1
   

N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee

 
 
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 04:35 pm
This is interesting.
Any libs or dems wanna defend this,and still claim that they arent being partisan...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051102029.html

The Senate Judiciary Committee's schedule says today is the day for a vote on President Bush's nomination of Terrence W. Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Then again, the Republican-controlled committee may put it off to deal with other judicial nominees and unrelated business; it has done so twice this year already.



Terrence W. Boyle, a district judge in eastern North Carolina, was first nominated for an appeals court post by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)

And so it goes in Boyle's bid for a seat on the federal appellate bench -- a nearly 15-year saga whose end is nowhere in sight....

...Boyle, a favorite of former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), has been a controversial candidate ever since President George H.W. Bush tried and failed in 1991 to put him on the Richmond-based 4th Circuit....

...At Helms's urging, President Ronald Reagan nominated Boyle, then a lawyer in private practice, to be a federal district judge in 1984. The Senate confirmed him on a unanimous vote.

It was not until October 1991, when Bush tapped him for the 4th Circuit -- at Helms's behest -- that Boyle became the object of partisan wrangling...

...The issue then was not Boyle's record. Rather, he got caught up in the ill will generated by the Senate's just-concluded battle over Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court...

...The chairman, Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) responded by refusing to move Bush's judicial nominees forward. The dispute was not ironed out until early 1992. Biden and then-Attorney General William P. Barr made a deal for Senate confirmation of some Bush nominees....

There is more,So if you cant access the link,let me know.
Its rather long,thats why I dont want to post it all.
Either way,why have the dems never allowed this man a vote,after 15 YEARS????
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,707 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 04:39 pm
His patience is admirable!
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 05:56 pm
Are the dems on capitol hill being partisan with regard specifically to this nominee--it's possible, but I don't know enough about this specific case to speak intelligently about it. However, if you're talking about the current hoopla regarding federal judiciary nominees in general, then the charge of partisanship--not to mention delusions of persecution--must be leveled squarely at Bush and senate Republicans. 200 of Bush's 210 nominees have been confirmed; that's a damn good record in comparison to most presidents.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 06:06 pm
Re: N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
mysteryman wrote:
Its rather long,thats why I dont want to post it all.

Or it could be that you don't want to paste those excerpts that make the Republicans look petty and spiteful.

mysteryman wrote:
Either way,why have the dems never allowed this man a vote,after 15 YEARS????

Because Boyle hasn't been a nominee for fifteen years.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 06:09 pm
Don't get all nit-picky, now, Joe . . .
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 01:12 am
And so it goes in Boyle's bid for a seat on the federal appellate bench -- a nearly 15-year saga whose end is nowhere in sight....

if he's still standing around waiting to get the job, he isn't intelligent enough to have it.

don't quit yer day job, kid...
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 03:26 am
Re: N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Its rather long,thats why I dont want to post it all.

Or it could be that you don't want to paste those excerpts that make the Republicans look petty and spiteful.

mysteryman wrote:
Either way,why have the dems never allowed this man a vote,after 15 YEARS????

Because Boyle hasn't been a nominee for fifteen years.


Obviously,you didnt read the article,did you.
Instead of attacking me,try reading the article I linked to.
Its a 3 page article is why I didnt post the whole thing,but I will be glad to PM it to you,or e-mail it to you if you want to read the whole thing yourself.

That way,you can decide for yourself.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 07:00 am
Re: N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
mysteryman wrote:
Obviously,you didnt read the article,did you.

I read it. Furthermore, I understood it. That puts me one up on you.

mysteryman wrote:
Instead of attacking me,try reading the article I linked to.
Its a 3 page article is why I didnt post the whole thing,but I will be glad to PM it to you,or e-mail it to you if you want to read the whole thing yourself.

