In a follow-up to my post yesterday comes this from the Associated Press, November 11:

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

And several prelates promised to call out Catholic policy makers on their failures to follow church teaching....

Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion....

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."

Along with their theological opposition to the procedure, church leaders say they worry that any expansion in abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or lose federal funding. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said the hospitals would close rather than comply.

Bravo. Love the tough talk. No more Mr. Nice Guys, since the Obama administration clearly plans to pin their backs against the wall.

What does the opposition say? According to Fox...

Catholics United was among the groups that argued in direct mail and TV ads during the campaign that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights.

Chris Korzen, the group's executive director, said, "we honestly want to move past the deadlock" on abortion. He said church leaders were making that task harder.

"What are the bishops going to do now?" Korzen said. "`They have burned a lot of bridges with the Democrats and the new administration."

Of course being pro-life means more than opposing abortion, but hello, when 1.2-1.6 MILLION babies are being killed ANNUALLY by abortion in the U.S., how can it not take center stage?!

Korzen doesn't get it. We will NEVER move past the "deadlock" (pardon the pun?) on abortion. NEVER.

And Korzen has a lot of nerve. Liberals like him are trying to thwart his Church's teaching, to force Catholic doctors and hospitals to abort, for instance, and he accuses the bishops of burning bridges? He struck the match, and he should know it isn't only bridges that will burn. His own soul is in danger of same.

[HT: , moderator Carder and reader Dean T.; photo of bishops courtesy of Catholic News Agency]

Former ACLU attorney and current US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke at Princeton over a week ago, on October 21, and I'm not surprised pro-abort bloggers have steered clear of discussing it. Read The Daily Princetonian's account to know why:

When asked about the discrepancy between her support of a woman's right to choose and her disapproval of Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to legalized abortion in 1973, Ginsburg said that she was surprised by "how far the court had gone [in this decision]."

"It would have been easy for the Supreme Court to say that the extreme cases are unconstitutional" without broadening the decision to the 50 states.

Ginsburg said that the abruptness of the decision, which declared many state statutes unconstitutional, created a "perfect rallying point" for people who disagreed with the notion that abortion should be a woman's choice. She added that the decision may have also stifled dialogue with state legislatures....

"I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a woman's choice, but the court should not have done it all," she said.

She added that in the absence of a sweeping decision like Roe, it is possible that abortion rights legislation would have evolved organically in the same way that no-fault divorce laws have.

Princeton's weekly newspaper, Town Topics, reported (click to enlarge):

Ginsburg was saying the Roe v. Wade decision was wrong. The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. The decision was too sudden, too sweeping, too jarring, creating the pro-life movement in backlash, when Ginsburg believes states left alone would have eventually created their own pro-abortion laws sans all the protests and palpable social upheaval.

The same ends would have been achieved without the war.

So here we have the preeminent pro-abortion Supreme saying Roe was wrongly decided. Ouch. What does this mean for Obama, should he be elected president? He has stated he would nominate someone like Ginsburg. What does this mean for the Democrat-controlled Senate? Would it allow the nomination of a liberal like Ginsburg who thinks the Roe decision was wrong?

No wonder the other side stands so strongly now on the principle of stare decisis, i.e., precedent, or leaving settled laws like Roe alone, even if bad, because overturning them would create too much societal chaos.

But Ginsburg was specifically saying that in this case it was the original decision that created the chaos. That's a major problem for the other side.

[HT: LifeNews.com; photo courtesy of The Daily Princetonian]

Pro-aborts are bantering a new theory: that the U.S. Supreme Court is awaiting the election of a Democrat president to "throw a wrench into the plans of a new administration" by overturning Roe v. Wade.

That theory relies on another theory that Justice Anthony Kennedy has converted from being "tepidly pro-choice" to pro-life over the course of time. Roe was decided in 1973. Kennedy came onto the Supreme Court in 1988 and was initially considered an anti-Roe vote. Then came 1992, as CNN reported in 2004:

As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way....

Internal notes in the papers of late Justice Harry Blackmun reveal the secretive dealings that led to the court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey....

Blackmun's notes show that Chief Justice William Rehnquist led a 5-justice majority to overrule Roe. Four other justices voting with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.

Unbeknownst to him, Kennedy was having second thoughts, and agreed with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, to a compromise position.

The Casey ruling carved out a middle ground that upheld a woman's right to abortion largely free from state regulation.

The case was argued in April and Rehnquist was at work on his majority ruling, when Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun....

"I need to see you as soon as you have a few moments," the note read. "I want to tell you about a new development in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It should come as welcome news."

Blackmun picked up a pink memo pad and scribbled, "Roe Sound"....

Has Kennedy acquired Catholic guilt, his supposed faith? Kay Steiger at RH Reality Check doesn't speculate on motives but does speculate on a possible change of heart. Seems far-fetched to me but is pleasant to ponder...

This theory would also elevate the importance of the CO personhood and SD abortion ban referendums. These would potentially be Roe decision triggers that cautious pro-life wisdom has considered imprudent to bring forth now.

I checked the ages, and they're accurate. It should also be noted that Antonin Scalia at age 72 is no spring chicken either. We stand to lose even more ground under an Obama presidency.

[HT: Illinois Review]

CBS News' Bob Schieffer asked this during last night's presidential debate:

Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn't. Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?

McCain began with the Republicans' wimpy, worn response. Democrats have no problem saying one's position on Roe v. Wade is a deal maker or breaker; why don't we?...

McCain: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

Schieffer: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

McCain: I thought it was a bad decision....

Schieffer: But even if it was someone - even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications....

I held my breath, preparing to have to punch my dashboard, which really hurts...

McCain: ... I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

Disregarding the lame close, which, of course was silly given the fact McCain had just acknowledged he had a litmus test, I was elated.

Then came Obama, whose answer was so bad on many counts I'm overwhelmed at the prospect of dissecting all of it.

But here's the germane nugget:

Obama: Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided.

Monday morning quarterbacking, I think McCain should have responded:

How in the world can someone who doesn't know when life begins believe Roe v. Wade was "rightly decided"?

[Top photo courtesy of About.com; bottom photo courtesy of Gary Hershorn-Pool/Getty Images]

From today's Rapid City Journal:

South Dakota will begin as early as Friday to enforce a 2005 law that requires doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life....

An order issued by a federal judge means that as of Friday, there will no longer be any court order preventing the state from enforcing the law....

Planned Parenthood, which operates SD's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, will comply with the law....

