The Confirmation Battles

[demsformd]

Well we all know that the Democrats and Bush have been fighting over the confirmation of his judicial nominees. Today is the second anniversary of the president's nominees being introduced and here is a little scorecard that I have compiled. According to congressional records, 22 of the president's 24 circuit court nominees have been voted on and confirmed. There are only two that have not received a vote because of their extremist tendencies. One hundred and one district court nominees have been confirmed in the past two years. Part of that period was under Democratic control and now under Republican control but with a substantial Democratic minority that can filibuster nominations (just as they are with the nominations of Estrada and Owen, two radical conservatives). Because of these two - count them two - actions that ensure the independence and moderation of the bench, the Republicans have labeled the Democratic Party as obstructionist.

I thought that the entire point of checks-and-balances was to ensure that the President did not receive the power of a tyrant. Thank God that there are people in elected office that wish to stop the ideological demagoguery that President Bush wishes to infuse on the federal bench. Not only is this reason enough to laugh at the Republicans' claims but also the GOP's actions during the Clinton administration were just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats' current actions. Fifty-five of President Clinton's judicial nominees were never - NEVER - given a hearing and thus were not even considered. Ten more did not receive a vote. The Republicans' history of inaction is also documented for other confirmed offices. They used a filibuster to kill President Clinton's nominee for surgeon general in 1995 as well as the nomination of former anti-war protester to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. They refused to allow him to increase the number of members on the bench in several circuits but decided lately to bestow that power upon President Bush. The hypocrisy from that side is defeaning and I have to say that it is time for President Bush to understand that the Democrats will not accept an opponent of basic American rights.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, Dems, do ya think that if Clinton wouldn't have nominated insane Leftists to Federal judiciaries, maybe he'd have had more of them confirmed? Want to know why there's so much crime in this country? Lenient judges. Who puts them on the bench? Liberal Democrats.

What makes Owen and Estrada so "radical", anyway? I haven't seen anything radical about either of them.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

What makes Owen and Estrada so "radical", anyway? I haven't seen anything radical about either of them.

Nor I. And I heard their credentials yesterday, and their LONG list of bipartisan endorsements, from Bush.

If the Republicans were so obstructionist in the past - then wouldn't it behoove the Democrats to take the moral high ground, and rise above it? By doing the same thing themselves, they prove there's no difference - it's just a matter of who is in control.

I don't see the appointment as an example of a check on the tyranny of a President, since it is Congress that gets to vote on it. If a *minority* of persons can block a vote - THAT is abuse of power.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by Frank
I don't see the appointment as an example of a check on the tyranny of a President, since it is Congress that gets to vote on it. If a *minority* of persons can block a vote - THAT is abuse of power.

Well if it is so abusive, why did the GOP endorse such tactics for Clinton's nominees?

The big problem with Estrada and Owen is that they are pro-life and infuse their moral beliefs into their jurisprudence, which is wrong. I am a lawyer and I know that in our line of work there can be no emotion or morals. I want to research the matter more in depth and I will like to give you something in the near future.

 

[demsformd]

Here's a little from www.independentjudiciary.com on Estrada.

"A member of the Federalist Society and a board member of the arch-conservative Center for the Community Interest, Mr. Estrada is described by people who have worked with him as a conservative ideologue who is unable or unwilling to distinguish his personal views from what the law requires. That this evidence does not come in the form of law review articles, judicial opinions, or written criticism by colleagues on a state supreme court does not make it any less troubling."

So basically, we do not know where Estrada stands on the issues but it is apparent that he has deep convictions that will overturn any previous jurisprudence. Basically, he cannot be impartial or unbiased. How can one say that he has the right experience for an appellate court when he has never even served as a judge?


Here's some more from lawreview.com

"Strong supporter of capital punishment.

His ability to listen with an open mind to different points of view has been questioned.* Paul Bender, Mr. Estrada's supervisor at the Solicitor General's office and now an Arizona State University professor, is cited in the Washington Post as being "worried [that Estrada's personal] views would spill into rulings if Mr. Estrada is asked to decide matters involving defendants' rights, affirmative action and other controversial subjects ... 'I think Estrada lacks the judgment and he is too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge'."

The Bush administration hopes that by nominating a minority, Democrats will look past Estrada's right wing ideologies.

