home

Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations

The Washington Post takes President Bush to task today on his judicial nominations in an editorial today:

Since taking office, though, Mr. Bush has behaved in a way that makes it harder for Democratic senators to act responsibly. He has largely failed to acknowledge their legitimate grievances about how a Republican-controlled Senate treated President Bill Clinton's nominees for six years. Instead, he bullheadedly sought to fill appeals court judgeships left vacant because of the recalcitrance of his own party, and he did so with scant consultation. What's more, he sometimes rubbed salt in the wound by nominating people to those seats who have staked out highly controversial and provocative ground, thereby apparently rewarding the misbehavior of his own party.

Bush the manipulator. Maybe it's Rove the manipulator, but same difference. The President rules only one branch. Checks and balances have never been more important. Because his appointees will serve for life, it's critical that the Senate remains vigilant. It will, if you do your part and email or telephone your Senator whenever a critcal judicial nominee is up for hearing. We'll keep you posted. Then you need to do your part.

< Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based Groups | Admiral to Testify Against Alberto Gonzales' Confirmation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#1)
    by veloer on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:00:34 AM EST
    The editorial shows just how vital it is for Democrats to stand together. There can be no bipartizanship. For sure the Repulicans do not act for the benefit of the country, only their party.

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:47:03 AM EST
    The checks and balances of our democracy are the basis for filibusters to prevent loading of the court with political hacks instead of qualified judges. The senate democrats are in the position of preventing the tyranny of the majority. I hope they will stand and be counted even if they are then targeted for defeat ala Daschle and Wellstone. Sometimes the good of the republic requires personal sacrifice. That sacrifice can come in many forms.

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    I only wish that the Democrats had not accepted Schumer's position that it is perfectly acceptable to filibuster or deny confirmation to a judge nominee based on his or her perceived political affiliations. This will come back to haunt us all as these stupid confirmation wars continue for the next 50 years.

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    What goes around comes around. Dems are now reaping what they have sown: that is, "borked".

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    i think the continued efforts by some on this site to justify the actions of the current administration by bringing up the specters of previous administrations is disingenuous. why can we not discuss the current situation? some of these judges gw wants are scary. do you even disagree with that, or would you rather bring up a guy whose relevance ended in 1987?

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:08:54 PM EST
    kelite - Didn't you know that "borked" has entered into the language? It basically means to be attacked unfairly. Old grudges are very revelant. If you doubt me, look at Ireland. JustPaul - Indeed, indeed. CA - Fillibusters are not in the constutution, but are part of the tradition of the Senate. When the majority sees what they think is traditions being abused by the minority, don't be surprised if the traditions are trashed and the rules changed.

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    Hey TL, while you're on the subject of judicial nominations, why not take a look at Harry Reid's assinine and flagrantly false statements about Justice Thomas. He claims Thomas can't write, but can't offer a single example of a poorly written opinion by Thomas, and when he tries to do so he claims to think that Scalia's dissent is much better written when Scalia didn't even dissent. If this was a Republican Senator attacking a liberal Justice with nothing to back himself up, it would be maintstream news.

    Re: Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 04:53:49 PM EST
    kelite - Didn't you know that "borked" has entered into the language? It basically means to be attacked unfairly. um, ppj, did you click on my link? read through it, it is very interesting. i understand what you said, pompous one. i just don't think it's relevant to this issue.