Bush Renominates Judicial Picks

  1. Bush Renominates Judicial Picks

    Fight With Senate Democrats Over Blocked Candidates Appears Likely
    Thursday, November 16, 2006

    President Bush renominated six previously blocked candidates for federal appeals court yesterday, triggering the first real battle with ascendant Democrats since the midterm elections and signaling what could be the start of a fierce two-year struggle over the shape of the federal judiciary.
    Bush Renominates Judicial Picks - washingtonpost.com

    Is this divisiveness on purpose?
    •  
  2. 7 Comments

  3. by   CHATSDALE
    this is just the beginning...it is going to be a bumpy ride the next two years
  4. by   VivaLasViejas
    Quote from spacenurse
    Bush Renominates Judicial Picks

    Fight With Senate Democrats Over Blocked Candidates Appears Likely
    Thursday, November 16, 2006

    President Bush renominated six previously blocked candidates for federal appeals court yesterday, triggering the first real battle with ascendant Democrats since the midterm elections and signaling what could be the start of a fierce two-year struggle over the shape of the federal judiciary.
    Bush Renominates Judicial Picks - washingtonpost.com

    Is this divisiveness on purpose?
    Of course.........did anyone REALLY believe he'd cooperate with the enemy??
  5. by   pickledpepperRN
    Democrats Warned Not to Block Judges

    Saturday November 18, 2006 12:31 AM
    Democrats Warned Not to Block Judges | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited
  6. by   VivaLasViejas
    Blackmail.

    ~sigh~

    Again I say: did we really expect anything else from the King of Denial?
  7. by   jnette
    Quote from spacenurse
    Democrats Warned Not to Block Judges

    Saturday November 18, 2006 12:31 AM
    Democrats Warned Not to Block Judges | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited


    "WARNED" .......... ???

    Why am I so NOT surprised. What oafs. :stone
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    No matter what other compromises he might make to the new Congress, he cannot make compromises with judicial nominees.

    That issue, more than any other, represents the base. You can't compromise the base for '08. Harriet Miers ingrained that message, and it was heard: loud and clear.

    You wouldn't want those that represent YOUR political beliefs to sell you out; how can you expect otherwise from those that DON'T share your beliefs?

    So, I don't see how anybody could be surprised about this.

    There are political manuevers to be made and the President holds the upper hand. For example: take Josh Bolton's recess appt ending. If I were the President, I'd say something like this: "Approve Bolton, or I know another highly qualified individual, who most recently held a cabinet position and is currently unemployed, that would be perfect for another recess appt to UN ambassador . . ." Or, he could just recess appt Bork for one of the Court positions to make a point. . .

    Besides, the concept that ideology alone disqualifies judges is new one, and a liberal one - a concept that they don't quite see the same way when THEY are appointing judges.

    The appointment of judges is the spoils of the Presidency, not the Senate. All the Senate can do is disapprove: they can't name them. If the Senate doesn't like these nominess, then let them disapprove them. But so long as they choose not to risk a floor vote, it's useless to complain about them being nominated. See the issue here isn't one of the President not doing HIS job, but one of the Senate not doing theirs.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 18, '06
  9. by   jnette
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    No matter what other compromises he might make to the new Congress, he cannot make compromises with judicial nominees.

    That issue, more than any other, represents the base. You can't compromise the base for '08.

    You wouldn't want those that represent YOUR political beliefs to sell you out; how can you expect otherwise from those that DON'T share your beliefs?

    So, I don't see how anybody could be surprised about this.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    True enough, Timothy. You make a valid point there.

    But we still don't have to LIKE it, right? :chuckle

close