Has been compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal opponents of women’s abortion rights, because of his extreme conservatism.

Partner in the law firm that represented Bush to the Supreme Court during his post-election legal fight with Al Gore.

Is for "anti-loitering" laws, which when applied, disproportionately single out minority groups such as African-Americans and Latinos."

 

[demsformd]

Now for Owen...

lawreview.com also reports this...

"Has been criticized as being on the "far right wing" of the Texas court, further to the right than Bush's own appointees to that court when he was governor.

Supported the elimination and narrowing of buffer zones around reproductive health care clinics in Houston.

In every judicial bypass case that came before the Texas Supreme Court last spring (bypass allows a young woman to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents if she proves her maturity to a judge), Owen voted against granting the young woman a bypass.

Supports "stricter interpretation" of the state law that Bush signed requiring girls younger than 18 to inform their parents before obtaining an abortion.

Member of the board of the Houston Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative legal organization.

Enron's political action committee gave Owen $8,600 for her successful Supreme Court bid in 1994. Two years later, Owen wrote the majority opinion that reversed a lower court order and reduced Enron's school taxes by $15 million. Since 1993, Enron contributed $134,058 — more than any other corporation — to Owen and other members of the Texas Supreme Court. A study by Texans for Public Justice found that the court ruled in Enron's favor in five out of six cases involving the company since 1993."

Check out this site for more on the Owen confirmation battle.

 

[demsformd]

More on Owen, there's more information on her than Estrada...

from talkleft.com (not the most objective source but still some points here)

In addition to reasons we have provided for opposing Owen, here are some others:

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

In examining Justice Owen’s record in preparation for her first hearing and, now again, in preparation for today, I remain convinced that her record shows that in case after case involving a variety of legal issues, she is a judicial activist, willing to make law from the bench rather than follow the language and intent of the legislature. Her record of activism shows she is willing to adapt the law to her results-oriented ideological agenda.

People for the American Way (PFAW):

Not only do Justice Owen’s rulings show her willingness to shape the law in her own mold; they also define an ideological agenda that threatens many of the rights citizens in the Fifth Circuit now take for granted.
The Houston Chronicle in a July, 2002 editorial:
Owen, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, just happens to be a very, very conservative judicial activist who appears willing to attempt to twist the law to fit her very, very conservative political views. Which means, of course, that she is Bush's dream of a federal judge.

Perhaps it's not too early to note that when Owen first ran for the state Supreme Court in 1994 her campaign consultant was Karl Rove, who is now White House political supremo and Bush's envoy to the far right. Is this picture becoming clearer?

It doesn't take a raving pinko to catch on to Owen's act. Actually, it was pointed out very astutely by Alberto R. Gonzales, now Bush's White House counsel, when he was on the state's top civil court with her.

In dissents and concurrences in abortion cases two years ago, Owen said everything except that the U.S. Supreme Court majority in Roe v. Wade should be shot at dawn. She sought to contort the state court's already conservative interpretation of the parental notification provision to make it even more, well, conservative.

The New York Times:
Justice Owen's views are so far from the mainstream that, on those grounds alone, the Senate should be reluctant to confirm her. But what is particularly disturbing about her approach to judging is, as Mr. Gonzales has identified, her willingness to ignore the text and intent of laws that stand in her way....

Justice Owen has also shown a disturbing lack of sensitivity to judicial ethics. She has raised large amounts of campaign contributions from corporations and law firms, and then declined to recuse herself when those contributors have had cases before her. And as a judicial candidate, she publicly endorsed a pro-business political action committee that was raising money to influence the rulings of the Texas Supreme Court....

Justice Owen is a choice that makes sense for Justice Department ideologues who want to turn the courts into a champion of big business, insurance companies and the religious right. But the American people deserve better. Justice Owen's nomination should be rejected

 

[jlabsher]

As I recall it both parties have been beeching about confirmation of federal judges for quite a long time. Do you think either side would nominate a moderate for a judgeship? Hasn't happened under either Clinton or Bush.

Then the Whitehouse cries "mean old Congress is playing partisan!" When of course the Whitehouse is doing the same thing. If they really wanted to appoint a judge they would appoint a moderate, instead both parties seem intent on foisting their beliefs on us by appointing their own brand of judges.

