http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...co/bush_judges
Senate Democrats Take Stand on Judges
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Friday threatened to stop all of President Bush (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees until the White House agrees not to appoint any more judges while Congress is out of town.



Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Democrats had decided to block all judicial nominees on the Senate floor until "the White House gives us the assurance that they will no longer abuse the process."


Democrats have been upset that Bush gave temporary federal appellate judgeships to Mississippi judge Charles Pickering and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor while the Senate was out of town. Democratic senators had been blocking the two from getting confirmation votes for lifetime judgeships.


"The president's use of recess appointments to circumvent the advise and consent process puts a finger in the eye of the Constitution," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.


Republicans immediately retorted that Bush wouldn't have had to use recess appointments if Democrats hadn't been blocking his nominees. They also argued that the Constitution gives the president clear authority to put his nominees on the bench temporarily when Congress is not in session.


"To suggest that President Bush has somehow gone outside the power conferred upon him under the U.S. Constitution is not true," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.


The White House is unlikely to comply with Democrats' demand. "No administration is going to rule out" recess appointments, said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.


"It's unfortunate the lengths that Sen. Daschle and a minority of Senate Democrats will go to obstruct the normal judicial confirmation process," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said. "At a time when we need our government to be at full strength, he is suggesting that we leave these seats open, and the American people deserve better."


Democrats also say the White House is refusing to appoint Democratic nominees to fill their vacancies on federal boards and commissions. Many of the boards and commissions require both Democrats and Republicans to serve, but the Democrats are being held up by the White House, Daschle said.


"A divisive form of political gamesmanship has been allowed to extend to the nomination process itself," Daschle said. "Talented candidates are being prevented from serving their nation. And the views and communities they represent are not being heard. And the American people are losing out as a result."


Republicans and Democrats have been fighting over judicial nominations since Bush took office.


The Senate has approved 173 of Bush's judicial nominations, but Democrats have used the threat of filibusters to block Bush's appeals court nominations of Pickering, Pryor, Judge Priscilla Owen, Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown. Estrada withdrew his nomination in September.

The democrats are the ones that are abusing the process. It's unconstitutional to filibuster a confirmation vote.

That is correct. If they are going to block the nominees from even comming up for a vote, Bush will have to use recess appointmemts.

Question:
How can the Democrats block people from coming up, when isn't it voted on by both Democrats and Republicans and so on and so forth?

Because they are fillisbustering nominees, and not even allowing a vote to take place. That is Unconstitutional, and has never happened before now.

Bus is well within his power to make recess appointments as long as he likes.

They do it be invoking a Seante filibuster. It used to be that a Senator took the floor and talked and talked until the end of the congressional session came.

Now it is called "clother" which means that you don't actually have to make the long speeches--you can go on to other business--but it takes 60 votes to break the clother.

Since there are 49 Democrats and 51 Republicans in the Senate, they (Democrats) cam block the vote with a minority.

As well he should.

How can a minority win over a majority?

Simply by preventing the necessary SUPER MAJORITY of votes required to bring the matter out of cloture.

There are 100 Senators, right?

A MAJORITY of 100 is 51, BUT it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, or, as it now called cloture.

You do realize that not all Democrats are completely against what all Republicans want, and some Republicans share the views of some Democrats?

This is how I feel: The Republican party couldn't get what they wanted, they complained to the President who then opted to ignore the voting system and just do what he wanted to do, which..what..puts 2 more Republicans in the senate/congress?

I think that if you examine the cloture votes, you will find that virtually all Republicans voted to end cloture and that only 7 or 8 Democrats voted to end clothur. It is strictly a partisan vote. (this is on the individual moninees)

If they will not allow the nominees to come before the Senate, then they have forfited their "advice and consent" rights and the president can act--as well he should.

Regarding your comment about putting 2 more Republicans in congress, you will have to explain that one to me--I don't know where you are comming from on that.

I thought it was a matter of partisian politics on the part of the Democrats. They don't like the choices the president proposed because they were conserative judges and not very liberal.

Ahh judgeships, not senatoreship.

This is how I feel, though.
We have people demonstrating what makes this country a Democracy.
The leader, realizing that he has the power to get around said Democracy(unsurprisingly he'll want to use that power), uses said power.
Democrats complain.
Republicans whine about how it's "fair" because Democrats are "closuring".

That is probably correct, but the constitution allows for the President to make those appointments.

It is not the proper funtion of the Senate to simply BLOCK nominees, it is their funtion to interview them and then to cast a vote as to whether they are confirmed or not.

This blocking of presidential nominees is an open invitation to recess appointments.

It's partisan politics, pure and simple. Replace Bush with Kerry, give Democrats the bare majority, and you'll find Republicans doing the same thing, and Kerry doing the same thing.

System needs fixed, but I don't know how. It's obvious why Bush wants these particular justices, why the Republicans want them, why the Democrats oppose them: purely partisanship.

God, I wish the Libertarian party could become a factor.

Argh me matey.

I agree that it is partisan politics, and I agree that it needs fixing.

Bush proposed, about 2 years ago, a law that would give the Senate something like 6 months to brigh the nominee before the Senate for an up or down vote.

I don't know what happened to it, but I think it makes sense--don't you?

I think congress killed it. But I like the idea. I also heard a lot of folk talking about setting it as a direct vote with the simple majority.

I think, that, if there was a required time constraint with a simple majority vote, it would take most of the partisianship out of it

Cloture is actually the act of ending the filibuster, not a new term for the same thing.

Anyway, the whole thing is silly. I think that cloture should just need a majority vote after a certain amount of debating time or whatever, as has been said. On the other hand, I also kind of feel that the nomination procedure for these judges is far too susceptible to political influence, and also should be changed.

I agree
So do I. As a matter of fact, that is what W suggested 2 years ago.