"We will do what the law says, but clearly the law is extreme and flawed and wrong,"
[spokesperson Kathi] Di Nicola said.

PP believes the courts will eventually strike down the SD law....

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal last month overruled a lower court order that had temporarily prevented the state from enforcing the law. The appeals court said SD could begin enforcing the law passed by the 2005 SD Legislature....

The appeals court's decision sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier... for proceedings that will result in a decision on whether the law is constitutional....

The 2005 law requires doctors to tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause them psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide....

PP contends the measure would interfere in the relationship between doctors and patients and would require doctors to tell women untrue things....

"This law is unprecedented in the nation. It's an unprecedented, extreme law that's going to compel physicians to deliver state ideology," Di Nicola said....

Only ignoramuses or liars could possibly attempt to argue abortion doesn't end a human life. This is one point science, medicine, and religion all agree: the union of human sperm and human egg creates a separate, unique human life. This is Biology 101. Each species begats offspring from its own species.

[HT: reader Gary V.; photo is of a preborn at 12 weeks, the age most abortions are committed]

I reported earlier in the week that 8 Republican senators held a forum to spotlight the Democrat obstruction of judicial confirmations. This Congress has only confirmed 10 of President Bush's Circuit Court nominees (one step below the US Supreme Court), an unprecedented small number.

Today, Majority Leader Reid allowed the confirmation of 2 District Court judges (2 steps below the Supremes), trying to obfuscate his stonewall on more important confirmations. This after stating on the Senate floor the issue of judge confirmations is not important:

Housing is a difficult problem. Energy, a difficult problem with gas prices. Global warming. Education. But I'm telling you, Madam President, I can't ever remember going home and somebody telling me and saying, could you guys do some more judges?

But Minority Leader McConnell wasn't placated and stepped up his own blockage of business to keep up the pressue:

To that end, several events occurred today to underscore - again the Democrats' refusal to confirm Circuit Court nominees.

First, Judiciary Committee Republicans boycotted today's hearing, thereby preventing it from occurring....

Throughout the day McConnell, Specter, and other members of the caucus either spoke or participated in a colloquy on the topic.

Finally, McConnell blocked several committees from meeting by invoking the 2-hour rule. These were:

Environmental & Public Works

Homeland Security & Government Affairs (full committee and subcommittee hearings)

Indian Affairs

Judiciary Committee

All these actions resulted in Reid finally having to shut down the Senate Floor this afternoon.

Very good.

Paul Weyrich is considered the founder of the modern conservative movement. In a July 11 National Ledger op ed he wrote (entire piece reposted on page 2):

... The grand formalities of American election rituals hide a glaring fact: Americans can no longer claim that we are our own rulers....

We gave judges their robes and gavels so that they might resolve specific disputes between specific plaintiffs and defendants. We never gave them authority to issue commands to our elected lawmakers, forcing us down roads which we have not chosen to travel. Judges have no constitutional authority to make laws or to amend our national and state constitutions. They have no authority to redefine words and concepts in our laws to mean what they and their ideological partisans wish for them to mean....

[HT: reader John H.; photo courtesy of the National Ledger]

National Ledger
History and the Judiciary
By Paul M. Weyrich
Jul 11, 2008

I am neither an attorney nor an expert in Constitutional law. Others have been good enough to say I am a good strategist. If so, then I would like to share my perspective of the current state of the judiciary. I have listened as a debate is occurring over the proper powers of the courts and the tendency of some Americans to cede to the advocates of unrestrained judicial power victories to which they are not entitled.

I am occasionally referred to as a "founder of the modern conservative movement." Such an honor places upon me and others to whom such a description applies a special duty to warn our fellow citizens. Americans today are witnesses to the realization of the great fear of our Founding Fathers: the passing away of government "of the people, by the people, for the people," as President Abraham Lincoln stated, in the United States of America. With respect to the courts, we need a revival of the rule of law based upon the constitutional principles laid down by those who founded this nation.

Our forefathers gave their lives to liberate us from the rule of a British Parliament unelected by the American colonists:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.... (Emphasis added.)

The grand formalities of American election rituals hide a glaring fact: Americans can no longer claim that we are our own rulers in every circumstance in which we are empowered to be. Regardless of our votes, the defining judgments in our collective and personal destinies often are made by persons whom the American people have not elected to rule.

We gave judges their robes and gavels so that they might resolve specific disputes between specific plaintiffs and defendants. We never gave them authority to issue commands to our elected lawmakers, forcing us down roads which we have not chosen to travel. Judges have no constitutional authority to make laws or to amend our national and state constitutions. They have no authority to redefine words and concepts in our laws to mean what they and their ideological partisans wish for them to mean.

To Americans of previous generations this was obvious and fundamental. But for many in America today, this is meaningless, a mere technicality: judges are supreme because, well, because they just are.

When several judges opined that there ought to be no more prayer in American schools, lawyers, politicians and journalists told us that after three centuries of prayer in our schools, judges had suddenly "outlawed" it. Court opinions interpreting law and social custom magically became the law itself.

After three centuries of Americans exercising their right to control their communities as citizens and to keep pornography out of public view, several judges opined that the Founding Fathers had given pornographers a right to pollute us and our children, a right that does not exist in the United States Constitution. They put us on a course that has almost obliterated the ideal of fidelity of body, mind, imagination and the heart, upon which marriage, family and child-rearing are built.

Nevertheless, lawyers, journalists and politicians announced that this opinion was to be the new law though it had no basis in the Constitution or in any law authorized by the American people via their chosen lawmakers.

Likewise, judges - acting on behalf of a tiny, anti-constitutional, self-styled cultural "elite" dedicated to turning America into an ideological utopia - opined that the American people may neither protect children from violent murder in their mother's womb, nor outlaw sodomy, nor restrict their civic blessing upon marriage to nature's definition of it, nor ensure that parentless children are placed with parents as nature defines them: one father and one mother.

Nor should I forget to mention judicial disregard for centuries of customary, legal and constitutional protection of private property in order to provide legal sanction for powerful, corrupt politicians lusting after other men's land or buildings. "Take what you please," they said in essence. And this was now the law. One hand washes the other.

Many of us received in shock and sadness the Goodridge v. the Department of Public Health of Massachusetts opinion on homosexual marriage. Why do self-styled "conservatives," lawyers, politician and pundits among them, spread the assertion that judges have powers that the American people have never given them?

