Are Dem's Causing Delays in Court Appointments?

[slugshooter]

Are Democrats Causing Delays in Court?

Contrary to a pro-Bush TV ad, Republicans share the blame for "empty courtrooms," and delays are shorter now than they were before Bush.

Summary

A multimillion-dollar ad campaign blames Democrats for the fact that "courtrooms sit empty." In fact, there are now half as many judicial vacancies as when Bush took office. And of the 46 federal judgeships that remain vacant, Bush has named only 16 replacements.

The ad also says cases are being delayed in federal courts for "thousands of Americans." Actually, official statistics show cases typically being decided more quickly now than they were in 1999, when it was Republicans opposing Clinton's judicial nominees.

Click the link below for the full article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article324m.html

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Are Dem\'s Causing Delays in Court Appointments

Statistics aside, I don't approve of the METHOD that is being used to stop judicial nominees. Using the threat of a filibuster to force a 60 vote approval from the entire Senate for judicial nominees is something new. It was never used before President Bush was elected. Previously, nominees were blocked by either a 51 - 49 vote against them in the full Senate or they were not voted out of the Judiciary Committee and sent to the full Senate.

Either way, it was a simple majority rules vote. Today, it's minority rules unless you can get 60 votes. So in essence we're facing a situation where the Senate is REFUSING to give the nominees a vote. Clearly that was not what the Founding Fathers intended when they included the filibuster provision in the Constitution.

[Ravin R10 man]

Re: Are Dem\'s Causing Delays in Court Appointments?

THEY ARE THE DELAY!!

Myth: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented.

Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past.

As Majority Leader in 1979, Senator Byrd expressly threatened to use the Constitutional option in order to leverage successfully a time agreement on a rules change resolution : "Let The Senate Vote On Amendments, And Then Vote Up Or Down On The Resolution. ... If I Have To Be Forced Into A Corner To Try For A Majority Vote, I Will [Change The Rules] Because I Am Going To Do My Duty As I See My Duty, Whether I Win Or Lose." (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S144-45)

Byrd Led The Creation Of Precedents In 1977, 1979, 1980 And 1987 To Stop Filibusters And Other Delaying Tactics Previously Allowed Under Senate Rules Or Precedents. "Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing." (Editorial, "Sen. Byrd On Filibuster-Busting," The Washington Times, 3/7/05)

MYTH: Democrats Merely Want To Express Their Opinions On The Judicial Nominations.

FACT: Democrats Are Filibustering Nominees In Order To Block Them Permanently ­ Not To Preserve Free Speech.

When Asked How Many Hours Were Necessary To Debate The Nomination Of Priscilla Owen, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Answered, "There Is Not A Number In The Universe That Would Be Sufficient." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/8/03, p. S4949)

By September 2004, The Senate Had Spent More Than 150 Hours Debating Judicial Nominations ­ More Than Any Previous Congress. (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "The Assault On Judicial Nominations In The 108th Congress," 9/28/04)

The Senate Had 28 Months To Debate The Nomination Of Miguel Estrada Before It Was Withdrawn. "After remaining in limbo for 28 months while Democrats filibustered to block his approval, Estrada... withdrew his name in September 2003." (Tim O'Brien, "Hispanic Lawyers Line Up Behind Nominee For AG," The Legal Intelligencer, 11/16/04)

Myth: Democrats Want To Continue Debating These Nominations So They Can Reach A Compromise With The Republican Majority.

Fact: The Democrats Have Threatened To "Shutdown The Senate" Rather Than Carry Out Their Constitutional Obligation To Provide An Up Or Down Vote On Judicial Nominees.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "[N]o Senate Right Is More Fundamental Than The Right To Debate. Should The Majority Choose To Break The Rules That Give Us That Right, The Majority Should Not Expect To Receive Cooperation From The Minority In The Conduct Of Senate Business." (Sen. Harry Reid, Letter To Sen. Bill Frist, 3/15/05)

"This Month, Democrats May Use Procedural Tricks To Stop All Senate Business And Block A Republican Effort To Eliminate Minority Filibuster Rights..." (Joe Klein, Op-Ed, "A New Idea For Democrats: Democracy," Time, 4/11/05)

[slugshooter]

Re: Are Dem\'s Causing Delays in Court Appointments?

[ QUOTE ]

Fact: The Democrats Have Threatened To "Shutdown The Senate" Rather Than Carry Out Their Constitutional Obligation To Provide An Up Or Down Vote On Judicial Nominees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that would be unprecedented, I guess they would be following in the footsteps of their Republican brothers, since they shut down the WHOLE GOVERNMENT because they didn't like Clinton.