory as you say he is, then let the Senate debate this on the floor and take a vote. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans DO have members who think for themselves and not tolerate such BS. This is why some Republicans often vote against the party line, to the dismay of many conservatives.

Democrats, on the other hand, show that they are the real intolerant ones, for they vote lock-step with each other, with serious repercussions for those who stray from the party line (exception: retiring GA. Senator Zell Miller, who was persona non grata among the Senate Democrats). If you are a Democrat in the Senate, you either vote as one block or you're dead (figuratively speaking, of course), even if doing so means acting improperly.

This behavior is both stupid and hypocritical. Take what Iowa Senator Tom Harkin has said in the Senate: "I may not agree with everything that Republicans are proposing, but they are in the majority and they ought to have the right to have us vote on the merits of what they propose. But I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong — that is rule by minority."

Yet here he goes and votes to maintain Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominations. Then there's the New York Times: "Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which Senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes." Where it the Times today on this? Why, they support the Democrats' tactics. But what do you expect from a newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Republican for president in well over 60 years?

Look at Bush's first year nominations. In recent past administrations well over 50 percent of judicial nominees have been confirmed in a new president's first year. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush had 62 percent of his nominees confirmed by the end of his first year. In 1993, President Clinton had 57 percent confirmed. By the beginning of 2002, President Bush has only had 28 percent of his nominees confirmed.

Since the new Senate convened in January, the president has nominated 19 candidates for the courts of appeals. At this moment, twelve of those nominees are being held up by Democratic opposition. Most of the rest are new nominations that haven't yet had time to be blocked. Just two have been confirmed.

by any measure, Democrats have blocked more Bush appeals-court nominees than were blocked by Republicans in even the worst of the Clinton years, when relations between the parties were poisoned by scandal and impeachment.

During the Clinton Administration, some in the GOP were advocating wholesale obstruction. But party leaders rejected the idea. "This is something Republicans could have done during the Clinton administration, but there were a lot of [Republicans] who wouldn't go that far, who for reasons of comity and the sake of the process refused to do it," says one party aide.

And what about the ridiculous behavior of Michigan's Senators? This behavior has even earned the disgust of Michigan's congressional delegation:

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch has taken an aggressive new step in an effort to break through the obstruction of six Bush judicial nominees from Michigan.

The nominees--four to the federal courts of appeals and two to the lower federal district courts--are opposed by Michigan Democratic senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, the two Democrats who returned negative "blue slips" for the nominees, indicating they would not allow the nominations to go forward.

In the past, the opposition of both home-state senators has often been enough to kill nominations, but in a letter to Levin and Stabenow In July, Hatch announced that he will schedule hearings for the nominees despite their opposition.

Levin and Stabenow do not have any specific objections to the Michigan nominees. Instead, they returned the negative "blue slips" because they are angry that President Bush did not give in to their demand to renominate two Clinton appeals-court nominees from Michigan.

Those nominees, Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis, were never acted on by the Republican-controlled Senate. (One of them, White, has a personal connection to Levin; she is married to the senator's cousin.)

When Levin and Stabenow made their demands in the first months of George W. Bush's presidency, White House officials tried to consult and negotiate with them. It didn't work, and after a few months, talks reached a dead end.

"Although I understand [Levin's and Stabenow's] desire to have the president renominate two of President Clinton's candidates for the court of appeals...we believe it would be unfair to expect the president to do so," White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote to Sen. Patrick Leahy, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in August 2001.

"To my knowledge," Gonzales continued, "before President Bush renominated Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit, no president had ever nominated to a court of appeals an individual previously nominated to the court of appeals by his predecessor from a different party. For any senator to insist that this extraordinary and historic act be repeated is simply not fair. Appointments to the federal courts of appeals are uniquely matters of presidential prerogative."