The truth is that the ruthlessly enforced illusion of judicial supremacy did not merely empower judges and disenfranchise the American people. It made journalists, lawyers and clever politicians more influential culturally. Most, after all, are of the same ideological bent as many judges. And those who were not, the "conservatives," played within the new rules: judges' opinions are the law in the United States of America.

If Americans paid attention, understood what is at stake and agreed upon the solution, their long-term strategy would require:

* an string of primary victories by candidates who fully grasp the fact that judges have no authority to change our laws and who aggressively will oppose all claims to the contrary;

* an unbroken series of triumphs by such constitutionalist candidates in general elections, year after year;

* an unbroken series of nominations of judges who will interpret the law and will reject the noxious and absurd myth that previous court opinions are "the law of the land"; (Presidents Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush gave us activists such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter!);

* an unbroken series of Senate confirmations of originalist judges;

* unwavering constitutionalism by originalist judges in their years on the bench, withstanding daily assault by infuriated cultural "elites" who grew accustomed to using legally void and impotent court opinions as bulldozers to deceive and enslave Americans via a-moral, anti-constitutional and increasingly tyrannical judicial delusions.

Not a single signer of the Constitution (or of the Declaration of Independence) would have taken seriously the purportedly "conservative" view today that to restrain judges we need to replace them through attrition over decades. That view, in my opinion, guarantees a victory of the far left because it implies that the judicial branch is the final authority on the law.

In his book and British Broadcasting Corporation series Civilization, historian Sir Kenneth Clarke noted that after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, scattered pockets of normalcy continued for a surprisingly long time. How will we know, living in such "pockets of normalcy," when our republic has collapsed? Has it already? Are we prisoners who still think themselves free?

For the sake of this republic I urge my friends, fellow leaders and Americans emphatically to repudiate the devastating myth that judges have the power to make and redefine our laws. We should do so rapidly and forcefully before our republic is replaced by the irresistible tyranny of men and women who believe that nihilist elites should make the rules and pass them to judges for formal announcement when the time is ripe for the latest step into the post-rule of law, post-moral abyss. Otherwise our "conservatism" will continue to be merely the rearguard for subtle left-wing revolution.

The tragedy of how we have reached this point: in our desire for social acceptance and respectability among the anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-Christian, anti-family nihilist left, "conservative" elites have abandoned the core principles of our Constitution. We have flouted the warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Alexander Hamilton was perhaps the strongest advocate of "judicial review" - the right of judges to opine on our Constitution. But an opinion on the meaning of the Constitution is merely an advisory opinion to the legislative and executive branches of government. Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, intentionally have been given no means of enforcing their opinions, noting that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to obey false or dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:

...The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. ... [T]he judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will....

Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges' opinions are the law of the land:

...If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

In the last century cultural elites created an illusion of judicial power that would be unrecognizable to earlier Americans, lawyers and laymen. After the American Revolution, the framers of the Constitution rejected any judicial authority over the other branches of government.

I fear the conservative elites are putting the final nail in our coffin. I know these men. They mean well. They are not pursuing their view out of malice. They believe what they are doing is right. Nor do I associate myself with some of their critics who often are accusatory, judgmental and angry. I look at results, and it seems to me that proponents of the status quo are allowing the legal profession and the courts to impose moral and civil codes which cannot pass federal and state legislatures. They foolishly are handing absolute power to anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-family ideologues.

This is where the trajectory of the post-constitutional pragmatism undergirding the "conservative revolution" has taken us. The story is not yet complete, but if we continue on this trajectory we may reach the point of tyranny and persecution. History reveals this to be true.

Many of those with whom I have worked for years unwittingly are aiding the far left in the destruction of America. It is time for our presidents, governors, legislatures and prominent citizens to call the bluff of impotent judges as Jefferson did and to ask them, as President Andrew Jackson did, how they will enforce their impotent opinions. The myth of judicial supremacy cannot justify governors violating state and federal constitutions, their oaths of office and the sovereignty of the American people. Look at the way so-called gay marriage has been imposed by judicial fiat, running ruthlessly over elected legislatures and the will of the people.

The Massachusetts Constitution contains the quintessential statement of the American form of government: "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature...." (Part the First, Article XX.) "[T]he people...are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (Part the First, Article X.) "The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (Part the First, Article XXX.) "All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved...shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature...." (Part the Second, Article VI.)

Americans must debunk the Orwellian lie that has obliterated self-government in the United States and acknowledge Lincoln's words at Gettysburg in 1863:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.... It is for us the living...to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

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

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.

I've written for a long time about Senate Democrats obstructing confirmation of President Bush's circuit court nominees.

In fact, one would have to go back to 1848 to match their pace. During the last 2 years of Clinton's reign, 15 nominees were confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate. During Bush's last 2 years, 8 nominees have so far been confirmed. The typical average is 17.

I've written for months that Republicans were becoming increasingly exasperated with Democrat stall tactics, obviously to keep as many spots open as possible pending the hopeful election of a Democrat president, despite the fact some are now considered "emergency vacancies."

On May 22, as the Memorial Day deadline approached when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had promised 3 confirmations and only produced 1, Republicans rattled their sabres louder.

So it should have come as no surprise when on June 4, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell used a parliamentary procedure to shut down the Senate to force movement from the Dems on judges. He demanded a 491-page bill be read in full, his prerogative....

Of course, Democrats howled Republicans were merely trying to avoid bringing the world back from the precipice of climactic disaster since the legislation by which they chose to freeze Senate work was a global warming bill. Ever hyperbolic Barbara Boxer said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"We are on the brink of energy independence and on the brink of saving the planet, and they are using every dilatory tactic to try to stop us," Boxer said.

Talk about delusions of grandeur.

But Republicans plan to continue the work stoppage. This was an exchange between McConnell and Hugh Hewitt on his show yesterday:

HH: Do you intend to keep the Senate bollixed up until they come through with the appellate court judges you...

MM: Well, I'm not going to telegraph every move, but I can tell you there'll be minimal cooperation except when we choose to until this commitment is kept.

HH: And have you had any entreaties today from Senator Reid indicating he's willing to keep his word?

MM: Well, not yet, not yet, but we're just getting started.

On June 4, McConnell held an excellent press conference on the topic. The transcript is below.

TRANSCRIPT: Republican Leader Mitch McConnell holds a media availability on the Democratic Majority's refusal to honor commitments on judicial nominations

June 4, 2008

MCCONNELL: I wanted to provide a bit of explanation about how the Senate is spending its time this afternoon.

