Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Katten Starts Internet Practice with Former Steptoe Partner | Main | FCC Tackles Cost of Prison Phone Calls »

July 10, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e201901e349e1b970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference For D.C. Circuit Nominee, Credentials Are Not The Controversy:

Comments

Rico

"The dems argued no need for extra judge a few years back but now all of a sudden it needs more?"

And who won that argument a few years ago? Did Bush say "okay, I guess I won't appoint anyone"? No, he didn't. Making that choice set a precedent. The hypocrisy cuts both ways, you know.

John Q Public

This debate is hilarious. The Senate is a political branch of the government, just as the executive is. The political maneuvering and debate that is happening now, and that has always happened, is fully within the Constitutional design. There is nothing wrong with it. It is healthy, and it is an exact reflection of our polity.

Yes, it is regrettable that we have so few statesmen and so many stupid politicians, but that is a reflection of our sick culture. Stupid voters elect stupid politicians (would Sarah Palin be noised about as a serious candidate for the Senate -- supposedly the leading deliberative body in the entire world -- in any culture that was not thoroughly stupid? would Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry be serious candidates for the chief executive anywhere but here?).

If you want statesmen selecting learned and wise jurists, instead of hacks picking hacks, fix the culture.

Luis

Despite all the political posturing on judicial nominations......it is my hope that all 3 of these well-qualified candidates for the DC Circuit get confirmed just as Sri was.

Rick

Peter,

Not only did Bork receive a fast, and fair hearing, he was opposed on the senate floor by 6 Republicans...That's how extreme he was..

Also, Thomas was only confirmed because several southern Democrats voted for him in 1991 - his final vote tally was 52-48....Shame on them

Christine

Oh shut up people.. If crooked corrupt Obama and his administration were honest, transparent like he said he'd be, and forthcoming then this would not be happening. The dems argued no need for extra judge a few years back but now all of a sudden it needs more? Ah yes aren't they the court going to hear obamas illegal appointees to this boards when congress was off for holiday? Workload has not changed.. So why then? You idiots with your noses up obeyme's backside really need to wake up and open your eyes! This administration has been busted lying, cheating and stealing so many tunes yet when repubs are trying to be sure things are legit from a corrupt administration they are obstructing? Get real! At least they are trying to do their jobs. its all checks and balances.. or its supposed to be when corrupt obama isnt breaking our laws and trying to bypass our constitution. As for going "nuclear".. Careful what you wish for.. 2014 is not that far off..

Peter

BR: Bork wasn't "Borked," however. He actually got an up or down vote on the Senate floor, despite not passing muster in the Senate Judiciary Committee on his Supreme Court nomination. You need to check your history. Furthermore, please note that he was actually a sitting judge on the DC circuit at the time of his SCOTUS nomination, despite his having had to run the gauntlet of a hostile Democratic minority in 1982 given the "Saturday Night Massacre" that he unconscionably participated in under President Nixon.

BR

Rick. Remember Judge Bork. I think that is all that need be said about judicial obstructionism.

I frankly commend Cruz's honesty. He basically said: We can't be a party that ignores politics, because the Democrats won't let us. Ever since they "borked" Bork, and tried to do the same for Clarence Thomas, policy positions are something that we have to consider.

Unfortunately we seem to have a Mexican standoff, and I have no idea how to get out of it.

Henry

"You're qualified, but sorry.....we just don't like the fact that President Obama is the one nominating you"!!!! "Now if a Republican President gave you the nomination......then of course you'd get my vote"!!! Gosh I hate politics & obbstructionism!!!! Now Dems have no choice but to use the nuclear option & let the chips fall where they may!!!!

Avon

It's embarrassing that any nominee have to sit through internal Senate committee spats, when the agenda is supposed to be her suitability. They should have excused her until they were done arguing about whether she should even be there. (If there was any point in arguing during hearings at all, as opposed to in conference.) She must have felt like a neighbor invited to dinner who first has to sit through a marital fight.

I'd like both the Senate and the House to start using hearings for the purpose of actually hearing. They're supposed to draw out facts from witnesses. What court hearing ever devotes its time to making speeches instead of eliciting and recording evidence? There's just no excuse for it.

Katherine

Pure 100% obstructionism!!!

Rick

That display by Republicans today at Millett's hearing should now convince everyone that they are no doubt the party of obstruction...It was sad and pathetic....Cruz spent his entire time whining about Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler...

Cruz conveniently forgets that Bush had 4 confirmations to the DC Circuit, & 3/4 were highly controversial to...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements