I don't like this at all...

[TheAnvil 0]

...it irks me. When the hell are conservatives in the Senate and the Executive branch going to stand up and slug it out with these a-holes? This isn't a deal - it's surrender.

Bush, Dems Make Deal on Nominees

Tuesday, May 18, 2004



WASHINGTON — Breaking a months-long impasse, the White House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday struck a deal allowing Senate confirmation of dozens of President Bush's judicial nominations (search) in exchange for a presidential promise not to bypass the Senate again this year.

Under the agreement, Democrats will allow votes on 25 non-controversial appointments to the district and appeals courts. In exchange, Bush agreed not to invoke his constitutional power to make recess appointments (search) while Congress is away, as he has done twice in recent months with judicial nominees.

The agreement was reached in a meeting among top Senate Democrats and Republicans as well as Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff.

Starting in March, Democrats had halted all judicial nominees until they received a promise from Bush that he wouldn't use his recess appointment power. The Senate starts its Memorial Day recess on Monday.

But now that Democrats have been "given that assurance, we're now prepared to work with our Republican colleagues," said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, in confirming the deal.

The Senate confirmations of the 20 U.S. District Court judges and the five U.S. Appeals Court judges will come over the next three months, Daschle said. Other judicial nominees will be considered case-by-case, he said.

Daschle said he and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., would make an official announcement on the Senate floor later this afternoon.

A reporter's call to the White House for comment was not immediately returned.

Bush already has used recess appointments to name two Republicans to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Charles Pickering (search) — a former chairman of the Mississippi Republican party and father of GOP Rep. Chip Pickering — and William Pryor (search), the former GOP attorney general of Alabama.

Democrats were furious at those appointments because they had been successfully blocking Pryor, Pickering, Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada (search) and Judges Priscilla Owen (search), Carolyn Kuhl (search) and Janice Rogers Brown (search) from getting confirmation votes.

Estrada later withdrew his nomination but the others are still waiting.

It takes 60 senators to force a confirmation vote in the Senate, which is split with 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent, Jim Jeffords of Vermont.

Owen, Kuhl, Brown and other judicial nominees Democrats found objectionable are not part of the impending deal, Daschle said. White House nominees for positions outside the federal courts also are not part of the deal.

Republicans had planned to force a vote on one of the noncontroversial nominees — Marcia Cooke (search), Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's former chief inspector general — on Tuesday, but a deal made that vote unnecessary and Cooke was confirmed in the Senate 96-0.

Democrats first threatened to hold up Bush's nominees in March, one month after Bush gave Pryor an almost two-year stint on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. The president in January gave Pickering a one-year term on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Democrats called Bush's appointments "a flagrant abuse of presidential power" but Republicans said that Bush wouldn't have had to use recess appointments if Democrats hadn't been blocking his nominees.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gawain 0]

I think it's really a win, especially after Bush wins re-election. The deal only covers this year, January 1, 2005 if the Dems start getting cute...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think this is the only way GWB can get a vote on his nominees. As you know, the Dems will not allow many of the nominees to even get out of commitee and to the floor for a vote. I seriously doubt the Dems will actually do what they have agreed to. They always seem to find an excuse for not following through once they get what they want.
Bushs' re-election will not help. The only way we are going to break this deadlock for good is to gain a greater majorty in the Senate.

[billvon 3,006]

I think it's a sign that both sides can actually work with each other. The US government isn't a monarchy, it's a representative government where everyone has to agree to get things done. That's good, because that means you need to compromise and come up with something that's acceptable to all sides, not just to the emperor.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Bushs' re-election will not help.

That's for sure!

Quote

The only way we are going to break this deadlock for good is to gain a greater majorty in the Senate.

I doubt the Republicans will lose enough seats for that to happen, but we can always hope.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Bushs' re-election will not help.

That's for sure!

Quote

The only way we are going to break this deadlock for good is to gain a greater majorty in the Senate.

I doubt the Republicans will lose enough seats for that to happen, but we can always hope.

Yes! Only then will we be kept safe from those deadly assault weapons that are going to start flooding the streets in mid September! Golly me oh my!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TheAnvil 0]

Well said, but the majority aren't being heard because judges never come to a floor vote. The minority is using Senate rules to thwart the majority of the representative body.

One of my major beefs with the Republican party is the weak-kneed way in which they operate in the Senate. Trent Lott was a weak majority leader and Frist isn't doing much better.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Anvil, you JACKASS! You inspired Boortz! Boortz is more eloquent than you Anvil, you stupid bastard!

Bush caves to Democrats....again
Neal Boortz (archive)


May 21, 2004


If it were not for his fondness for tax cuts, and his pursuit, however flawed, of the ongoing war on terror, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to vote for George Bush this November. OK .. The Poodle’s name on the ballot would be a fairly good reason .. though I'm not sure reason enough.

You've probably heard by now, but George Bush has once again managed the nearly impossible physical feat of handing his head to the Democrats ... again. He gave up; ran for the hills; threw in the towel; bailed. Tragically, didn't really get anything of real value for his craven surrender. He gave the Democrats almost a complete victory.

The issue this time is the nomination and confirmation process for federal judges. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants to the president the authority to appoint federal judges “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Every legal scholar not employed by Harvard of the Senate Judiciary Committee will tell you that a majority vote in the Senate would constitute “consent.” The president makes his choice; the nomination goes to the Senate, and the Senate votes. If a majority votes for confirmation, we have a new federal judge.