To refresh your memory, on the issue of circuit court judge appointments, Senator Reid and I agreed at the end of -- at the beginning of this Congress that it was reasonable to achieve the same level of cooperation that each of the last three presidents had received from a Senate of the opposition party in the last two years of their tenures in office, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton.

The average number of circuit judges confirmed by the opposition party in the last two years of each of those presidencies was 17. The lowest number was 15, in President Clinton's last two years. And we agreed that that was a reasonable goal and ought to be achieved during the course of this Congress.

As of this moment, there have been eight. Prior to the last recess, as a result of some parliamentary efforts on my part, Senator Reid agreed that we would do three before Memorial Day. If you recall, we did one.

In the Senate, the minority has rights. We are not the House of Representatives. Commitments are important, and commitments have not been kept.

The pace is incredibly slow. In fact, if you look at judicial confirmations in a presidential year, you have to go back to 1848, prior to the existence of my party, when ironically the only president from Kentucky was in office, Zachary Taylor, to find the last time the pace has been this slow.

So this is completely unacceptable. And the reason the clerks are reading the substitute this afternoon is to give the majority time to contemplate and consider the importance of keeping your word in this body.

The solution to the problem is to get 15 circuit judges, which is lower than the numbers Senator Reid and I agreed to at the beginning of this Congress, but seven beyond what we have at the moment.

Time is clearly running out, and I believe that's what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has had in mind, because there was no rational basis for not keeping the commitment that was made by the majority leader prior to the Memorial Day recess.

We had a number of circuit court nominees. I can think of one from North Carolina and one from South Carolina, just picking out the one from North Carolina. By the way, blue slips from both senators have been returned from both those states.

But just focusing on the one from North Carolina, for example, I believe he was found unanimously well-qualified by the ABA and had been confirmed twice by the Senate before, first as U.S. attorney and then as district judge. So there were judges available that could have come out of committee and the commitment could have been kept.

So there will be further efforts on the part of the minority, as we go forward, to help see to it that the commitment and the goal made at the beginning of this Congress by the majority leader is kept.

With that, I'll be happy to throw it open for a few questions.

QUESTION: Once this reading of the bill is done, if Senator Reid hasn't made any sort of concessions, what happens next? Will you continue to hold up the climate bill?

MCCONNELL: We actually hate to hold up the climate bill. We really like it. We think it's a great debate. We do think that it ought to be on the floor for a while, not for any dilatory reasons, but because of the magnitude of the bill. This proposes to be the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.

It is a massive shift of power to the government, a huge tax increase, a 53-cent-a-gallon gas increase -- in fact, this is no small measure. So let's put it in context, in terms of how the Senate typically handles a measure of this magnitude.

Even though this bill was not as big, I pick out, for example, the clean air bill of 1990, which was on the floor for five weeks, had 180 amendments, and that's the way the United States Senate deals with really big issues, you can't take a massive measure out like this out on the floor, try to dictate a consent agreement under which each side gets a couple of amendments, and when you don't get that, fill up the tree and file cloture.

On a bill of this magnitude, that's utter nonsense. It's not going to happen.

Having said that, we're happy to have the debate. We think it ought to be a real debate with real amendments. We have a number of amendments to offer. And there's no way to hide from this measure and no way to jam it through the Senate.

So we would like to stay on the bill. But there are other commitments that need to be kept. The Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time. It can deal with climate change on the floor, and it can get judges out of the Judiciary Committee, all at the same time, miraculously enough.

QUESTION: Senator McConnell...

MCCONNELL: Yes?

QUESTION: ... what specific steps, I guess, will you take beyond this, the reading of the bill, to, you know, as the other gentleman said, if Senator Reid doesn't bend...

MCCONNELL: Yes, obviously, if I were to announce to you today what I might do beyond this, that would be less effective.

QUESTION: Well, and the follow up, then, sir, do you think...

MCCONNELL: Well, look, the way to avoid this problem is quite simple. Let's get 15 circuit judges confirmed, and let's do it soon. It's an easily achieved goal. It's an easily achieved goal.

We have people pending in the committee upon which blue slips have been returned, about which there is no element of controversy. This is a commitment easily kept and should be kept.

QUESTION: Do you think they're just trying to wait out the administration?

MCCONNELL: One would get that impression, yes. But that is inconsistent with what the majority leader and I agreed was a reasonable goal for this Congress. And the way out of this dilemma is easily understood. It is to keep the commitments made at the beginning of the Congress.

This is not an impossible commitment to keep. There are an adequate number of candidates before the committee that are well- qualified, that have been there for a long time.

In fact, the commitment could have been kept before Memorial Day. What they tried to do was to rush forward nominees that had just gotten there when they could have processed some who were already there who were not controversial.

QUESTION: Have you suspended any kind of talks with the other side on the climate bill or any other bill that might be upcoming (OFF-MIKE) effectively stopped talking about anything other than trying to resolve this issue on the judicial nominees?

MCCONNELL: Well, we do lots of things at one time around here. And we talk to each other. We have a good relationship. But we have a problem here, and it's a problem the majority knows how to solve and needs to solve.

QUESTION: Senator McConnell, sorry, just to clarify. I want to make sure I understand what you guys are saying you'll be doing. You're not saying that, once this reading is done, the very next amendment will also have to be read? You're saying, "This is the first thing we've done, and the majority needs to be on notice that we will try other similar maneuvers to -- unless we get an
accommodation"?

MCCONNELL: Well, let me be quite clear. There is a solution to this problem. It is seven more circuit judges this year. The path to do that is perfectly clear. The nominees are available to keep the commitments made by the majority leader at the beginning of the Congress. And we expect that commitment to be kept. Those kind of commitments are important in the Senate.

Now, let me just also say this to their advantage. If they realize their fondest hopes, they could be nominating judges next year. I hope that doesn't happen. But it strikes me it's to their advantage to defuse this issue, because around here what goes around comes around. That's happening today and could happen next year.

And so I think, surely, they're not so short-sighted as to think, "Goodness, just a few months from now, we could be processing nominees that we like."

QUESTION: But just to clarify, I mean, if the solution to this problem, as you say, does not come about, then the Senate GOP will continue to employ maneuvers like this...

MCCONNELL: Well, it's not to my advantage to clarify. I understand that you would like for me to clarify. I don't intend to give away any advantage by clarifying that which I prefer to have remain vague.

