June 3, 2005
SETTING CATS AMONG THE PIGEONS:
Bush Poised to Nominate Dozens For Judgeships, GOP Insiders Say (Peter Baker, June 3, 2005, Washington Post)
The White House is preparing to send a raft of new judicial nominations to the Senate in the next few weeks, according to Republican strategists inside and outside the administration -- a move that could challenge the durability of last week's bipartisan filibuster deal and reignite the political warfare it was intended to halt.The Bush administration has been vetting candidates for 30 more federal district and appeals court vacancies that have been left open for months while the Senate battled over previous nominations stalled by Democrats. Now that Democrats have agreed not to filibuster any new candidates except in "extraordinary circumstances," Republicans are eager to test the proposition.
"Republicans feel this is a good moment to move forward with judicial nominations," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group formed by C. Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel under President Bush's father, to support the current president's judicial appointments. [...]
No names have been publicly floated, but officials familiar with the process said they believe the nominees will be consistent with Bush's previous choices, some of whom have stirred considerable controversy among Democrats. The Bush team indicated that it plans no changes in its selection process in the wake of the Senate deal. Senate Democrats said they have not been consulted on any new nominations. [...]
The Senate confirmed one of the three Bush nominees, Priscilla R. Owen of Texas, last week and plans to open debate on another, Janice Rogers Brown of California, on Monday to be followed by a vote to close off debate on Tuesday. Republicans plan to bring the third, William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, to the floor later in the week.
After that, Republican leaders are considering whether to try to force votes on one of the other four not covered by the deal, William G. Myers III of Idaho, to test Democratic resolve. Democrats said they believe they have a united caucus -- excepting Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- to block the other judges, meaning they would have enough votes to maintain a filibuster.
Any fresh nominations would come after that, Republican strategists said. Of 45 federal court vacancies, Bush has named nominees for 14. Except in one case, he has sent no new names all year, instead resubmitting nominations that had been blocked in the previous congressional session.
Administration officials attributed the delay in submitting nominees for the other vacancies to the transition between first and second terms in the White House counsel's office and Justice Department. But after months of examining candidates, officials said privately they are nearly ready to send up names for many if not most of those seats.
June just got more entertaining. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 3, 2005 12:51 PM
"After that, Republican leaders are considering whether to try to force votes on one of the other four not covered by the deal, William G. Myers III of Idaho, to test Democratic resolve. Democrats said they believe they have a united caucus -- excepting Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- to block the other judges, meaning they would have enough votes to maintain a filibuster."
Hmmm. So all the judges but the 3 explicitly named as non-filibusterable will in fact be filibustered. Tell me again why the deal wasn't a huge loss for the Republicans?
mc cain is about to receive (another) object lesson at the hands of his better. good. and reid ? he's shrinking by the minute.
Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 2:06 PMThey had none before the deal.
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 2:22 PMIt's painfully obvious that they blinked, and the next time it comes up, they'll blink again. And, by the way, we don't have three judges yet. Two are still being filibustered. Will the Dems keep their bargain? We'd better hope so, because we can't force them to.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 3:41 PMDavid - If the Dems filibuster Brown and Pryor, the Reps would surely have no difficulty invoking the Constitutional option. That's a clear breach, and the Dem breach would provide them with cover they didn't have a month ago.
Posted by: pj at June 3, 2005 4:30 PMPJ: The NY Times will mumble something about the good of the nation and how principled moderation requires that the Dems break their word and the Reps will blink. They always blink.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 5:10 PMCould this be our June? WH does the following: Floods the zone with 30 new nominees - demands prompt action from Senate - points out past delays - notes daily the lack of Senate action - points out Senate failure to appoint judges undermines justice being done - asks how hard is it for Senate to schedule an up or down vote - listens as numerous Senators make conflicting, uncoordinated arguments about one, some, all of the nominees - validates popular impression that Senators are bickering, grandstanding do-nothings - thanks the Senate for finally approving the nominees.
Posted by: Luciferous at June 3, 2005 5:14 PMAnd even if the Reps don't blink, we'll have lost time and will have conceded that filibustering judges is appropriate.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 5:17 PMLost a week? You're going all Harry on us.
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 5:20 PMOJ: LOL. Thanks for the Friday chuckle at Harry's expense (sorry, Harry).
Posted by: John Resnick at June 3, 2005 5:33 PMTouché, mon ami.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 5:51 PMeagar sanction ?
Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 6:19 PMOJ:
How is it that people who have observed this president for years are nonetheless surprised by this turn of events? This was utterly predictable.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 3, 2005 6:21 PMNever has a man confused so many people by telling them exactly what he was going to do.
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 6:31 PM...and doing it.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 3, 2005 7:57 PMThis may be going down as the fun presidency. Every month a new delight.
Posted by: Genecis at June 3, 2005 8:46 PMLOL, OJ! That quote goes on my masthead!
Not the one on David "going Harry": only a regular can appreciate THAT one.
I've missed Bart's flame broiled wit! "Where's the Bart"?
Posted by: Dave W at June 4, 2005 10:27 AMmaybe bart is on vacation. i emailed him about his absence but he hasn't replied yet.
Posted by: cjm at June 4, 2005 11:23 AMBart periodically has browser problems that keep him from being able to comment. You would too if you were using an Atari in your parent's attic.
Posted by: oj at June 4, 2005 11:59 AM