Judicial Thoughts
A compromise deal was reached by seven members of each party that put an end (for now) to the debate in the Senate over filibusters for judicial nominees. They had been going for six members of each party (as six Republicans were needed to prevent a rule change (only five Democrats were needed to stop a filibuster)), but they got an extra member from each party seemingly at the last minute, which resulted in there not being enough lines for all the signatures on the agreement, as can be seen in this pdf. I find it amusing that they couldn't print off another copy with two extra lines. Also, two of the senators have signatures which consist of printing their names in all caps, which is ... odd ....
Anyway, parties to the deal are Republicans John McCain (Arizona), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island), John Warner (Virginia), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Democrats Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Ken Salazar (Colorado), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii), and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut). Oddly enough, many news stories have not named all parties to the deal, and one I saw named all but Lieberman (especially odd as he probably has the highest name recognition of the bunch).
D.C. Circuit nominee Janice Rogers Brown, Fifth Circuit nominee Priscilla R. Owen, and Eleventh Circuit nominee William H. Pryor, Jr. will finally receive votes. All three were originally nominated during Bush's first term. Sixth Circuit nominee Henry W. Saad and Ninth Circuit nominee William Gerry Myers III will continue to be blocked (Saad pretty much sealed his fate when an e-mail containing disparaging remarks about Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) became known (Saad is from Michigan, and Senate customs give various benefits to home-state senators)).
Although not part of the formal written deal, apparently three other nominees to the Sixth Circuit from Michigan will be allowed votes -- Richard Allen Griffin; David W. McKeague; and Susan Bieke Neilson (though a couple of sources only mentioned the first two). Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) had been trying to block all Sixth Circuit nominees from Michigan because one of Clinton's appointees who was his wife's cousin or cousin's wife or some such was not confirmed.
D.C. Circuit nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and Fourth Circuit nominee William James Haynes II were not mentioned in the deal, and their fate seems uncertain. Some liberal groups are saying that they'll continue to be filibustered, while some Republican senators say that wasn't part of the deal (though that's pretty obvious, because the deal didn't address them).
Overall, it doesn't seem like much of a success for Republicans. Three nominees withdrew their names after being filibustered during Bush's first term -- Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, and Charles Pickering. Another, Claude Allen, withdrew under threat of filibuster. Add Saad and Myers, and it looks like the Dems defeated six nominees, and the number could quite possibly reach eight (Kavanaugh and Haynes). Plus, there's no guarantee on future nominees, most notably future Supreme Court nominees. The deal allows Democrats to filibuster in whatever they deem to be "extraordinary circumstances" -- which is what conservatives have been complaining about. The Democrats already have labeled justices Owen and Brown "extreme" (despite winning reelection to their state supreme Courts with 84% in Texas and 76% in California, respectively), what's to stop them from claiming "extraordinary circumstances" whenever they please? The only good thing about the deal is that it looks like it would let the Republicans back out if they believe the Democrats aren't holding up their end in good faith. Which also means that this fight might not be over (though it's unlikely to comeback before the fall).
Some liberals are holding out hope that in exchange for allowing votes on the three nominees, they got Republicans to agree to vote against at least one. I find this extremely unlikely. These were the big three in the fight, the three that Republicans were refusing to leave behind, and each has an outstanding record. The thing I'm most interested in seeing is what happens with Kavanaugh and Haynes. I'm sure they had to at least be mentioned during deliberations, and I wonder if there might be some sort of deal on them, too, which wasn't codified. Previous Democrat offers included letting the Republicans choose two of a given three nominees and the like, so it's possible that the Democrats agreed to let the Republicans have their choice of one of those two. I'm not saying that's likely, just a possibility.
Anyways, the vote on Owens should take place in a bit over five hours, which should end four years of waiting for her. I'm sure I'll update if anything else happens.
Anyway, parties to the deal are Republicans John McCain (Arizona), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island), John Warner (Virginia), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Democrats Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Ken Salazar (Colorado), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii), and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut). Oddly enough, many news stories have not named all parties to the deal, and one I saw named all but Lieberman (especially odd as he probably has the highest name recognition of the bunch).
D.C. Circuit nominee Janice Rogers Brown, Fifth Circuit nominee Priscilla R. Owen, and Eleventh Circuit nominee William H. Pryor, Jr. will finally receive votes. All three were originally nominated during Bush's first term. Sixth Circuit nominee Henry W. Saad and Ninth Circuit nominee William Gerry Myers III will continue to be blocked (Saad pretty much sealed his fate when an e-mail containing disparaging remarks about Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) became known (Saad is from Michigan, and Senate customs give various benefits to home-state senators)).
