Leahy Throws down the Gauntlet on Judicial Nominees
By Kevin Roeten (06/17/08)
Bipartisanship no longer exists. The compromise of the two opposing parties seems insurmountable. Will a government shut down with the looming disagreements in the most powerful elected body in the country (the Senate)? Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy (D/Vt), Chairman of the Judicial Committee, gave his word that at least 3 more nominees would receive votes by Memorial Day. He reneged.
Robert Conrad, was nominated to the US Court of Appeals, and received the American Bar Association’s highest rating of “well qualified”. He is considered one of 19 judicial emergencies by the Judicial Conference of the United States. But Leahy has purposely stalled Conrad’s nomination since 7/17/07.
The Court of Appeals declares a judicial emergency when the amount of filings becomes unmanageable (>700), or if the vacancy exists for more than 18 months (filings >500). The emergency affects the people because there are not enough judges to handle the caseload.
Peter Keisler was nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the Columbia Circuit 630 days ago. Same ABA recommendation. Mr. Keisler has argued before the Supreme Court, and was a member of the Department of Justice, and responsible for their largest litigating division.
Some judges with the same credentials and waiting times include Richard Honaker, Charles Pickering, and Leslie Southwick. The wait was too long, and they are now in different endeavors. It seems that appointed nominees to the judiciary were made a disposable political tool because they may be pro-life. They requested a simple up-and-down vote. Not allowed by Leahy.
Despite a mostly Democrat senate, Leahy knows these judges would likely be voted in anyway. He believes it is important for Democrats to confirm the fewest judges until the leadership is supposedly changed this November.
As can be checked, a total of 15 circuit court judges were confirmed during the Clinton Administration, but only 6 during Bush’s tenure. In an op-ed for National Review Online, Senator Orrin Hatch said: “I have voted against only 5 of the more than 1500 nominees to life-tenured judicial positions that the full Senate has considered since I was first elected. Some Democrat[ic] senators, including those with far less seniority, have voted against more than three times as many nominees of the current president alone.”
In a supposedly non-partisan action, Democrats seemed to have shoved aside professional qualifications to measure against the litmus test of pro-life. With the gauntlet now being proverbially thrown down by the Democrats, we could expect a serious “tit for tat”.
What about a total government shutdown over some miniscule procedural rule? No, Democrats did that during a previous administration. What about earmarks, pork spending, or more taxes? No, Democrats have done those numerous times, and probably plan something quite drastic when the vote to continue the existing tax cuts comes up in 2010.
What about a vacation walkout when an important re-vote comes along? No, Democrats (along with Nancy Pelosi) already have done that when the FISA Protect America Act came up to be re-instated. Somehow they fed the American public the monitoring of a very small percentage of international calls was not worth more domestic terrorist attacks.
What about a rule that the American public can just fire a Senator or Representative they think is doing a poor job? No, unfortunately a majority Democrat Congress would never let that even be voted on…
Kevin Roeten
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
