ConfirmThem

From Leahy's floor speech:

"Two weeks ago, during the congressional recess, I chaired our third nominations hearing of the year. Included were three judicial nominations, including that of Catharina Haynes of Texas to be a Circuit Judge on the Fifth Circuit. I knew that this nomination was important to Senator Cornyn. So, in spite of her participation at the recent partisan political rally and photo op at the White House, I proceeded with that previously scheduled hearing."

This sounds like a new obstructionist strategy from the Dems:
if any Bush judicial nominee helps the White House too much in advertising blatant Dem obstructionism, then that nominee deserves to have his SJC hearing cancelled?

If Republican senators are actively avoiding COA hearings and committee business meetings, then they need to be exposed. If the senators are avoiding a business meeting because of legislation being considered, then he needs to right away make a press release explaining the absence. Otherwise, as this case demonstrates, they give the Dems the perfect cover for not voting on judicial nominees.

Sometimes, I am suspicious of not just the Democrats on the SJC. For example, in the last two months of the Senate session just prior to the November 2006 elections, most Republican senators on purpose did not attend the business meetings where a debate on the merits of Boyle, Myers, Haynes, Wallace, Smith and Keisler could've been forced onto the Dems. Rather than highlighting the judicial confirmation battles to benefit the party in the upcoming election, the Republican senators instead chose to run as fast as they could away from the stalled nominations. What was their fear?

In general, I have to admit that I was surprised that only John Warner (not even a member of the SJC) showed up for Catharina Haynes' hearing. Although I realize that Cornyn and Hutchinson may have known perfectly well that Leahy is going to allow Haynes to be confirmed, it looks slack and disrespectful for one's own homestate senators not to attend one's hearing.

The Republicans in the Senate need to be defining the terms in this debate on judicial nominations. Republican senators should be saying that there should be at least one COA hearing and at least two district court hearings every month. Anything less is obstructionist.

When Leahy says,

"Two weeks ago, during the congressional recess, I chaired our third nominations hearing of the year,"

then the Republicans should return fire with,

"Mr. Leahy, you act as three hearings in three months is admirable. It isn't. That is an inexcusably slow pace. In the first three months of this year, we should already have had a total of NINE judicial nomination hearings - THREE COA hearings and SIX district court hearings!"

A district court hearing often contains 2-3 district court nominees. At the rate of two hearings a month, we should already have 8-12 district court confirmations. Instead, for January and February, there have been no district court confirmations. This snail's pace is really unacceptable. At this point, all of the COA and a vast majority of the district court nominees have already received their ABA ratings. There should be nothing else holding up their nominations after the ABA rating has been issued.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/political_rhetoric_over_...

"A moderate, Specter said he crossed party lines several times to support Democratic nominees and he wondered why more Democrats weren't willing to do the same for qualifed Bush nominees.

His remarks exposed a growing rift between the Pennsylvania Republican and his counterpart on the Senate Judiciary Committee, its chairman, Patrick Leahy. While the two have appeared to enjoy a cordial relationship running the business of the committee, Specter went as far on Monday as to quote Leahy demanding quicker action on Clinton's judges when the Democrats were the minority party. Specter suggested that the process be streamlined, with tight deadlines put in place that would force a floor vote on nominees.

While Specter is often viewed as a maverick, it's clear his remarks had the blessing of the Republican leadership. After Specter spoke, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, praised Specter, saying "the prospect of turning the page on judicial nominations—a goal which I think all but the hardest partisans share—has taken a wrong turn. Despite the best efforts of [Specter] and others, progress has all-but ground to a halt.

Not surprisingly, Leahy has a different view. He blames Republicans for not showing up to Judiciary Committee meetings in February, making it impossible to vote out judicial nominees. (The Republicans have been protesting the lack of Democratic action on amendments to the act that governs surveillance of foreign agents in the U.S. and abroad.)"