 

[demsformd]

I definitely agree jlabsher but I just do not get why the Republicans think that they are any different. Why my party should just bow down when theirs did not I will never understand.

We need more people on the bench like Souter and O'Connor and Kennedy. These guys are moderate and independent heads. But no, the Bush Administration has to push more Thomases and Scalias.

 

[vraiblonde]

As to how Bush can do it, a 70% approval rating goes a long way. He's merely pushing his mandate - big deal. I, personally, adore Thomas and Scalia - in fact, Clarence Thomas is one of my personal heroes.

It's a matter of perspective.

I feel that under NO circumstances (except in cases of parental abuse) should minor children be allowed abortions without parental consent. Doesn't matter to me if they can "prove" their maturity or not - if they were so mature, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. Doy-ee.

I am a FIRM believer in the death penalty and any judge that doles it out is A-OK in my book. Furthermore, I'm for gassing them right then and there, without 10 year of appeals tying up the court systems and costing the taxpayers money.

I'm ALL FOR anti-loitering laws, regardless of who they "target". If blacks and Hispanics wouldn't loiter, I guess they wouldn't have a problem, eh? Everyone complained their heads off when Rudy Guiliani started prosecuting loiterers and jaywalkers - but you can't argue with the results.

The Libs can say all they want that Estrada and Owen are "outside the mainstream", but a simple peek at the Gallup polls shows that to be incorrect. They are, in fact, right alongside the mainstream in terms of minors getting abortions and capital punishment.

The times they are a-changin'. Get used to it because Liberalism has seen it's day and we're sick and tired of it. We're outraged that Liberal judges turn criminals loose to prey on society. We're outraged that the courts want to take away our parental rights. We're outraged that bums on the street have more rights than us taxpayers. Get it? We're outraged and Libs are outvoted! So

 

[demsformd]

First off, Happy Mother's Day. I am here at home while my wife and her mother have some bonding time.

Back to the matter at hand. The thing is that Estrada is unwilling to change his positions despite what the law says or the Constitution does. It is apparent that he and Owen are anti-choice. The matter about parental notification isn't the biggest issue...it is the fact that they are willing to overturn abortion rights at all costs despite precedent and the constitution and the mainstream of America (a recent poll shows that abortion recieves as much support as the death penalty).

Bush's job approval is 70%...so what? Before the war it was in the 50s. This is a post-war bounce and job approval ratings are incredibly volatile. They have no bearing on who he should nominate. And unless we do not recall, he lost the popular vote and while that doesn't have anything to do with who wins the actual election, you have to concede that more people liked the liberalism of Al Gore than the conservatism of George W. Bush.

The people believe that women have the right to a safe abortion and they believe that moderate independent persons should be appointed the federal bench.

 

[vraiblonde]

First off, Happy Mother's Day.

Thanks!

The thing is that Estrada is unwilling to change his positions despite what the law says or the Constitution does.

I don't call that "extreme" - I call that "integrity". And I'm thrilled that someone has it in this day and age.

Let's get something straight, though - abortion is NOT a "right". Find me somewhere in the Constitution that says you have the "right" to abort your child.

you have to concede that more people liked the liberalism of Al Gore than the conservatism of George W. Bush.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Gore was painted as such a "moderate" by the media that the American dumbells had no idea what they were voting for. His "Earth in the Balance" nonsense was touted as "moderation" and "common sense", when we all know that it was more Liberal propaganda and flat out lies. Then, when you add in all the voter fraud that went on, you're going to have a hard time proving that Gore was so "popular".

Being neither here nor there, I still don't find any of Bush's nominees "extreme". In fact, people try to label Bush himself as "extreme", when I think he's about two steps shy of being a Liberal himself. It's all about perspective.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's all about perspective.

You are right here vrai...it is all about perspective. Mine says that Estrada and Owen are extremist ultraconservatives. Yours is another. I still say they should be blocked.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by demsformd
Well we all know that the Democrats and Bush have been fighting over the confirmation of his judicial nominees. Today is the second anniversary of the president's nominees being introduced and here is a little scorecard that I have compiled. According to congressional records, 22 of the president's 24 circuit court nominees have been voted on and confirmed. There are only two that have not received a vote because of their extremist tendencies. One hundred and one district court nominees have been confirmed in the past two years. Part of that period was under Democratic control and now under Republican control but with a substantial Democratic minority that can filibuster nominations (just as they are with the nominations of Estrada and Owen, two radical conservatives). Because of these two - count them two - actions that ensure the independence and moderation of the bench, the Republicans have labeled the Democratic Party as obstructionist.