In his Friday letter to Hatch and Stabenow, Hatch recounted the White House's efforts to consult with the senators about the Michigan nominations. "While I have worked to ensure that all nominees are given their due consideration before the Senate, I have also defended senatorial power via the mechanism of the blue slip," Hatch wrote. "By tradition, blue slips ensure that each home-state senator is given a chance to express their opinion on nominations, the effect of which is to force the White House to perform adequate consultation. The factual record over the past 26 months amply demonstrates that the White House has in fact engaged in sufficient consultation with you....You have nevertheless returned uniformly negative recommendations."

"It's an important step," says one Republican of Hatch's action. "The Democrats have been intransigent."

In deciding to hold hearings for the nominees, Hatch said he gave serious consideration to a recent letter signed by nine Michigan members of the House of Representatives. Addressing Levin and Stabenow, the nine lawmakers asked that the senators drop their opposition to nominees from their home state.

"Keeping Michiganders off the bench is a disservice" to the state's citizens, the lawmakers wrote.

It is a paradox that has been proven over 200 years of our history. However, it takes a bit of understanding as to just what it means. wink

BTW, you misinterpreted my original statement.

MIB, where are you getting this info? Any direct links? I googled this issue of Democratic confirmations, and some of the stuff you write does echo closely some of the texts (all on conservative sites) I've read. I'm not saying you're not attributing, but I was just wondering.

You've said more than once that you go after both sides, but time and again you refuse to criticize any of the outrageous actions of the Republican House, which has rammed through legislation that even outstrips what the president has asked for, while denying the Democratic minority any say; of W's administration, with its often outlandishly unreal statements (like Cheney's about the WMDs and where they could be found, for example); or of W himself and his half-truths. Why? The bias appears quite clear.

Fantomas, really now. You must stop following me around. I think you've become infatuated with me.

Sometimes I use Google for info. Other times I use internal legal sources. (I try to avoid news sources like CNN or FOX News, or any news magazine, either, because they're all stereotyped as liberal or conservative and would be discredited here, however unfortunate).

Believe it or not, I even try to use some liberal sources, but they're venomous with their articles, and I'd prefer not to bring more of that poison to this board. There's enough of this already, and not by me, BTW. When I criticize someone of either party, I never harbor ill will toward him/her. I do not have a deep-seeded hatred toward him/her. The same cannot be said about many posters here. Their hatred of Bush surpasses the hatred many conservatives had/have toward Bill Clinton.

You don't really want to get me started about the U.S. House now. One chamber at a time. I have a more vested interest, in a sense, with the Senate than I do the House, and I am disgusted by the former's actions.

Now, stop following me. I am NOT free Saturday night! wink

Long considered the more liberal of Chicago's two newspapers, the Sun-Times in its Sept. 5 lead editorial, opined the following. I was rather surprised:

Editor's Note: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist commented on the Estrada withdrawal, "I hope the Democrats see the error of their ways and change their tactics."

What a spineless wimp Frist is. He should take lessons of how to be a conniving, deceitful, take-no-prisoners Senate leader from Tom Daschle or George Mitchell.

BTW, Razor, you're numbers below are incorrect. Bush has had more than "3" judges blocked within the last several months alone.

[ September 08, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Bush judges approved: 146
Not approved 3

Quit your whining Chimpy.

It's not just President Bush who's complaining; fair-minded lawyers across the political spectrum recognze the hatchet job Miguel Estrada got at the hands of Team Hilledy.

But my chief complaint is against the spineless GOPers in the Senate who wouldn't call the Dems' bluff and put them to the test over their threatened filibuster. Kind of like Bill's dropping the ball on dropping the ban on gays in the military to my mind.

rock on gmg

[ September 08, 2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

to be fair Razor, the 146 judges approved were not up for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This is, arguably, one of the most influential courts in the land. Judgeship to this court is considered to be a precursor to US Supreme Court nomination.

