TruthSeeker56
Silver Member
Anybody remember all of the filibusters that the Democrats used on G.W. Bush's judicial nominees?
Here's a reminder, from 2005:
Thus, what can only be described as a concerted judicial-filibuster campaign during the 108th Congress was truly unprecedented. Indeed, throughout the entire history of the U.S. Senate, neither the minority-party members in that chamber nor senators of the party that did not occupy the White House had ever before engaged in such a coordinated, protracted filibustering campaign to frequently deny up-or-down votes for one judicial nominee after another. In fact, beyond the 10 appellate-court nominees who were actively filibustered in 2003 and 2004, it should further be noted that Democrats almost certainly would have filibustered additional circuit-court nominees — including Terrence Boyle, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith — had they moved from the Judiciary Committee to the floor last year.
Democrats have cleverly — and shrewdly — perpetrated their unprecedented judicial obstructionism exclusively against nominees to circuit courts of appeal. Relatively speaking, these courts have become vastly more powerful in recent decades. With the Supreme Court issuing fewer and fewer decisions, the circuit courts have become the final arbiters more often than in the past. Unless reversed by the Supreme Court, a decision by an appellate court remains the final determination on both legal and constitutional grounds throughout its jurisdiction. In the case of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, that amounts to nine Western states, which comprise nearly 60 million people, or about 20 percent of the U.S. population. In addition, when the Supreme Court affirms an appellate court’s decision, as it frequently does, the appellate justices will have played an integral role in the issue’s final determination.
Appellate courts are extraordinarily important in another respect. Before arriving on the nation’s highest court, seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices sharpened their judicial philosophies as circuit-court judges. Even the last four Supreme Court nominees who failed to win Senate confirmation — Clement Haynsworth, G. Harold Carswell, Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg — served on appellate courts. Thus, the appellate bench in recent decades has proved to be by far the single most important source of prospective Supreme Court nominees.
LINK: Democrats and the filibuster - Washington Times
Here's a reminder, from 2005:
Thus, what can only be described as a concerted judicial-filibuster campaign during the 108th Congress was truly unprecedented. Indeed, throughout the entire history of the U.S. Senate, neither the minority-party members in that chamber nor senators of the party that did not occupy the White House had ever before engaged in such a coordinated, protracted filibustering campaign to frequently deny up-or-down votes for one judicial nominee after another. In fact, beyond the 10 appellate-court nominees who were actively filibustered in 2003 and 2004, it should further be noted that Democrats almost certainly would have filibustered additional circuit-court nominees — including Terrence Boyle, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith — had they moved from the Judiciary Committee to the floor last year.
Democrats have cleverly — and shrewdly — perpetrated their unprecedented judicial obstructionism exclusively against nominees to circuit courts of appeal. Relatively speaking, these courts have become vastly more powerful in recent decades. With the Supreme Court issuing fewer and fewer decisions, the circuit courts have become the final arbiters more often than in the past. Unless reversed by the Supreme Court, a decision by an appellate court remains the final determination on both legal and constitutional grounds throughout its jurisdiction. In the case of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, that amounts to nine Western states, which comprise nearly 60 million people, or about 20 percent of the U.S. population. In addition, when the Supreme Court affirms an appellate court’s decision, as it frequently does, the appellate justices will have played an integral role in the issue’s final determination.
Appellate courts are extraordinarily important in another respect. Before arriving on the nation’s highest court, seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices sharpened their judicial philosophies as circuit-court judges. Even the last four Supreme Court nominees who failed to win Senate confirmation — Clement Haynsworth, G. Harold Carswell, Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg — served on appellate courts. Thus, the appellate bench in recent decades has proved to be by far the single most important source of prospective Supreme Court nominees.
LINK: Democrats and the filibuster - Washington Times
