November 13, 2003
Wolf, What Wolf?
In the latest round of partisan politics, in which Senate Republicans are engaged in a 30-hour debate about the state of the Bush Administration’s judicial nominees, are the Republicans crying wolf when in fact there is none to be found? What is the issue one might ask? It is this: out of a total of 172 judicial nominees for vacant Federal Judicial benches put before the Senate so far, 168—some 98%, have been passed by the full Senate while, 4—a mere 2% have been held up by Democrats.
In a sound bite today Bush called this:
”ugly politics,” and further stated that, “[i]t’s wrong and it’s shameful, and it’s hurting the system.”
How is this ”ugly politics,” and how is it “hurting the system?" The last time I read it, the Constitution still gives the Senate the right to advise and consent on Federal judicial appointments. I do not believe the wording has been changed to advise and rubberstamp. Does Bush, and as an extension, Senate Republicans, awash in the glow of their arrogance believe that they should (be entitled) get everything they wish for? Have they forgotten how our government operates? Instead of compromising and finding more mainstream candidates—you know jurists that might represent a fair majority of the American people—the Bush Administration seems bent on packing the court with neo-conservative, strict Constitutionalists. Knowing what I know about their dogma and believes, that is not a road this Moderate wants to travel, how about you?
Posted by V. Edward Martin at November 13, 2003 01:44 PMWhy not? It’d sure be a lot easier for the courts “elect” our new president in 2004, right? Doesn’t everyone want to live in a theocratic police state?
Posted by: Huxley75 at November 13, 2003 02:32 PMThis is something that the voters will ultimately have to decide. In theoretically, I see no problem with having an up or down vote. However, I know that the Dems know that with the Republicans holding an advantage in the Senate, that an up or down vote could in effect serve as a rubber stamp, because you know that some of that Dems from conservative states would have tremendous pressure put on them by the White House to vote for Pickering, et al. Both parties are using this as a campaign issue to energize their respective bases, and again that is what is wrong with the two party system, you must vote the party. Until our so-called leaders are free to vote their conscience, you will always have endless gridlock.
Posted by: Nate Daniel at November 13, 2003 03:51 PMThis is pure politics. Dems should not deny an up or down vote just because of the abortion issue. Judges should not be judged solely on the basis of one issue. Judges review hundreds of cases spanning many different issues, and to have people’s careers hijacked because of a singular issue…not good!
As far as the 168-4 argument, that is ridiculous. If you like keeping score, how about 2003 Democrats 4 to 0 over 216 years of American history? At no other point in our history has this happened.
Politics is an ugly business, and this is pure politics.
Posted by: Rob at November 21, 2003 06:26 PM
