Senate forum on Bush’s judicial nominees
I just attended a US Senate forum on the status of President Bush’s judicial nominees, held by 8 Republican senators: Alexander (TN), Allard (CO), Cornyn (TX), Dole (NC), Grassley (IA), Kyl (AZ), McConnell (KY, Senate minority leader), and Specter (PA, ranking member of Judiciary Committee). That’s a lot of senators.
C-SPAN3 covered the hearing, of which I was unaware until I arrived, or I would have given you the heads up.
The purpose of the hearing was to dispel the so-called “Thurman Rule” excuse Democrats have lately been touting to halt the confirmation process, reiterate the emergency situation in many district courts, and underscore the erosion of the rule of law when there is such a critical shortage of judges….
I could list numbers and percentages of confirmed judges in previous administrations compared to this one but will suffice it to say, quoting Sen. Grassley, “This snail’s pace is unprecedented.”
Added Sen. McConnell, “The facts are indisputable. The current president has been treated dramatically worse – dramatically worse – than any president in the last 30 years.”
A member of the Congressional Research Service gave a short history of the so-called Thurman Rule, answering whether there really is one. (Answer: No.) I’ve excerpted his statement below for those wanting a short primer.
[Photo courtesy of CSPAN3]
Statement by Denis Steven Rutkus
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary, Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service
Before
Judicial Nominees Forum
Senate Republican Conference
United States Senate
July 14, 2008
Excerpt:
The Thurmond Rule has been expressed in various ways, differing, for instance, as to precisely when in the year the slowdown occurs. Nevertheless, almost all Senators who have cited it have characterized it as an established practice according to which, at some point in the presidential election year, the Judiciary Committee and the Senate no longer act on judicial nominations….
It is important to keep in mind that there is no written Senate or Judiciary Committee rule concerning judicial nominations in a presidential election year.
Some Senate Democrats assert that the Thurmond Rule dates back to July 1980, when Senator Thurmond reportedly urged Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, to call on Senate Republicans to block further confirmation of President Jimmy Carter’s judicial nominations.
Conversely, some Republican Senators reject the existence of a Thurmond Rule in the Senate, as well as the notion that Senator Thurmond in 1980 supported blocking judicial nominations. In short, the debate over whether there is, or has ever been, a Thurmond Rule appears to arise largely out of different meanings attached to the events involving Senator Thurmond in 1980.
A review of CRS of the public record of congressional and press sources for relevant events in 1980 revealed the following: According to brief media accounts of the 1980 Republican National Convention, presidential nominee Ronald Reagan agreed, at the urging of Senator Thurmond, to call on Senate Republicans to block all presidential nominations by President Jimmy Carter until after the November 4 elections….
Following the 1980 Republican Convention, however, the Judiciary Committee processed district and circuit court nominations, although not all of those referred to the committee. This occurred without Senator Thurmond alluding to any call to block President Carter’s appointments. The Judiciary Committee continued to hold hearings and report judicial nominations during August and September…. The Senate in turn, in September, confirmed 12 judicial nominations – 11 district, one circuit…..
CRS found that the final dates for Senate action on court of appeals nominations occurred earliest in the three most recently completed presidential election years – those of 1996, 2000, and 2004. Whereas the Senate confirmed courts of appeals nominees after July in four consecutive presidential election years – from 1980 to 1992, the Senate in the three subsequent presidential election years – 1996, 200, and 2004 – confirmed no court of appeals nominees after July.
In short, the Thurmond Rule is self-serving myth with no basis in fact.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Given the complete politicalization of the Justice Department under Bush, it is reasonable to expect that the Bush judicial nominees are selected on the basis of ideology, politics and personal loyalty, rather than competence or experience (eg. Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers)
Refusing to confirm Bush’s nominees may be an effort to avoid futher damage from his presidency, which is prudent, with or without a “Thurmond Rule”.
Better to have a temporary shortage of judges than another 30 years of Bush appointees.
If GWBush really cared about the shortage of Federal judges, he would nominate acceptible candidates.
LTL, the people elected President Bush and his philosophical approach to judicial picks along with him.
Furthermore, the judge shortage is critical in several courts, hurting the American judicial process.
During the final 2 years of the Clinton presidency, 15 of his picks were confirmed by a Republican led Senate. During Bush’s final years the number stands at 10.
You advocate tyranny, LTL, not democracy. You’re living in the wrong country. There are any number of countries to which you could move that would fit your political ideology better.
Jill, the people also elected a Democrat-controlled Senate and their philosophical approach to protecting the Judiciary from GWBush with them.
And the Senate’s refusal to confirm unsuitable nominees is not “tyranny”. If you think you are helping your cause by misusing words, you are mistaken. What you are doing is confirming the stereotype of RTLs as, let’s be polite and say, educationally challenged.
Speaking of tyrrany- take a look at “the Outlaw Presidency” today’s article on washintonpost.com.
Most of those who elected Bush, and his “philospohical approach to judicial picks” now regret it. (23% approval rating)
Yes, Jill, I will leave the country. I am so sorry to have offended you… I will pack up tonight.
I think I must change my name to “LOL”, since that is my response to your admonition.
LTL, care to remind us of Congress’s approval rating?
And SOMG, the Senate is only supposed to screen unqualified candidates. All candidates put forth have been through the typical vetting process – ABA, etc. – and have passed with flying colors. At least one of them has already passed a confirmation hearing but is being forced through it again.
The problem with the obvious glee that liberals are having over the breakdown in the confirmation process is that it is likely to cause a payback freeze on confirmations when the Democrats finally elect a president. That will mean the judicial system will grind to a halt. I wonder if they will be so gleeful then?
Nice try, Doyle, but Obama will have a Dem-controlled Senate. The only way the GOP will be able to block his nominees is by filibustering. When the Democrats tried filibustering GWB’s nominees, the GOP countered with the threat of the “Nuclear Option”, which would eliminate the filibuster altogether.
News flash. MCain will be the next president. Obama has only just started to implode. All he does is promise the world to every campaign stop. He has no substance, America is too smart to put a pay-to-play special interset punk from the sesspool of politics (Chicago/Illinois) in charge.
The big CHANGE Obama would bring is the audacity with which he would use our tax dollars to pander to the special interests and his lack of concern at growing government. He is saying he would pay for his special interest programs by using money he saves from pulling us out of Iraq. News flash, the money being used to pay for the war in Iraq is borrowed so he is basically saying he is going to borrow money to grow government. How deed can the worm hole go?
Buckle your seat belts but it won’t save us from the crash if that empty suited panderer named Barack Obama gets put in charge.
Should have read:
How deep can the worm hole go?
Buckle your seat belts but it won’t save us from the crash if that empty suited panderer named Barack Obama gets put in charge.
SoMG, there’s an old saying: “What goes around, comes around”, a.k.a. “Karma”. Count on it.
Added Sen. McConnell, “The facts are indisputable. The current president has been treated dramatically worse – dramatically worse – than any president in the last 30 years.”
And with good reason, Senator, with good reason. He’s nominated worse people than any president in the last 30 years.
“Added Sen. McConnell, “The facts are indisputable. The current president has been treated dramatically worse – dramatically worse – than any president in the last 30 years.”
And with good reason, Senator, with good reason. He’s nominated worse people than any president in the last 30 years.
Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 11:37 AM”
Got a link for that, Hal?