Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] "they all deserve up or down votes"

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 6/4/05, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> Interesting article to say the least, I am not sure how much of this
> is accurate, but I will take some time and do some comparisons.

It is unfortunate that we live in a day and age when an address by a
US senator is presumed inaccurate until proven otherwise.  (OK, that
was not very nice of me, but I'm feeling cranky since still up due to
sick kid stuff.)  More seriously, some of this is part of the public
record, but the fact that hearings just aren't even scheduled
sometimes is a non-event that (by its nature) is tough to track.

>  Also
> it would be good to know who blocked some of these. I see Senator
> Helms on the list a few times.

Yes; the point was that in many cases, who blocked whom was never made
public at all.  That's pretty slimey.  Obviously, Democratic senators
have had no luxury of anonymity recently.

As far as Jesse Helms goes...I fail to see your point?  Helms was a
Republican.  A very powerful Republican, but only because nobody in
the GOP had the guts to confront him.  If anybody in the GOP ever
feels embarrassment or discomfort over Jesse Helms, then let that be a
lesson.
 
> The problem comparing this to what is happening now is this:
> 
> These judges never got out of committee. 

Most didn't even get hearings.  But, Vern: surely you see the pattern?

Democrat nominates judges when GOP controls Senate: 
   judges blocked in/at/before committee controlled by GOP.

Republican nominates judges when GOP controls Senate:
  judges blocked at a later point in the process because GOP thoughtfully
  schedules hearings and sends nominations on with even a party line vote.

> Lets compare apples to apples
> here, take a look at this graph...
> 
> http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983
> 
> This shows that the number of Bush appointments that have been
> confirmed is almost directly on par with those that Clinton had
> confirmed. In fact, if you want to get down to brass tacks, Bush has
> had 53% of his confirmed whereas Clinton had 61% of his confirmed.

Ouch; take a much closer look at that table, please.  What it shows ME
is that up until Clinton started nominating judges, presidents had
80%+ of their nominees go through.
Same thing continues in 1993-1994.  Then, with Bob Dole as Senate
Majority Leader, the percentage goes way down.  I think it would be
very tough to argue that Clinton suddenly started nominating worse or
even more liberal judges after losing Congress in 1994; it was kind of
the opposite, actually.  Clinton even nominated Republicans for
Cabinet posts and ambassadorships (and had one of those famously shot
down).  I think he also nominated some Republicans for judgeships, and
some of those were, in fact, confirmed.
 
> Once again the left totally misses the entire point, not surprising
> really. The point here is not those appointments blocked in committee
> and kept from getting a vote, even though I once posted an article
> here that Boxer, Feinstien and Kennedy were all screaming about that.
> The problem here is democrats filibustering on the floor of the
> senate.

Once again, Vern, YOU miss the point entirely.  The only difference in
blocking stuff on the floor of the senate, in the full view of the
public, and doing it secretly by not scheduling hearings in the
Judiciary Committee is that one of these methods does in fact leave
you guessing about who was blocking whom for what reason.

I am completely uninterested in the distinction here, although I can
see that you are.  The point is, I believe, that *something* happened
to the process of appointing and confirming judges when Clinton came
to office, and what we're seeing now is some combination of:

1) Retribution for what the GOP did to nominations in the 1990s.

2) An actual fact that Bush has appointed the kind of judge who would
have gotten
    blocked before at a higher rate.  (There is little question his
nominees have been
    much more conservative than his father's, or possibly even most of Reagan's.

3) A feeling that now we do live in an age when the appointment of
judges is thoroughly
    politicized.

I'm not sure I know the exact mix here, and maybe I'm leaving some
factors out.  But as a rough guess, I think this works.

Now, again, my *immediate* point is that the history depicted in this
table is not a history that is consistent with the GOP being a party
that favors up or down votes on judges in any meaningful sense.  So
let's not pretend that argument is sincere, at least right now, when
it doesn't look that sincere.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion