June 14, 2005

LIKE CLOCKWORK (via Earl Sutherland):

Senate Confirms Griffith for Appeals Court (JESSE J. HOLLAND, June 14, 2005, The Associated Press)

The Senate on Tuesday confirmed one of its former lawyers, Thomas S. Griffith, to sit on the U.S. Appeals Court, the sixth judge it has elevated to the federal appellate court in the last month.

With a 73-24 vote, Griffith becomes the newest judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, taking a seat that the Bush administration originally wanted for filibustered Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada.

Estrada dropped out in September 2003 after being blocked by Democrats and President Bush replaced him in June 2004 with Griffith, who was the chamber's general counsel during President Clinton's impeachment before joining Brigham Young University as general counsel in 2003.

They'd confirm a ham sandwich these days.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 14, 2005 12:21 PM

Time to renominate Estrada

Posted by: AWW at June 14, 2005 12:40 PM

Somewhere, Ralph Neas is crying.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 14, 2005 12:42 PM

And all kudos to John McCain. The man "real" conservatives all hate because...why was that again?

Posted by: Brandon at June 14, 2005 1:09 PM

They're petulant half-wits?

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 1:50 PM

Re the "ham sandwich": on the Simpsons once someone mentioned Justice Burger to which Homer, of course, replied, "ooooohhhh, Burger, ooohhhhhh."

Posted by: Foos at June 14, 2005 1:55 PM


That would be because of Campaign Finance Reform.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 14, 2005 3:04 PM

Which is only law because W signed it.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 3:09 PM

Just because Pres. Bush signed the abomination doesn't mean we should let McCain (or Bush, or the Supreme Court, or...) off the hook. How's it feel to know that you'll have to shut this site down next fall if the SEC interprets CFR the way it looks like it will?

Posted by: b at June 14, 2005 3:15 PM


We did let them off the hook. So stop blaming McCain.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 3:19 PM

What we want from Senators from other states is that they vote the party line. McCain doesn't, so that's one reason we're uncomfortable with him. McCain is beloved by the MSM. That's another reason we're uncomfortable with him. He jumps ship on important issues just at the key moment and gives the Democrats cover for obstructionism. That's a third reason we're uncomfortable with him.

As for the Presidency, I don't think he's going to run, and if he runs I don't think he'll win the nomination. Nevertheless, if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

As for Griffith, I have no idea why you think he's a ham sandwich, but getting the Senate to vote for one of its former staffers has never been much of a problem.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 14, 2005 3:47 PM

"petulant half-wits"......sounds like McCain, no?

Or is he actually a petulant full-wit? :>)

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 14, 2005 3:57 PM

He's the next president of the United States.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 4:09 PM


Then why did it take until McCain intervened to fill the seat?

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 4:33 PM

I was a half-wit and voted for McCain in the 2000 NH primary. Now I'm just petulant about him and Turkey. At least that's the way it seems to me from my side of the granite hills.

Posted by: Genecis at June 14, 2005 4:37 PM

"They'd confirm a ham sandwich these days."

Let's see what they do with Bolton this week.

Posted by: Genecis at June 14, 2005 4:40 PM

Bolton isn't a judge and probably deserves a filibuster.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 4:45 PM

Regarding Bolton: started triangulating early, eh?

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 14, 2005 4:50 PM

laugh now monkey men, but its tears in the beer later on, when mc cain gets blown out of the gop race.

Posted by: cjm at June 14, 2005 4:57 PM

Why do you keep insisting that McCain's compromise is the cause of these confirmations, when it was McCain's refusal to vote to get rid of the filibuster that caused the problem to begin with? It really is mind-boggling.

As for Campaign Finance Reform, I do blame McCain far more than Bush. Bush objected to the legislation but signed it because he had bigger fish to fry and needed support on tax reduction, futuer social security reform, and knew that McCain would be a major obstacle to all of these efforts (and any other major Republican legislation) unless Bush went along with CFR. The legislation bears McCain's name, for G__'s sake, and you don't give it a second thought. Well, bully for you, but McCain will not be President.

While his service to his country as a pilot were admirable, as a politician (from selling his office to Charles Keating, to CFR, to his megalomaniacal compromise on the filibuster) he has been a detriment to the country.

Posted by: Thom at June 14, 2005 5:47 PM

there weren't 50 votes.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 6:50 PM

Well, I've voted for McCain every single time that he's run (except for the House since I've never lived in his district). And I'll keep doing it. A legislature needs compromisers not just party-line voters.

Posted by: Brandon at June 14, 2005 7:05 PM


Griffith was never filibustered. From the article:

Democrats have opposed Griffith, although Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada offered to bring his nomination up for a vote during the chamber's deadlock over whether to ban the judicial filibuster.

Republicans refused and pushed ahead for a vote on Bush's blocked nominees. But that showdown was averted after seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed a pact pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. At the same time, they agreed to oppose attempts by GOP leaders to change filibuster procedures.

Your assumption that, since he wasn't being confirmed, he must be a "ham sandwich" is telling. You apparently think that the Democrats are making these decisions on the merits.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 14, 2005 7:16 PM


No one was filbustered. They never went to cloture votes. Note that Reid wasn't allowing a vote on his nomination?

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 7:27 PM

They would have had the votes if McCain would have voted for the rule change rather the publicly and prematurely opposing it. Both Graham and DeWine would have voted with the rest of the party if McCain hadn't given them cover. Hagel would not have bolted and risked the wrath of the conservative base.

Posted by: Thom at June 14, 2005 10:35 PM

Would have had 99 if all the Democrats had voted for it too.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 11:07 PM

Huh? The 108th Congress was wall-to-wall cloture votes:

March 6, 2003: Miguel Estrada, 55-44.

March 13, 2003: Miguel Estrada, 55-42.

March 18, 2003: Miguel Estrada, 55-45.

April 2, 2003: Miguel Estrada, 55-44.

May 1, 2003: Priscilla Owen, 52-44.

May 6, 2003: Miguel Estrada, 55-45.

May 8, 2003: Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen

July 28, 2003: Priscilla Owen

July 30, 2003: Miguel Estrada, 55-43.

July 31, 2003: William Pryor, 53-44.

October 10, 2003: Charles W. Pickering, 54-43.

November 14, 2003: Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, and Janice Rogers Brown.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 14, 2005 11:17 PM

Reid wanted Frist to bring up Griffith for a vote so that they could confirm him to show their good faith. Frist refused so that he could make Judges Ownes and Brown the poster children for the anti-filibuster.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 14, 2005 11:20 PM

That was last Congress.

Posted by: oj at June 14, 2005 11:27 PM

"Time to renominate Estrada"

Forget Estrada. Time to renominate Bork.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at June 15, 2005 4:13 AM

Campaign Finance Reform spawned the 527 groups. Which means the Swift Boaters who sunk Kerry. Which means Move-On and other groups raise all the money instead of the Dem party. Move-On et al. are leading the Dems into disaster. So, why do conservatives hate CFR?

Anyways, its only libertarians really. So, 1% of the voters hate McCain due to the CFR?

Posted by: Bob at June 15, 2005 10:01 AM


Yes, but you can't shut them up on-line. Half of them are still on a steel tariff hunger strike...

Posted by: oj at June 15, 2005 11:42 AM
« ...AND LOWER...: | Main | KA-BOOM!: »