Although not part of the formal written deal, apparently three other nominees to the Sixth Circuit from Michigan will be allowed votes -- Richard Allen Griffin; David W. McKeague; and Susan Bieke Neilson (though a couple of sources only mentioned the first two). Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) had been trying to block all Sixth Circuit nominees from Michigan because one of Clinton's appointees who was his wife's cousin or cousin's wife or some such was not confirmed.
D.C. Circuit nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and Fourth Circuit nominee William James Haynes II were not mentioned in the deal, and their fate seems uncertain. Some liberal groups are saying that they'll continue to be filibustered, while some Republican senators say that wasn't part of the deal (though that's pretty obvious, because the deal didn't address them).
Overall, it doesn't seem like much of a success for Republicans. Three nominees withdrew their names after being filibustered during Bush's first term -- Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, and Charles Pickering. Another, Claude Allen, withdrew under threat of filibuster. Add Saad and Myers, and it looks like the Dems defeated six nominees, and the number could quite possibly reach eight (Kavanaugh and Haynes). Plus, there's no guarantee on future nominees, most notably future Supreme Court nominees. The deal allows Democrats to filibuster in whatever they deem to be "extraordinary circumstances" -- which is what conservatives have been complaining about. The Democrats already have labeled justices Owen and Brown "extreme" (despite winning reelection to their state supreme Courts with 84% in Texas and 76% in California, respectively), what's to stop them from claiming "extraordinary circumstances" whenever they please? The only good thing about the deal is that it looks like it would let the Republicans back out if they believe the Democrats aren't holding up their end in good faith. Which also means that this fight might not be over (though it's unlikely to comeback before the fall).
Some liberals are holding out hope that in exchange for allowing votes on the three nominees, they got Republicans to agree to vote against at least one. I find this extremely unlikely. These were the big three in the fight, the three that Republicans were refusing to leave behind, and each has an outstanding record. The thing I'm most interested in seeing is what happens with Kavanaugh and Haynes. I'm sure they had to at least be mentioned during deliberations, and I wonder if there might be some sort of deal on them, too, which wasn't codified. Previous Democrat offers included letting the Republicans choose two of a given three nominees and the like, so it's possible that the Democrats agreed to let the Republicans have their choice of one of those two. I'm not saying that's likely, just a possibility.
Anyways, the vote on Owens should take place in a bit over five hours, which should end four years of waiting for her. I'm sure I'll update if anything else happens.
posted by DC | 3:45 AM
4 Comments:
I dont think the 'reelection' percentages are good evidence about the quality of the judges. The voting was about 'should this judge be retained' vs. the judges being faced with an opposing candidate. Futhermore, all judges in those elections were retained with similarly high percentages of the vote.
You're right that reelection percentages do not reflect the quality of the judges. What I was saying was that the Democrats had labelled them as "extreme" and their percentage of the vote would seem to offer evidence to the contrary.
On the second point, you have the problem that you're focused on how Arizona elections work. In Texas, judicial elections are contested, not a referendum on retaining judges. As such, not all are retained with similarly high percentages (and even in Arizona, about half of the judges facing the voters failed to get 75% support). I was thinking California was the same way (maybe that's for lower courts, or maybe it changed over time; I know you watched the Fresh Prince of Bellair, and, if you'll recall, his uncle ran for a judgeship against another guy). At any rate, she retained office with a higher percentage of the vote than any other judge facing the voters that year.
For election returns, see:
http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
http://vote98.ss.ca.gov/Final/sov/SOV49-51.pdf
I'll give you Texas.
The issue with the California election is that the liberal judges and the conservative judges all got basically the same percentage. So either you could say that none of them are extreme, or that the voting percentages dont really reflect any voter preferences about the judges' political leanings.
I didn't say any of them were extreme. However, I would contend that the ~5 percentage point difference that seperates Brown and George from Chin and Mosk is rather significant in this type of election, given that the results are from the same election. In these elections, most voters vote straight "yes" without giving the matter any real thought, while the seocnd largest group votes straight "no" with no real thought (actually, the second largest group doesn't vote at all); getting that large of a difference with so few voters paying any attention would seem to signal that something was afoot. Makes me wonder what prompted the difference in vote totals. I pulled up some bios to see if anything jumped out, but nothing did, and I'm not motivated enough to investigate further.
Post a Comment
<< Home