(LAUGHTER)

And the question here is, how do you solve the problem? And the solution, I have repeated several times, is apparent.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCONNELL: Let me go to somebody new, and then I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: Your frustration over judges isn't new and the frustration of one side with the other over -- you know, it may be slow-walking things. It's certainly not new. So my question is: Why now?

MCCONNELL: Why now is because the...

QUESTION: And it makes me wonder if you sort of observed Leader Boehner's delay tactics, sort of when he felt he was being mistreated, he had some floor delay tactics going on over there that...

MCCONNELL: No, this is the Senate. That's the House. In the Senate, we had a commitment made by the majority leader prior to the Memorial Day recess that we would get three circuit judges. We got one. Commitment made; commitment broken.

QUESTION: Senator, how do you deal with this public perception -- on the floor, people are using terms like "this bill is essential to the survival of the planet." You know, "survival of the planet" versus two circuit judges, "survival of the planet" versus two circuit judges.

MCCONNELL: Yes. Well, I'm not at all uncomfortable with the debate on the floor over the climate change bill. We think it is, frankly, a totally inappropriate way to deal with the problem. The way Americans tackle problems like this is with technology, not with clamping down our own economy. We ought to create the technology to solve the problem and then sell it to the Chinese and the Indians, rather than export American jobs to China and India by clamping down our own economy.

So this is a debate, I assure you, we are happy to have and would be happening this afternoon, but for the violation of the commitment made pre-Memorial Day.

And I hope we stay on the bill. I have a suspicion that we won't. I have a suspicion that, once we get back to the bill, the tree will be filled up, cloture will be filed, and, of course, you'll end up with an absurd ending to an important debate that we would like to engage in.

And it should have been, at the very least, given the same amount of time that we gave to the clean air bill in 1990, which some would argue is not nearly as comprehensive as this one, but took five weeks and had 180 amendments. I mean, it was a real debate.

We've had very few real debates over big bills in the last year- and-a-half. The pattern has been: try to jam the minority into agreeing to a few amendments; and, if not, fill up the tree; and file cloture; and have a vote.

You get nowhere. This is one of the least accomplished congresses, and it's certainly in the time that I've been here, which might explain, in part, why they have an approval rating at least 10 points lower than the president of the United States.

QUESTION: Sir, you said commitments have been made; commitments have been broken. Are you merely seeking a commitment here from Senator Reid that he'll...

MCCONNELL: Well, we had an understanding at the beginning of this Congress, at the risk of being redundant, which was that we would try to achieve the average, which is 17. I'd settle, at this point, for as well as President Clinton, which is 15. That means we have seven to go and we're running out of time. They have a problem.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCONNELL: They have a problem. They're seven circuit judges short of what they said they would do, and we're running out of time. And I think it's time to get about it, and I'm trying to provide them some incentive.

QUESTION: Do you need to see Senator Reid schedule the seven nominees, seven nominees for votes on the floor? I mean, is that what you want to see here?

MCCONNELL: I want them confirmed and on the bench before the end of the Bush presidency.

I'm going to take one more, if there is one, I think.

QUESTION: I'm curious. Senator Reid's spokesman said that, when the reading is done, Reid was going to try and offer unanimous consent on a couple of amendments to the climate bill, one on (OFF-MIKE) going to offer the Biden-Lugar international (OFF-MIKE) will you at that point let the amendment process begin? Or do you think that we're going to...

MCCONNELL: As I've said in response to other questions, I'm not prepared to announce what we'll do going forward. We know what we're doing at the moment; we know what the solution to it is.

Thanks, everybody.

END

I wrote May 23 that Senate Republicans were threatening to do something if Senate Democrats didn't fulfill promises to confirm more judges.

When I emailed a source asking what that was, the source responded, "As [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell] told the Senators, 'You will recognize it when you see it.'"

Well, this afternoon we're seeing it....

After releasing a statement this morning (reprinted in full below) McConnell used a parliamentary tactic to, in essence, shut down the Senate.

Senate rules require that when an amendment is introduced the clerk begin to read the text. The senator introducing the measure then requests consent that the reading be dispensed with. There is rarely an objection.

Today, however, McConnell objected and is forcing reading of the Boxer substitute to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill.

And that would be 491 pages long.

A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday closed with:

A new Rasmussen study shows that the type of Supreme Court Justices a presidential candidate would appoint outranks even the war as a priority among GOP voters. Democrats are hoping to gain as many as nine Senate seats this fall, which means Republicans had better find a way to show voters that they matter - and soon.

They just did. Hope they stick to their guns.

Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senate Republican Leader

McConnell Responds to Democrats' Refusal to Honor Commitments on Judicial Nominations

'The Democratic Majority has refused to honor its commitments. It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences'

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement today regarding the Democratic Majority's refusal to honor commitments on judicial nominations:

"The Democratic Majority has repeatedly failed to treat the judicial nominees fairly.

"At the beginning of this Congress, the Majority said it would meet or exceed the average of 17 circuit court nominees that have been confirmed in prior Congresses; yet it has only confirmed eight circuit court judges thus far. More disturbing, the Chairman of the Committee recently threatened to shut down the confirmation process completely, an action that would break yet another historical precedent.

"The Majority said it would treat Republican senate delegations fairly; yet for months, the Democratic Majority has only worked on circuit court nominees from states with a Democratic senator.

"The Majority said it would do its 'utmost,' said it would do 'everything' possible, said it would do 'everything within its power' to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day recess; yet it only confirmed one nominee. Moreover, it appears the Majority did not seriously attempt to honor its commitment. Indeed, since that deadline passed almost two weeks ago, the Democratic Majority has still failed to confirm more circuit court nominees.

"The Democratic Majority has refused to honor its commitments. It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences.

"The actions of our Democratic colleagues today are short-sighted. It is important that judicial emergencies are filled with qualified judges, and we will use the various tools at our disposal to ensure that those nominees and the Republican Conference are treated fairly, and that the Majority takes its commitments seriously."

###

On April 15, Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid promised Senate Republicans the body would confirm at least 3 judicial nominees by the Memorial Day recess.

Well, recess officially began a few minutes ago, and Reid has officially lied. Since April only 1 nominee has been voted on, G. Steven Agee to the 4th Circuit, 96-0.

Yesterday came news that may be it for the year. According to CQ Politics:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled Thursday that the window for action this year on appellate court nominees is beginning to close....

Citing what Democrats see as Senate custom on election year confirmations, Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT, said, "We may be too far into the Thurmond rule to move forward"....