It is a long article, but not so long that one can't cut-and-paste a few selections, as you did in your initial post. Here are some other choice excerpts:
    The issue then was not Boyle's record. Rather, he got caught up in the ill will generated by the Senate's just-concluded battle over Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The White House, angry that Anita Hill's allegations against Thomas had leaked, withheld FBI background reports on its judicial nominees from the Judiciary Committee, which was then under Democratic control... But Helms blamed Biden for Boyle's defeat. Under Senate procedures, he had the power to block any nominee from his home state. Publicly declaring his intention to respond to what he called the "mistreatment of our nominee by the Democrats," Helms prevented four Clinton nominees from North Carolina -- James A. Beaty Jr., Rich Leonard, James A. Wynn Jr. and Elizabeth Gibson -- from receiving hearings. Beaty and Wynn are black. Later, Helms objected to Clinton's black nominee from Virginia, Roger Gregory, saying that the 4th Circuit, which was down to 10 of its allotted 15 judgeships at the time, did not need any new judges... In 1996, Boyle refused to ratify a settlement worked out between North Carolina and the Clinton Justice Department that would have resulted in the hiring of more women as state prison guards. "It is most emphatically not the purpose of federal law to impose a uniformity of cultural outcome upon the individual states," he wrote. The liberal advocacy organization People for the American Way has called that a "deeply troubling" suggestion that "states can discriminate . . . because of the state's 'culture.' " The 4th Circuit reversed Boyle's decision, saying he had abused his discretion as a judge. Boyle was renominated to the 4th Circuit by President Bush in 2001. But Helms had retired, and North Carolina had a new senator, Democrat John Edwards. One of the four Clinton nominees who had been blocked by Helms, Leonard, is Edwards's close friend. Edwards turned the tables on the Republicans, refusing to permit consideration of a North Carolinian he considered unqualified for the job -- namely, Boyle.
What we have here, in simpler terms, is a nominee who has been cynically used as a political pawn by both parties. Meanwhile, his rulings from the bench have raised the suspicion that he might use a position on the appellate court to curb civil rights. And you wonder why he has been waiting around for fifteen years for a chance at a seat on the fourth circuit?
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 10:40 am
That certainly puts the question in a different perspective.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 11:07 am
Re: N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
mysteryman wrote:
Either way,why have the dems never allowed this man a vote,after 15 YEARS????

Lets discuss why the GOP has blocked 60 of Clinton nominations for 7-10 years. If you want to be truly honest here, lets be honest.

Boyle was not nominated for the full 15 years. He was nominated in 1991 then not confirmed. If not confirmed in one senate you have to be renominated in the next. Boyle was blocked in 1991 then not renominated until 2001. Hardly 15 years without a vote since he wasn't eligible for a vote for 8 of those years.

If the GOP is truly concerned about every judicial nomination getting an up or down vote then why doesn't Bush nominate all the unconfirmed Clinton nominations so they can get that up or down vote that is so important to the GOP?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 11:10 am
D'artagnan wrote:
His patience is admirable!


He already has a lifetime appointment to the bench. This would just move him up a step. As the story notes but not quoted by MM..

"If Boyle is confirmed, he would have a strong incentive to serve full time for only a few years.

He is eligible to retire and continue to receive his full salary (currently $171,800 for a circuit judge) for life when he turns 65 in 2010. Or he could become a senior judge that year, earning a full salary while handling a quarter of an active judge's caseload."
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 03:06 pm
Re: N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Either way,why have the dems never allowed this man a vote,after 15 YEARS????

Lets discuss why the GOP has blocked 60 of Clinton nominations for 7-10 years. If you want to be truly honest here, lets be honest.

Boyle was not nominated for the full 15 years. He was nominated in 1991 then not confirmed. If not confirmed in one senate you have to be renominated in the next. Boyle was blocked in 1991 then not renominated until 2001. Hardly 15 years without a vote since he wasn't eligible for a vote for 8 of those years.

If the GOP is truly concerned about every judicial nomination getting an up or down vote then why doesn't Bush nominate all the unconfirmed Clinton nominations so they can get that up or down vote that is so important to the GOP?


I will support all of Clintons nominees getting an up or down vote by the Senate,as soon as you show me where in the constitution it says that nominees MUST be confirmed by a committee.
There is nothing that says a committee MUST confirm a nominee,so your argument is not relevant.
The constitution DOES however,say that the Senate MUST "advise and consent".
Now,by not allowing a vote by the full Senate,the dems are violating that part of the constitution.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 03:23 pm
Re: N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
mysteryman wrote:


I will support all of Clintons nominees getting an up or down vote by the Senate,as soon as you show me where in the constitution it says that nominees MUST be confirmed by a committee.
There is nothing that says a committee MUST confirm a nominee,so your argument is not relevant.
The constitution DOES however,say that the Senate MUST "advise and consent".
Now,by not allowing a vote by the full Senate,the dems are violating that part of the constitution.

Let me get this straight.. you think an up or down vote is only required if the committee votes first? Where the hell is THAT in the constitution?

