Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Democrats Warn on GOP Judge Rule Change
9 minutes ago
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Democrats served notice Tuesday that they will slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush (news - web sites)'s controversial court appointments.
Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said Democrats would not block passage of measures needed to assure continuation of critical government services.
"To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."
The exchange marked the latest development in a long-simmering struggle over Bush's court appointments. Democrats blocked votes on 10 nominees during the last Congress, attacking them as too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments.
Accusing Democrats of obstruction, Republicans sought to make an issue of it in the elections last fall, in which they gained four seats.
Bush has already renominated some of the judges, and Reid has said previously the Democrats' position has not changed.
Republicans have floated the possibility they will change the rules that currently allow a filibuster meaning supporters of a nominee must gain 60 votes to force a final vote. Both parties have made use of the filibuster rules in the past when in the minority.
Apart from the exceptions he outlined in his letter, Reid wrote, "we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters."
Thus far, Republicans have not sought a Senate vote this year on any of the judicial appointees whose confirmations Democrats blocked in 2003 and 2004.
In his letter, Reid told Frist that "in recent press reports, you have threatened to use extraordinary parliamentary tactics allowing the Republican majority to rubber-stamp the handful of nominees already rejected and all future Bush nominees."
The Senate's rules give strong rights to the minority and, in many cases, permit even an individual senator to interfere with the daily routine of committee meetings, floor debate and votes on legislation.
Reid did not specify the steps he is planning to take if Republicans change the rules, but Democrats said he has a variety of options at his disposal.
Surrounded by fellow Senate Democrats, Reid disclosed the letter on the east steps of the Capitol, across the street from the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) is suffering from thyroid cancer. Democrats and Republicans, anticipating President Bush will have at least one vacancy to fill on the high court, are girding for a monumental confirmation battle.
Reid said:Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said Democrats would not block passage of measures needed to assure continuation of critical government services.
gop_jeff said:Great! Do it! Let's not spend any money on non-critical programs!!! Is this what we've needed to do all along to turn Democrats into fiscal conservatives?
Seriously, though, who the hell cares what Harry Reid wants? He and his other 44 Dems are on the losing end of every battle they want to fight.
SmarterThanYou said:i'll open up this can of worms again, but why wasn't there such an uproar when the republicans blocked 60 of clintons nominees yet blocking 10 of bush's is tantamount to treason?
Some of the seats that Bush is trying to fill right now(4th circuit for one) are seats that clinton tried to fill and orrin hatch said that there was no crisis. This is really nothing more than another blatant attempt to align the judicial branch to the conservative side instead of interpreting the constitution and law.musicman said:I also think it's worth mentioning that the federal judiciary is an institution in crisis at this point.
currently? obviously from the left, but these 10 nominees from the rebublicans should even the score. soon we'll have both sides legislating from the bench.musicman said:The Constituion, and it's concept of the separation of powers, has been perverted beyond recognition - just as some of the framers (Jefferson and Hamilton, to name two) feared it could be. Perhaps the most important question an American can ask THIS CENTURY is, "Is this nominee going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?" I'm not saying that all Republican choices in this regard have been good ones (there have been some severe disappointments), But, let's be honest here. Overall, which party do you think believes more strongly in strict adherence to the constitutional design of the separation of powers - and which do you think would like to see more legislating from the bench?
SmarterThanYou said:Some of the seats that Bush is trying to fill right now(4th circuit for one) are seats that clinton tried to fill and orrin hatch said that there was no crisis. This is really nothing more than another blatant attempt to align the judicial branch to the conservative side instead of interpreting the constitution and law.
currently? obviously from the left, but these 10 nominees from the rebublicans should even the score. soon we'll have both sides legislating from the bench.
musicman said:Can you give me an example of a truly conservative judge legislating from the bench? It seems to me it would be a betrayal of the principles of conservatism.
