May 18, 2004
I'LL TRADE YOU NOTHING FOR 25:
Bush, Democrats reach deal on judge nominations (JESSE J. HOLLAND, 5/18/04, Associated Press)
Breaking a monthslong impasse, the White House and Senate Democrats struck a deal Tuesday allowing confirmation of dozens of President Bush's judicial nominations in exchange for a White House promise not to bypass the Senate again this year.Under the agreement, Democrats will allow votes on 25 non-controversial appointments to the district and appeals courts. In exchange, Bush agreed not to invoke his constitutional power to make recess appointments while Congress is away, as he has done twice in recent months with judicial nominees.
The agreement was reached in a meeting among top Senate Democrats and Republicans as well as Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff.
How would Democrats enforce that agreement if he just went ahead and appointed some folks this Fall? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 18, 2004 5:59 PM
The appointments expire when the Senate goes out of session in December, so these are only 7 month appointments (at most) that he's forgoing. And in the fall, they'd be only 2 month appointments. Hardly worth reneging on a deal.
Posted by: pj at May 18, 2004 6:36 PMAnd who gets to define "non-controversial"?
Posted by: John Resnick at May 18, 2004 6:54 PMThey are rats and traitors. Buy as many guns as you can before the election.
Rats and traitors.
Posted by: at May 18, 2004 7:50 PMSo the Dems have to give up a right they probably never had -- the right to block all nominations en masse; and the president gives up a right he most certainly had, and which he exercised infrequently. The best I can say to this is that: what comes around goes around.
Posted by: MG at May 18, 2004 7:50 PMPlus there's ANOTHER advantage: if Bush reneges on this deal, call of "Bush lied!" aren't likely to inflame the Democratic base anymore than it already is. But if the Democrats renege, Bush can run commercials slamming the "do-nothing Democrats" about an issue conservatives care deeply about. And if the Dems play games with the definition of "non-controversial", you run ads about it - couldn't HELP Kerry, that's for sure. Simply put, What's not to like about this?
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at May 18, 2004 8:43 PMI think they've already named the 25 non-controversial appointments as part of the deal. And the Dems chose them.
Posted by: pj at May 18, 2004 8:50 PMI assume this means that there were not to be any recess apointments before the election anyway. After the election things will be different.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 18, 2004 10:08 PMConservatives won't like this in that it will be perceived as Bush caving to the Dem senate. Watch NRO and others criticize this.
Posted by: AWW at May 18, 2004 11:24 PMAnyone who criticizes Bush over this is a fool. Regardless of the recess appointments, the Dems had slowed the confirmation process to a halt and were likely to stop it altogether this year in anticipation of the fall elections. Bush calls their bluff, appoints a couple of recess appointees and they blinked. How many more TEMPORARY recess appointments would Bush have made anyway? Three or four? So Bush traded three or four temporary judgeships for 25 lifetime appointments and this is a bad deal?
Posted by: "Edward" at May 18, 2004 11:59 PMAs I expected - NRO hates this deal and believes Bush caved on the issue.
Posted by: AWW at May 19, 2004 11:27 AM