When we take that fact into account, the situation becomes a bit less cut and dried. The dems opposed Estrada because they wanted to stop his eventual nomination to the Supreme Court. The others, they didn't give two hoots about and so their nominations didn't matter

and GMG didn't say that Bush was the ONLY one complaining about it. He said others beside Bush have complained.

[ September 08, 2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

ung, I thought it was despicable when Republicans didn't let some Clinton appointees get to the floor. The Left screamed about this, and justifiably so. I have yet to see these like-minded folks complain about the Democrats' tactics now. It sure appears that since it's happening to a Republican's nominees, it's acceptable. If it was so abhorrent then, why not now?

A filibuster against an appellate nominee has never before happened, until the Dems did so with Estrada. This was political BS, nothing else.

I agree, MIB. Disagree with them and publicly point out their unfitness if necessary, but don't bottle them up in committee and impose a rule-driven supermajority requirement where the Constitution itself doesn't. I have a problem with ANY Congressional rule that runs afoul of the Constitution as this one does.

gmg, it's interesting that in addition to the ABA giving Estrada one of its highest ratings--and Democrats always place so much importance on those ratings--several Solicitors General, including President Clinton's, supported Estrada.

Don't flatter yourself. I have a wonderful partner and ain't looking for a GOPer on the side.

The GOP are gross whiners, pure and simple. They used every tactic in the book, including simply not bringing justices up for votes at all and pushing for vacancies on the court, during Clinton's terms. This occurred even though Clinton nominated mostly moderate judges; in fact, Steven Breyer, to give one example, is to the right of Bush I nominee and current SCOTUS member David Souter.

The Democrats have approved the overwhelming majority of Bush's judges, and they simply do not want to allow every fanatic he puts forward onto the Federal bench.

And to claim that anti-Bush hatred equals that shown to Clinton is just fantastic. Where are the liberals who are selling videotapes claiming the sorts of things the looney right said about Clinton? Even though W was appointed to his office, even though he allowed 9/11 to happen and has never explained his actions before or since, even though he lied about the bases for the Iraq War and has bogged us down in a real mess despite his endless cheerleading and dissembling, the Left has not gone after him--to the extent of embroiling state and federal courts, and the Houses of Congress--the way the Right did with Clinton.

Fortunately more and more voters are getting fed up with the shenanigans of these appointed characters, and may very well send W back to Crawford for good in 2004.

Bush's first lie to America was running as a "moderate"...

A "moderate" extremist is more like it.

Watching the rethuglicans whine on about this is absolutely laughable considering all they did to block Clinton nominees.

I particulary love watching Orin Hatch, he is so pissed he looks like his head is about to explode. He has flip flopped so many times on the blue slip rule even he is confused.

RZB, This isn't the first time we've agreed on a few things and it probably won't be the last, but Orrin Hatch IS one of the most spineless members of the Senate whom I've seen in a long time, his "lucrative songwriting career" notwithstanding. Now as to what do do about it - that's where you and I part paths.

I don't know which is worse, your blatant hypocrisy or your paranoia or conspiracy beliefs. "Allowed to happen"--get real!

At least I was consistent. I complained to many a right-wing friend of mine that what Republicans did to Clinton nominees was wrong. Pure and simple. To not allow a vote to come to the floor was wrong.

The Democrats go one step further and filibuster, an unprecedented act, and now you and your ilk don't have the balls to decry that. Why? Because your hypocrisy won't let you. After all, a well-qualified, extremely competent American success story like Estrada, who was nominated by Bush, is unacceptable.

Stop your bitchy comparisons to Clinton's nominees if you're not going to be consistent and criticize your own party's current actions.

[ September 09, 2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Interesting story from today's Yahoo legal page:

What's next for judicial nominees?

It's been my privilege to talk with Justice Brown of the CA Supreme Court on occasion and she's hardly the screaming demon portrayed by her opponents. Law and order, yes, but by no means a dragon lady. She'll be the next un-minority minority nominee to give the lie to the left's politicking for "impartial" judges.