If "advise and consent" means an up or down vote then it always means an up or down vote. You can't decide that sometimes it does mean it and other times it doesn't. If the GOP prevents an up or down vote by not voting someone out of committee how is that different from not allowing an up or down vote? Your logic makes no sense. If they MUST do it then how is NOT doing it allowed?

The GOP violated your requirement by not allowing an up or down vote by the full Senate on Clinton nominations. That is pretty plain and simple. Can't be simpler.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 08:04 pm
Boyle doesn't follow the law
parados wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
His patience is admirable!


He already has a lifetime appointment to the bench. This would just move him up a step. As the story notes but not quoted by MM..

"If Boyle is confirmed, he would have a strong incentive to serve full time for only a few years.


I don't think so. District judges are routinely subject to appelete review. Boyle is the most overturned judge in the state (NC). Basically, he is an "activist judge" who doesn't let things like president and laws stand in the way of a ruling he wants. There are numerous sites to read up on him. Here is one.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 11:31 am
with the non-stop yammering by the gop "elitists" about how "the republicans are the majority party" and the "screw you" attitude that they display to all others on a daily basis, seems to me that the only way to advise and consent is via the fillibuster.

frist, delay and their toadies have made there quasi theocratic agenda pretty damn clear.

that's why it's important to get past the simple minded red state/blue state free for all that they've created and see what they're trying to do for what it is.

at it's core, the frist agenda is in response to something like +/- 14% of the american people.

that's not democracy, that's a coup...
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 09:09 pm
Unfortunately, the Dems are playing debate while the Reps are going to war. They attempt to persuade with intellectual arguments while Reps, in general, go straight for the visceral--anyone one who attacks Rep ideas or agenda items is anti-American, unpatriotic, against family values and good ol' fashioned common sense. Listen to my conservative friends or virtually any conservative commentator on Fox or talk radio and and they'll tell you that they're the victims--the trod upon and oppressed--with a perfectly straight face despite the fact that their party controls all branches of the federal government, most of the governorships, and at least one house of the vast majority of state legislatures.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 12:19 pm
well, the good news is that a lot of my conservative friends around the country are starting to lose steam on that rhetoric. the farther down the road we've come, the harder it is for them to use those excuses.

the republicans have run the congress for 10 years. they've had the whitehouse for 5.

anyone who cares to take off their partisan colored glasses can see that we are on the edge of some really bad $hit.

looked at gas, food, electric, healthcare (etc) costs lately?

how about salaries? goin' up or goin' down ? workin' harder for less ?

howz 'bout your pension ? still there? or gone like a phart on the wind?

2.5 years in afghanistan, 2+ in iraq. feel safer than ya did pre 9/11?

shiavo ? hey, even bush "rushes" back to d.c. to "handle this important, life threatening issue". but, a plane ingresses into the d.c. no fly zone? nobody even calls the prez (who of course, is anywhere but the whitehouse) to let him know that the capitol building and the whitehouse, where his wife and nan reagan are, have been emergency evaced...

have republicans carried through with their less gobernment spiel? or have they made further incursions into your personal life, all the way to how and when you die and who you marry or if you can live with someone without marrying them...

republican leadership. anybody seen any fiscal conservation or even responsibility lately??


it's a freakin' joke and they're killing our country.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:13 pm
DontTreadOnMe: Whaddya mean 'killing'--sure we can survive without minimum wage, workplace safety, regulation of pollution, public education, etc.; they do in many third world countries (at least until their mid-40s barring prolonged illness, workplace accidents, and exposure to lethal levels of environmental toxins).
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:46 pm
Mills75 wrote:
DontTreadOnMe: Whaddya mean 'killing'--sure we can survive without minimum wage, workplace safety, regulation of pollution, public education, etc.; they do in many third world countries (at least until their mid-40s barring prolonged illness, workplace accidents, and exposure to lethal levels of environmental toxins).


damn!

good thing that those countries don't have national health care either! otherwise, the rich guys there would have to pay their taxes !

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:51 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

damn!

good thing that those countries don't have national health care either! otherwise, the rich guys there would have to pay their taxes !

Laughing


The rich would have to pay their fair share of taxes? That's blasphemy! Now go to the Chapel of Free* Market Orthodoxy (or tune into Fox News) and repent for your pinko communist blatherings!

*'Free' in this context is defined as publicly subsidized risk but privatized profit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2022 at 12:59:48