Ten circuit nominees are awaiting action by the committee....

Leahy was referring to what Democrats cite as an informal custom, named after former committee Chairman Strom Thurmond... whereby no judicial nominees are confirmed in the latter part of a presidential election year without the consent of both sides. Republicans argue that there is no such custom.

Our side continues to sabre-rattle, which is way beyond tiring. I think part of the reason Americans don't like Republicans anymore is because they don't respect Republicans anymore. They view them as wimps who don't stand up to obvious bullies. Reported Committee for Justice today:

This week brought two more reminders of the importance of the judges issue to GOP voters:

"When it comes to how they will vote in November, Republican voters say that the type of Supreme Court Justices a candidate would appoint is more important than the War in Iraq." - Rasmussen Reports

"Item No.1 on the list of complaints from ... conservative leaders is Mr. Bush's failure to compel the Senate to vote on the federal judges he has nominated." - Gerald Seib, Wall Street Journal

The Rasmussen survey also found that "by a 69% to 20% margin, voters [of all stripes] believe that judges should interpret the law as it is written," and that only 11% of voters trust judges over voters or elected officials "to decide important decisions facing the country." These findings help to explain why the judges issue has worked to Republicans' advantage over the last decade. CA Supreme Court, are you listening?

In truth, the responsibility for "compelling" Senate Democrats to allow up-or-down votes on the President's judicial nominees lies primarily with GOP senators. And they undoubtedly have the Rasmussen survey results in the back of their minds as they consider their reaction to Majority Leader Reid's broken promise to confirm three appeals court nominees before the Memorial Day recess, as well as Reid's sure-to-be-broken earlier promises to meet the historical average (17) for appeals court confirmations in a president's final two years. With just a couple of months left in the confirmation window, Reid is less than halfway to meeting that average.

The investigation into illegal activity by a Planned Parenthood clinic in KS may be on the verge of breaking open. The other side is starting to blink.

The first blink came earlier this month when the KS Supreme Court unsealed a lawsuit Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri filed against Johnson Co. District Attorney Phill Kline for criminally investigating it. Light of day, yes.

Then yesterday saw a big blink, with KS Attorney General Steve Six retreating from a previous demand he had made of District Court Judge Richard Anderson to return potentially incriminating patient records to the AG so he could return them to the potential crook, PP....

In fact, taking his cue from PP, Six had incredibly sued Anderson to get them back.

But yesterday Six backed down, offering to let the judge keep the PP records, "but only until any lawsuits and the criminal case are finished," according to the Associated Press, May 22.

Well, duh. If Six feared the judge planned to someday use them as wallpaper, the judge had previously allayed that concern when stating in a filing he had "no desire to be the permanent custodian of these records."

Kline, who started all this by launching a 107-count criminal investigation against a PP abortion mill in Olathe, KS, had a LOL response to Six's backstep, again quoting from the AP:

"I am pleased that the attorney general's office has reversed course and now recognizes that redacted records, in which judges have found probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed, should be used in a criminal prosecution," Kline said.

As Kline has doggedly pursued PP for 5 tough years, KS pro-abort elected and court officials have grown more blatant in their attempts to squelch his investigation into illegal late-term abortions and fraud at the PP mill.

Last week saw a new pinnacle in audacity: Without citing any legal authority or informing Kline, the KS Supremes ordered Anderson, one of Kline's key witnesses, to defy Kline's subpoena to testify in his case against PP.

Anderson is the judge who oversaw Kline's investigation when Kline was attorney general. Anderson gave Kline permission to take copies of the redacted PP records to Johnson County when Kline was appointed district attorney.

Anderson also reviewed the PP records and found "serious" problems with their authenticity, among other concerns, so much that he asked a police handwriting analysist to evaluate them, who agreed they looked as if they'd been doctored, pardon the pun.

Anderson kept a copy of the records, which are the very ones Six wanted to give back to PP... until yesterday, marking the first time the AG's office has backed away from aiding and abetting PP in its cover-up... a big break in this case.

Has Six decided the AG's office can no longer cover for PP?

Kline had no idea the Supremes were blocking Anderson from testifying in his PP case until a few days ago. Click on the graphic below to go to the link to view his announcement he was motioning to intervene:

Some in the mainstream media must finally be growing suspicious of the party line. The AP wrote fair articles on the Kline/PP saga Sunday and yesterday, as did the Kansas City Star yesterday.

Yesterday in a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld KY's death penalty protocol as not cruel and unusual punishment, effectively lifting a 7-month nationwide moratorium on capital punishment while states awaited the verdict....

The protocol involves a 3-drug cocktail, given by injection into a vein, in order:

potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest, i.e., death

Contested was the 2nd drug, which death penalty opponents said might leave a dying convict in pain but unable to let anyone know.

The Bible condones the death penalty for 2 reasons, to deter others from committing heinous crimes, but moreso to rid society of the most evil among us.

This spotlights the sanctity of life: It is so precious, those taking innocent human life should be meted the ultimate punishment.

Fellow pro-lifers disagree, and that's fine.

But it's not fine for pro-aborts and pro-euthanasiasts to disagree.

It's the height of hypocrisy to feign righteousness about putting convicted murderers to death, wringing hands about pain they might endure along the way, while meanwhile supporting suctioning or tearing preborns limb from limb or dehydrating and starving disabled people to death.

No surprise that rabidly pro-abort Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented out of concern for convicted murderers' comfort.

The surprise came in near 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens, who reversed himself. In 1976, he helped write the majority opinion upholding the death penalty as constitutional. Now, he wrote in his opinion yesterday, he believes it violates the 8th Amendment.

Still Stevens voted with the majority, which would be considered strange and even indefensible did we not know he was hearing Roe v. Wade whisper "stare decisis" in his ear, what liberals are solely banking on now to prop legalized abortion should the day ever come to reexamine what intelligencias on both sides all agree was an abysmal decision.

posted at 11:26 AM | Comments (121) | TrackBack (0)

April 16, 2008
Big day yesterday on judge issue

I've been tracking the Senate Democrat obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees, including the Republicans' recent threat to shut the Senate down if Dems continue to block confirmations.

The clock is ticking. When whoever the new president is assumes duties, all of President Bush's good nominees will be erased from the docket. The Dems are stalling for that day.

