ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Senate Judiciary Committee meets tomorrow to consider nominees Owen, Brown, Boyle and also Pryor. Tom Bevan writes that he wishes the GOP had done more advertising on this issue. But, it appears that the GOP and its allies are increasingly taking this issue to the people.

Cybercast News Service reports on the inconsistent positions taken by Senator Salazar and also Senator Lieberman. Al Knight of the Denver Post writes about Salazar:

The American constitutional system assumes that over time the federal courts will be politically balanced. This balance is to be achieved as a succession of presidents, each reflecting the popular will of the times, appoints judges to the federal bench.

However, a Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate has lately declared war on this well-settled principle and is determined to deny President Bush appointive rights enjoyed by his predecessors. What is especially stunning is that this minority of senators appears willing to ignore the results of last year's election in which the issue of judicial nominees was prominently featured. Not only did Bush win with a larger-than-ever Republican Senate majority, but the Democratic leader who had led the fight against Bush's judicial nominees was himself defeated. Still today, the Democratic minority remains committed to deny 10 of Bush's appellate court nominees an up or down Senate vote.

One of those Democrats is Ken Salazar of Colorado who, during his campaign last year, announced that he favored up or down votes for judicial nominees. That statement effectively defused the issue and allowed Salazar to picture himself as a plain-spoken moderate. Well, it hasn't taken long for the bloom to come off that rose. Now that he's in office, Salazar sounds like, say, Charles Schumer of New York.

....

Salazar is hopelessly confused. The clear implication of his campaign statement was that he would not support the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees. That comment, it is now obvious, was either false or terribly misleading.

....

Salazar has chosen a side in this fight that is contrary to his campaign comments and he should not be allowed to duck responsibility for his choice by claiming he will decide these matters on a "case-by-case basis." The only way judicial nominees can be decided on a case-by-case basis is by first establishing the principle that the nominees will, in fact, receive an up-or-down vote. Salazar says he wants to restore amity in the U.S. Senate - but his actions make it certain there will instead be continued conflict.

Here's a tidbit of news that indicates a government slowdown may already be starting:

Senator Max Baucus, during [a] ... meeting with the President, told him it's not going to go anywhere, energy reform or other parts of his agenda, as long as the Senate Republicans were threatening the nuclear option with getting rid of the filibuster to push forward the President's judges....

Either Baucus is at odds with other Democratic Senators in this regard, or the Democrats only intend to obstruct the energy bill while the constitutional option is being threatened but not after that option is executed.