I thought that the entire point of checks-and-balances was to ensure that the President did not receive the power of a tyrant. Thank God that there are people in elected office that wish to stop the ideological demagoguery that President Bush wishes to infuse on the federal bench. Not only is this reason enough to laugh at the Republicans' claims but also the GOP's actions during the Clinton administration were just as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats' current actions. Fifty-five of President Clinton's judicial nominees were never - NEVER - given a hearing and thus were not even considered. Ten more did not receive a vote. The Republicans' history of inaction is also documented for other confirmed offices. They used a filibuster to kill President Clinton's nominee for surgeon general in 1995 as well as the nomination of former anti-war protester to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. They refused to allow him to increase the number of members on the bench in several circuits but decided lately to bestow that power upon President Bush. The hypocrisy from that side is defeaning and I have to say that it is time for President Bush to understand that the Democrats will not accept an opponent of basic American rights.

Maybe I am reading something wrong, but for the 108th Congress there have been 24 Circuit judges nominated by Bush with only 6 being confirmed. Of the remaining 18, two are being filibustered leaving 16 for additional Senate action (either at committee or on the floor vote). All together the President has nominated 102 persons for Judge positions (Circuit, District, Tax, etc.) for action by the Senate of which they have confirmed only 29.

 

[Larry Gude]

The facts of the matter...

..are these:

The modern confirmation wars started with Reagan nominee for the USSC Judge Robert Bork. There was simply no way the modern liberal wing of the Democratic Party could stomach him on the bench.

A. He is very conservative (a real horror this guy http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/page71.html )

and

B. Richard Nixon.

AG Elliot Richardson was ordered by Tricky Dick to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson told Dick to pack sand. Dick said, "No, YOU pack sand!" and got Solicitor General Bork to ditch Cox. (BTW, a young Turk-ette helped draft impeachment documents for old Richard, one Hillary Rodham under her mentor Bernie Nusbaum)

ANY Democrat supporting Bork as dogcatcher would be like a Republican supporting Jim Jeffords for Majority Leader. Maybe worse.

So, anyway, by any traditional measure of the times, Bork was qualified and simply was the Presidents choice. Senate confirmation had been to date a formality, a customary courtesy, for eons. All this is now changed and it's the fault of the Democrats.

The next step was escalation. After 12 years of GOP nominees, a high tech lynching was attempted. I give you Judge Clarence Thomas.

The Anita Hill horse crap was known by all the major players, Biden, Simon and the boss, Ted Kennedy. Teddy said "this is BS and we are not going to say a word about it". Paul Simons wife (no, the other Paul Simon) caught wind of this and said "Really? Then I, Mr. Other Paul Simon, shall raise a stink about it!"

Simon said, "Simon says...yes dear..." and the rest is the fiasco that resulted; A woman SO abused that she follows her tormentor from job to job.

Can you say, "A woman scorned"?

I knew that you could.

So now, we have the two biggies that were just embarrassing for the nation the way the Democrats handled them, so, Clinton comes along for payback time of a sort.

In the mean time we now have a BLACK conservative who has proven to be a very good judge.

Hispanic conservative?

Female conservative?

Hell no. Why, pretty soon, people might start asking "Hey, if libs care so much about minorities and sex and all, how come them mean old white guys are the only ones giving a brother or a sister a real job???"

 

[Bruzilla]

Why are Dems always worrying about losing abortion rights? They have no abortion rights to loose. This seems to be one of those "say it often enough and it becomes true" things. Judges should not be deciding if abortions are legal or not. That's what we have a legislative branch of government for.

I'm afraid you're being hypocritical as well Dems. You object to the possibility that these two pro-life nominees "might" interject their personal beliefs in their judgements. Yet you do not object to pro-choice candidates who are just as guilty of having the potential to let personal bias color their judgments. So it's not really your stated issue of not having morals and emotions being involved in decision making, but having the "right" emotions and morals being involved that determines which candidates you want to see supported.

As a pro-choice Republican I would like to see the Congress forced into either passing a law making abortion legal or a law making it illegal. The US Government just wastes too much time debating this issue.