Well, the Committee for Justice blog is today reporting big news:

Tuesday was a big news day for the judges issue - perhaps the biggest since the confirmation of Justice Alito. Senate Leaders Reid and McConnell [pictured right together] made a deal to confirm three appeals court nominees by Memorial Day; Sen. Levin and the White House reached an agreement to fill two long-standing vacancies on the 6th Circuit; and Sen. Specter asked Sens. Obama, Clinton, and McCain to declare their position on a possible motion to discharge three circuit nominees - Peter Keisler (DC Cir.), Bob Conrad (4th Cir.), and Steve Matthews (4th Cir.) - bottled up in the Judiciary Committee by Sen. Leahy.

Here's our take on the day's news, followed by excerpts from news reports....

We believe Sen. Specter got it right - Keisler, Conrad, and Matthews are the nominees to focus on for a number of reasons. They were nominated to particularly important vacancies, have been pending in committee for a very long time, face no opposition from home state senators (the Leahy litmus test), and are being blocked for purely ideological reasons.

It follows that the devil is in the details of which nominees the Reid-McConnell deal will involve. We commend Sen. McConnell for using the highway funding bill as leverage to get a concession on judges from Reid, but we don't yet know what to make of the deal. If "3 circuit confirmations by Memorial Day" turns out to include at least two of Keisler, Conrad, and Matthews, it's a good deal. In contrast, Reid should not be allowed to claim credit for circuit court nominees whose selection or likely confirmation are already the result of deals with Democrats. Steven Agee (4th Cir.), Helene White (6th Cir.), and Ray Kethledge fall in that category.

Which brings us to the Michigan deal, involving two long-vacant Michigan seats on the 6th Circuit. Sen. Carl Levin agreed to stop blocking outstanding 6th Circuit nominee Ray Kethledge in return for the nomination of Levin cousin-of-law Helene White to the same court. That displaced another outstanding 6th Circuit nominee, Steve Murphy, who has now been nominated to the federal district court instead. Sen. Levin should be embarrassed that he has blocked 6th Circuit nominees for the last 7 years as "payback" for the breakdown of a deal to put White on the circuit a decade ago. But since Levin wasn't going to get over his grudge anytime soon, the President was right to make the deal.

This morning, Republicans are going to the Senate floor to address Democrats' obstruction of judicial nominees and yesterday's deals. So there may be more news today.

Finally, we hope for a speedy recovery by Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the GOP's leading voices on the judges issue.

News Excerpts:

"Specter wrote Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), seeking a direct response as to how they would vote on a motion to discharge three pending nominations from the committee. But Specter, rarely one to mince words, said he also wanted to "focus the public's attention" on the impasse." - The Hill, 04/15/08

"Dangling the popular highway funding bill as his hostage, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) struck a deal Tuesday night with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to dislodge a handful of President Bush's stalled appellate court nominees. Under the agreement, Reid and McConnell decided to advance at least three outstanding circuit court appointments before the Senate's Memorial Day recess, which begins May 23. ... Reid said he couldn't make guarantees nor could he specify which judges would move forward, but he would do his best to follow through on the leaders' deal." - Roll Call, 4/16/08 (emphasis added)

"The [Michigan] deal was reached by the White House and Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. ... Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the agreement 'a significant development that can lead to filling the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit before this year ends.'" - Associated Press, 4/15/08

[Photo courtesy of the New York Times]

posted at 12:31 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)

April 4, 2008
Senate Republican strike looms

I wrote a month ago that Senate Republicans, led by Arlen Specter, were threatening a work slowdown if Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy didn't pick up the hearing pace of President Bush's judicial nominees.

According to the Committee for Justice blog, there was a "dramatic showdown" in yesterday's JC hearing:

This morning's dust-up over judges raged for more than 30 minutes and clearly got under Sen. Leahy's skin. The Chairman lurched from being defensive to trying to change the subject, but Specter, the ranking Republican, insisted that all 8 of the GOP senators present be allowed to address the obstruction of Bush's judicial nominees....

The dramatic confrontation bore immediate fruit, as Fifth Circuit nominee Catharina Haynes was voted out of committee. Leahy had been expected to comply with People for the American Way's demand, in a March 31 letter, that the Committee "not proceed" with her nomination.

Perhaps the most ominous words came from Sen. Sam Brownback when he said "I think we all know where this is headed" - an obvious reference to the bitter and prolonged Senate showdown and shutdown over judges that only Sen. Leahy can head off. Earlier in the week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned that "Republicans will be forced to consider other options" if the obstruction of judicial nominees continues.

The JC confrontation was preceded the day before by a Wall Street Journal piece outlining the plan:

Mr. Specter says he has recommended that Republicans "go full steam ahead" until Democrats agree to hold confirmation votes. He has in mind a series of procedural stalls that would make it next to impossible for the Senate to get anything done. These could include refusing to accept the usual unanimous consent motion to have the previous day's deliberations entered into the official record without a formal reading, a process that would take hours. So would reading the text of many bills, which can run to hundreds of pages....

As for Mr. Specter's plan, there's no guarantee it will work, as Democrats will denounce Republican "gridlock." But it has the advantage of getting the issue of judicial confirmations back in front of the public in an election year. It also offers Senator John McCain an opportunity to show some leadership on an issue popular both with conservatives and independents. Some activists still haven't forgiven him for his role in the bipartisan "Gang of 14" Senators who brokered a deal in 2005 that thwarted Republican efforts to ban judicial filibusters. As for Barack Obama, this would be a chance to show his "post-partisan" campaign riffs are more than rhetoric.

I think the plan will work. Democrats will certainly try to spin, but Republicans have good reason to push their point, as WSJ pointed out:

[O]f the 11 appeals-court nominees awaiting Senate action, seven would fill seats deemed to be judicial emergencies. One-third of the 15 seats on the Fourth Circuit... are vacant.

DC politicians know the American people are tired of this nonfunctioning partisan government. Americans also believe in fairness. The Democrats on both those counts are clearly in the wrong here, refusing to allow a Senate vote on President Bush's judicial picks, as his constitutional responsibility

[HT: Curt Levey of Committee for Justice; graphic courtesy of WSJ]

posted at 1:15 PM | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)

March 4, 2008
Republicans to raise ruckus re: Democrat obstruction of Bush judicial nominees

Just received a welcome press release from the Committee for Justice.

Senate Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy, pictured left, have hamstrung the nation's federal courts by obstucting the confirmation of Bush nominees. The critical shortage of judges only grows more critical.

Confirmations are headed for a "historic low for a two-term President in modern times," stated GOP Senator Arlen Specter, pictured below right, the ranking Republican on that committee.

