Democrats block second Bush nominee

Yeah!

Yippie Skippie !!

It's a skippity doo-dah day!

<grin>

GREAT!

Shows the Demos have a BIT of spine!

Hurray!

The dems must have gotten some injections of backbone hardener!

And Estrada is STILL in filibuster!

This news is fabulous![/i]


Another federal judge appointee by Dubya is Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama. Gen. Pryor is one of those people who is opposed to "abortion on demand."

He has also written in an opinion that he believes a stone monument on which the Ten Commandments are chiseled has a legal right to sit in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

His mentor is U. S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala), whose only contribution as a senator has been his consistent vote with the far-right wing of his party.

Gen. Pryor's confirmation hearings may be worth watching on C-Span.

Hmmmmm....

Oh......


nevermind.....

WASHINGTON - Stymied now on two of President Bush (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees, Republicans are considering an attempt to change Senate rules or suing to ban judicial filibusters, even against long odds.

"It certainly could be taken to court," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said after Democrats on Thursday successfully blocked Texas Judge Priscilla Owen from getting a federal appeals court seat.
The discussions reflect frustration among majority Republicans that Democrats have been able to sidestep Bush's popularity and undermine one of his platforms: putting more conservatives in key judgeships.

Ahhh, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I cannot begin to tell you how pleased I am.

taken to court? What?

The demos tactics lay the groundwork for a future with no real courts. You don't think that when the coin is eventually flipped, the dems are back in control, that the reps won't do exactly the same thing?

I find this behaviour very childish, from either side of the aisle.

cjhsa - the republicans have done that very same thing. But don't misunderstand. This is not a tit-for-tat. What Bush is trying to do is pack the courts with ideologues. There are many respected jurists out there would be perfectly acceptable to democrats. There is pending, for instance, another nominee who is Hispanic, who is acceptable to the democrats, and they've said so. But the repubs want to make Estrada a CASE. There has been a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for him among hispanic groups, and his record is not exemplary, mostly because it shows nothing and no information is forthcoming. Sensible people would say enough, we'll get another. So why are the repubs making such a thing of this?

Owwens was rejected, then renamed - which was a spit in your eye gesture. But she, like Pickering, has a record that does not show her to be the fair and judicial that should sit on the bench.

A lot of it's childish, because a lot of our pols are children. But this is a case where the checks and balances system works. Although the executive has tried very hard to make itself the main power, the legislative branch is doing its job, and the judicial is a separate arm. That's one of the strengths of the constitution - the balance.

Sure they can take it to court - and find a friendly judge. But court battles can get very long and nasty, and spill over into the media. And I'm not so sure the repubs want some dirty linen laid out right now.

What dadeo said. Who needs a federal appelate court system, anyway.

i read this morning (cant verify) Reagan and Bush 41 had 80% nominations confirmed Clinton 72%, it seems to be an ongoing game of politics that suddenly the Bush admin has decided to change the rules. probably won't work.

Sounds more like a change of rules in the Senate, doesn't it?

perhaps Roger, seems as though the Senate has consistently used the Judicial Committee as a political lever be it Republican or Democrat, but it also seems that the Bush Admin, by submitting names that are not likely to gain acceptance, and then crying foul is a bit over the edge.