SmarterThanYou said:Justice Priscilla Owen
Before joining the court, Owen was a partner at the Houston firm Andrews & Kurth, where she represented primarily large corporations, including oil and pipeline interests. On the Texas Supreme Court, she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results, voting consistently to dismiss the claims of injured workers and consumers and citizens wishing to protect the environment. In addition, prior to her nomination to the Fifth Circuit, she never voted to grant a minor a judicial bypass under Texas' Parental Notification Statute. The Houston Chronicle wrote that her "interpretations [in these cases] were generally stricter and more conservative than the majority of her all-Republican colleagues" on the court. Indeed, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow Justice, called one of her dissents in a bypass case "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."*
*Flood, Mary, "Judicial Nominee Takes Issue with Conservative Label", Houston Chronicle, May 10, 2001
The article states in 'one' of her dissents, not the bypass thing that was mentioned. I've been unable to find mary floods article online to find out the specific cast but I doubt that it would have it anyway.gop_jeff said:The bypass thing doesn't seem like a case of "legislating from the bench." It may or may not be a correct judgment (she thought it was, Gonzales disagreed) but is that really legislating?
not having read the whole article, i'm not sure. Having read some of the dissents and rulings by owens myself, she has many times gone against decades of precedent or issued rulings and opinions so broad that it would leave several classes of people with similar claims without recourse.gop_jeff said:And I'm curious how Mary Flood jumps from "dismiss[ing] claims" to "rewrit[ing] the law."
gold standard ratings by the ABA aren't that much of a treasure to be idolized. Bader Ginsburg had a gold star rating if I remember correctly.musicman said:You have summed up Justice Owen's opposition very well, but she appears to have her share of supporters as well. The ABA gives her its highest rating - indeed, the rating even the Democrats on the Judiciary Commitee refer to as the "Gold Standard". In this case, I think the accusation that she "legislates from the bench" might be a bit subjective. Not so the nonstop assault on the U.S. Constitution being carried out in liberalism's name.
SmarterThanYou said:gold standard ratings by the ABA aren't that much of a treasure to be idolized. Bader Ginsburg had a gold star rating if I remember correctly.
A. Justice Owens Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint means that judges have a proper understanding of the scope of their own powers. Judging is not the same as legislating. When deciding a case, judges are required to give effect to the intent of the lawgiver, whether the people themselves through a constitution, or the peoples elected representatives through a statute. Judged by this standard, Justice Owen certainly qualifies as a practitioner of judicial restraint. She consistently defers to the policy choices of the Texas Legislature, refusing to substitute the Courts policy preferences. And she consistently applies the authoritative precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court.
TPJ proposes that Justice Owens concurrence in In re Jane Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2000), is somehow evidence of judicial activism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Doe 2 reveals Justice Owens demonstrated commitment to following and applying the precedents of the United States Supreme Court. In Doe 2, Justice Owen concluded that an exception to Texass Parental Notification Act, which permits an underage girl to have an abortion without telling a parent when doing so is in her best interest, required the Court to consider both whether abortion is in her best interest,
and whether notification is not. She came to this conclusion by citing the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997) (per curiam). In that case, the Court interpreted an identical best interest exception in a Montana statute, and concluded that a judicial bypass procedure requiring a minor to show that parental notification is not in her best interests is equivalent to a judicial bypass procedure requiring a minor to show that abortion without notification is in her best interest. Id. at 297. Judicial restraint involves deferring to and applying the precedents of a superior tribunal, and that is precisely what Justice Owen did in Doe 2.
SmarterThanYou said:gold standard ratings by the ABA aren't that much of a treasure to be idolized. Bader Ginsburg had a gold star rating if I remember correctly.
(emphasis mine)SmarterThanYou said:not having read the whole article, i'm not sure. Having read some of the dissents and rulings by owens myself, she has many times gone against decades of precedent or issued rulings and opinions so broad that it would leave several classes of people with similar claims without recourse.
SmarterThanYou said:well, all I am seeing is the same old spin about liberals are judicial activists and conservatives are interpretive opposition so thanks for the debate.