That was then, this is now. When the Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 2002 elections they decided that a simple majority vote would no longer be good enough to confirm a judicial appointee. Over the years leftists have depended on judicial activism and fiat to enact much of their agenda. The future of their anti-individualist, big-government designs depend largely on the left’s ability to keep Constitutionally oriented judges off the federal bench. Since they didn’t have a Senate majority, they needed a new rule. To keep constitutionalists off the bench Daschle and Company decided to change the Constitution to require a super-majority for a judicial confirmation. Sixty votes. No less.

Does Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provide for a super majority in any Senate proceedings? Yes, but just one; the ratification of treaties. So there goes your argument that there is nothing wrong with requiring 60 votes to confirm a judicial nomination.

For two years now Daschle and Company have been preventing votes on the floor of the Senate for confirmation of many of Bush's judicial nominees. Never before in our history has a minority party prevented confirmation votes on judicial nominees that had the necessary majority vote waiting for them.

Never. The Democrats were showing a crass level of complete disrespect for the Constitution of the United States and for years of Senate tradition. We shouldn't be surprised, though. When it comes to reacquiring their Senate power, it is clear that neither the Constitution nor the successful conclusion to our war against terrorism and the restructuring of Iraq can be allowed to stand in the way.

As it turns out, the Constitution gives the president a bit of an out when the Senate is acting up like this. Move on to Clause 3. The president can make recess appointments. This Bush did with two judicial nominees that the Democrats had filibustered, Pryor and Pickering. You must know that this didn't sit too well with Daschle and Company. How dare the President of the United States use a constitutional procedure to prevent them from blocking a confirmation vote? Their response? They proceeded to bring virtually all presidential nominations, even the ones they liked, to a complete standstill.

Let's review here. I’m not trying to waste space, but there may be Democrats reading this column. In government schools, we must be careful not to leave them behind when we get into even the most moderately complicated situations. We will call this "back up and repeat essential points" as the "No Liberal Left Behind” style of writing.

A. The Democrats modify the Constitution by requiring a super-majority vote for the confirmation of certain judicial nominees.

B. The president responds by using the perfect constitutionally legitimate exercise of making a recess appointment.

C. The Democrats, outraged at the president's legal use of his Constitutional authority, bring nearly all Senate business to a halt in retaliation.

D. The president promises to stop any further recess appointments during this term if the Senators will only do the job they were elected to do.

This is leadership? When George W. Bush was sworn in he swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Just how are you preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution when you promise to stop using a constitutionally legitimate procedure to prevent political opponents from defying the Constitution.. and for this we get a quick confirmation of about 27 judicial nominees whom the Democrats didn’t object to in the first place? Wow! What a deal!

Senate Democrats must be getting a real chuckle out of this in their private gatherings. Time after time they have rolled George Bush. Protectionist trade rules for the steel industry, obscene spending increases for hopeless government schools, even the left’s current political showpiece of the 9/11 Commission hearings.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

So, George Bush is a strong leader that does what is right, now what is popular. But at the same time he is constantly throwing in the towel and giving into the democrats.

Boortz the waffle.

Now I see why you always call Kerry the Poodle, you're parroting Boortz. Can you explain what exactly that is supposed to mean?

[TheAnvil 0]

Dude, didn't I already give Boortz credit for 'The Poodle' and 'sKerry' ? I'm pretty sure I did. Dims and demoKKKlaners are Vinny original calumniations I do believe. billvon and chuckles to himself. Check out skydivexxl's haiku thread today

'The Poodle' nickname for Kerry - who served in Vietnam in case anyone doesn't know - is a jibe at several things I do believe. He's been kept (two rich wives) like a poodle. He's groomed like poodle with that ridiculous haircut. Boortz wrote about one or two more reasons for the nickname but I can't remember them right now.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Ahh, and silly me, I thought it might have something to do with his ability to be president. But why should minor details like that matter in political discourse. Name calling is much easier and more effective.

[TheAnvil 0]

When he presents something other than his service in Vietnam that makes him qualified to be president, perhaps that will be easy to parody. Does not showing up to vote for cloture for extending unemployment benefits count?

Boortz and I use such for humorous purposes. Try finding fault with Boortz' logic. Or mine for that matter. Being bitter at us for using such things doesn't stop us from enjoying the humor. Be bitter if you like.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it's a sign that both sides can actually work with each other. The US government isn't a monarchy, it's a representative government where everyone has to agree to get things done. That's good, because that means you need to compromise and come up with something that's acceptable to all sides, not just to the emperor.

The confirmation process has been broken for at least the past 4 administrations - maybe further back, but that's before my time. I don't believe that a handful of Senators with the backing of their party should be able to stall indefinitely. This is particularly true for the embassy appointments - those are patronage positions for the President anyway.

With each change of office, it appears to get worse, and the court system suffers as a result. So why not use the recess appointment. Clinton should have done so as well.

Sometime soon there is going to be an overhaul at the Supreme Court. These guys can't live forever. That one is going to be long and noisy.

[mpsniper98 0]

far as i know, it's okay to have multiple opinions about multiple actions carried out by the same person. how is that waffling?

NBFT