Specter has been holding Increasingly frustrated Republicans at bay, trying to appeal to Leahy.

Time is apparently up....

On February 29 Specter, pictured left, wrote Leahy a letter calling for a bipartisan protocol and timetable to confirm judges. Democrats scoffed at President Bush's likewise proposal in 2002.

If this fails, there will be a "showdown," according to the press release.

The last showdown was averted by the Gang of 14, a group of 7 Dems and 7 GOPers who created a bloc to force compromise. John McCain headed the Gang, you'll recall, a point of contention among conservatives ever since, although this did pave the way for Alito and Roberts' confirmations.

The press release speaks of "hardball tactics" and "Specter... ready to lead his colleagues into battle." I called the release writer, Curt Levey, to explain what sort of ruckus the Republicans might make. Curt said:

Republicans can threaten to deny a quorum to Leahy in committee; they can slow things down on the Senate floor; they can block specific pieces of legislation they know Leahy really wants. Anything they do to raise the visibility of the issue is helpful.

This is an issue that cuts the Republican way. The more visibility, the more Democrats want to make it go away. The biggest trouble they can cause is to have a confrontation, get a lot of media publicaity. The last thing in the world [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid or Obama wants is for judges to be a big issue this fall.

Yes, according to the release, one tactic will be to put Obama on the hotseat. The man calling for bipartisanship and an end to acrimony should not oppose bipartisan rules for judicial confirmations, right?

The Swamp added this:

Leahy won't say it, but if he and the Democrats are indeed running a kind of four-corners offense to delay consideration of nominees, it may be in their best interest to do so. If either... Clinton or... Obama is elected president in November, pending judicial nominations will likely lapse or be pulled and replaced by nominees more palatable to Democrats. That was undoubtedly was very much in the mind of Specter and McConnell as they made their remarks Monday.

[Leahy photo courtesy of CBC News; Specter photo courtesy of Sports Illustrated;

posted at 6:36 PM | Comments (47) | TrackBack (1)

January 31, 2008
Reagan and O'Connor

Anderson Cooper divulged some interesting information while asking an interesting question during the CNN debate last night with the remaining Republican nominees for president:

On July 6, 1981... Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And the Reagan Library has graciously allowed us to actually have the original Reagan diary right here on the desk....

And in it, he wrote by his hand, he said, "Called Judge O'Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting, and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she's pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she'll make a good justice."...

[W]as she the right choice?...

Certainly Reagan's thoughts on O'Connor have been public information for a long time, but not to me. Recall at the time Roe was only 8 years young, and parsing on being "personally" pro-life had not yet bloomed into what we know it to be today: functionally pro-abortion.

Also interesting is that Reagan apparently asked O'Connor The Question, and she apparently answered him or made her ideology public, a point Republicans and judicial nominees intensely avoid these days, thinking the code phrase "strict constructionist" rather than "pro-life" fools anyone.

The candidates' transcribed answers are below. To summarize, Huckabee refused to answer but gave a mini-speech on being pro-life; Paul said no; McCain refused to answered but reiterated he would appoint justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito, "who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution"; Romney said no, reiterating same, and adding Scalia and Thomas to his list.

Candidates' responses to Cooper question on whether they would have nominated Sandra Day O'Connor as Supreme Court justice, as Reagan did:

HUCKABEE: History will have to determine that, and I'm not going to come to the Reagan Library and say anything about Ronald Reagan's decisions. I'm not that stupid. If I was, I'd have no business being president.

I think we need to talk about why the issue of right-to-life is important. For many of us, this is not a political issue; this is an issue of principle and conviction. And it goes to the heart of who we are as a country.

If we value each other as human beings and believe that everybody has equal worth, and that that intrinsic value is not affected by net worth, or ancestry, or last name, or job description, or ability, or disability, then the issue of the sanctity of human life is far bigger than just being anti-abortion.

It's about being pro-life and exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day.

And that's why for many of us -- and me included. Let me be very clear: I'm pro-life. I value every human being. And I would always make every decision always on the side of life every time I could, without equivocation.

COOPER: Yes or no, Congressman Paul, was Sandra Day O'Connor the right choice?

PAUL: I wouldn't have appointed her, because I would have looked for somebody that I would have seen as a much stricter constitutionalist.

COOPER: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I'm proud of Sandra Day O'Connor as a fellow Arizonan. And my heart goes out to her family in that situation that they have today. And I'm proud of her.

The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm not going to second-guess President Reagan.

COOPER: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: I would approve justices -- I would have favored justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas. I like justices that follow the Constitution, do not make law from the bench. I would have much rather had a justice of that nature.

posted at 9:36 AM | Comments (24)

October 4, 2007
Supremes decline forced contraceptive coverage case

On Monday the Supreme Court declined to consider the appeal of a lower court ruling uphodling a 2002 New York state law forcing some religious employers to cover contraceptives in their health insurance drug plans, which violated their religious beliefs.

Four points on this....

1. The groups suing, which included Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and Seventh Day Adventists, correctly argued, as quoted by the Associated Press:

If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well.... And if it can compel church entities to subsidize abortions, it can require hospitals owned by churches to provide them.

2. As a DC pro-lifer involved in public policy emailed:

The very existence of this case underscores the urgent need to break the link between health insurance and employment. If we all were able to buy our own health insurance, we could group together according to our moral principles. If the Knights of Columbus, for instance, were able to sell health insurance as they now sell life insurance, then Catholics would be able to own health insurance that did not violate their conscience. Ditto for Mormons, Southern Baptists, Muslims, and so forth.

Are you aware that 46% of workers in employer-sponsored health insurance plans are in plans which cover abortion? Those people are subsidizing abortion - against their will, and probably without their knowledge.

I know that health insurance reform seems to be a long way from the life issue. But it is intimately connected to it. Everything we care about in the life battles connects sooner or later with health insurance reform.

If you want to reform health care, you have to reform health insurance. If you want to reform health insurance, you have to reform the federal tax code. That's because when your employer buys your health insurance neither he nor you pay any tax on it - but your employer owns it and you have no choice about it. But the federal tax code is the reason individuals can not afford to buy their own health insurance.

That must change, or there can be no freedom of conscience in health insurance. So when you hear about "conservatives" wanting to create a personal health care tax credit, please understand that this is a very pro-life initiative as well as a "conservative" one.

3. Is this over? Two points of view. Arguing yes, as quoted by the