Judicial confirmation lies, deception and cover-up!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Judicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up

Thomas L. Jipping
December 12, 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every time you turn around here in Washington, you step in another one. Just when you thought you'd heard the most ridiculous piece of propaganda, the most blatant lie, the most misleading spin, the bird of partisan poop plops another pile right on your head.

Washington, after all, is the where increases in spending are called spending cuts - because the increase was smaller than it could have been.

Well, nothing tops the debate about judicial confirmations for outright lies, deception and cover-up. There was the claim by Senate Democrats that Republicans had blocked more than half of President Clinton's appeals court nominees when they ran the Senate. Turns out the Dems were actually counting nominations rather than nominees. That way they could double and triple count nominees who were not confirmed in one Congress, then re-nominated and confirmed in the next. Yes, Democrats were counting as blocked nominees many individuals who are today Federal judges.

There was the claim that Democrats today are ahead of the confirmation pace in the first year of the Clinton or previous Bush Administrations. Turns out the Dems were actually comparing confirmation totals rather than confirmation rates. That way they did not have to admit that while the Senate confirmed as many available nominees as they could in 1993 and 1989, the Senate this year confirmed as few as they possibly could.

That misleading argument does not even work anymore; since the Senate in 1993 confirmed 27 nominees by December 1 and this year the Senate confirmed only 18.

Part of the Democrat strategy is to chuck as much crap, er, stuff, out there as possible. This manure spreading operation shields their partisan obstruction campaign in four different ways.

* First, whether the stuff is true or false, if people believe any of it they will think the Dems are doing as much as they can to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. No one can fault them for doing their best, especially since September 11.

* Second, though most of the stuff is false, there will be so blasted much of it that correcting it all will be simply impossible.

* Third, the flurry of numbers, claims, and corrections will eventually become like rain on the roof or muzak in the dentist's office. Just background stuff that no one pays any attention to.

* Fourth, since practically everyone believes that practically every politician lies about practically everything anyway, no one will care that the stuff is false.

And the crap just keeps coming. The latest chunk, thrown by both Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, is that the many judicial vacancies today are President Bush's fault for not making enough nominations.

Give that baby just a second of thought. The Senate has confirmed just one-third of the nominees the President has sent them - and they're using as an excuse for that slow pace that the President has not sent them even more? They're claiming as the reason they're so far behind that they could be further behind?

The Senate has confirmed only 21 nominees all year, less than half the number President had sent them by the end of July. Forty-three more are waiting for confirmation. Only three of the eleven appeals court nominees the President announced on May 9 have even had a hearing. The only nominees that matter to the Senate are the ones on their plate now, not the additional ones the President may send them later.

Plus consider this. President Bush started nominations months earlier than previous Presidents and has made a record number of nominations in his first year. A record number of nominations. Did I mention that President Bush set a record for first-year nominations? He had made 44 nominations by the time President Clinton had made a single one. Senate Democrats are saying they have been so slow in confirming judges because a record number of nominations is not high enough.

Put on your waders, folks, it's getting deep in here.

Tom Jipping is the director of the Center for Law and Democracy at the Free Congress Foundation.

http://www.aim.org/

[Venus]

Jipping is always good -- goes straight to the facts.

South Dakotans need a major wake-up call....'big time'. Vermont is hopeless, as we all know.

I view the jihad on America declared by Dasshole, Leahy, Clinton and Kennedy no less egregious and dangerous than that by the Taliban. The only difference is that people mistakenly just chalk their actions up to 'politics as usual' because it's directed at the administration, even though their actions negatively impact the citizenry.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Feminist groups target Bush judicial nominees
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Liberal and feminist groups are gearing up for a "nasty and contentious fight" against President Bush's judicial nominees who do not support abortion, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times. Top Stories
• 1st terror indictment issued
• Tribal forces trap bin Laden's foreign troops
• Afghan wants to try Omar in home court
• U.S. says tribunals just for terror leaders
• U.S. to pull out of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
• DeLay eyes majority leader post
• Father files grievance over pledge


The Ms. Foundation, National Organization for Women and Alliance for Justice are holding press conferences this week to criticize nominees and coordinate their activities with Democratic senators.
Beginning today, "Democratic Senators will take to the floor of the Senate to press the importance of scrutinizing and reviewing nominees," a circulating memo says. The groups are encouraging their members to e-mail letters to those senators echoing their support.
A senate aide said Republicans are surprised at the extent of coordination among the groups and Democratic leaders to stall nominees.
"This is unbelievable coordination at its worst against President Bush's judicial and administrative nominations, who need to be confirmed as soon as possible to help us fight the war on terrorism and serve Americans," the aide said.
The memo detailing a Dec. 6 conference call also cited the groups' displeasure with the American Bar Association for reviewing only a judicial candidate's legal background, "not their stand on choice or their temperament."
The group's first major battle will be over the nomination of Charles Pickering Sr. to the 5th Circuit Court. Mr. Pickering was first appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by President Bush's father.
"We can win on that fight, but it will be nasty and contentious," the memo says. It contends that Mr. Pickering has a "troubling record on civil and reproductive rights" and "wants to ban abortion."
Also targeted for delay are the nominations of John Roberts for the D.C. Circuit Court, Michael McConnell to the 10th Circuit and Carolyn Kuhl to the 9th Circuit.
The groups are planning letter-writing campaigns to senators, visits to newspaper editorial boards and a letter-writing campaign to national newspapers.
Senate Republicans have been complaining about the slow pace of the confirmation process over the past several weeks. Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, has said the Senate under Democratic rule has become a "black hole of inactivity."
Mr. Bush has nominated 64 district and circuit court judges, of which 21 have been confirmed by the Senate.
That's a 33 percent confirmation rate compared to the 57 percent first-year rate for President Clinton, 63 percent for Mr. Bush's father, and 91 percent for President Reagan.
Yesterday, Mr. Bush's only judicial nominee rated "unqualified" by the American Bar Association (ABA) skated through his Senate confirmation hearing with no opposition from Democrats. However, a committee or full Senate vote has not been scheduled.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David L. Bunning, son of Republican Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, is nominated to the Eastern District Court of Kentucky.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Judicial Committee chairman and the only Democrat to attend the hearing, highlighted the ABA's concerns but did not hammer the issue.
"Mr. Bunning comes highly recommended by his home state senators, and that has always been a matter that people on both sides of the aisles have looked at, but the ABA finds him not qualified, which means a closer look [is needed]," Mr. Leahy said.
The ABA ranking does not automatically disqualify Mr. Bunning but means "every senator has to make up their mind," Mr. Leahy said.
Two members of the ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary testified about its rating.
David Weiner of the ABA said his negative conclusion was based on interviews with circuit judges and other anonymous interviews, along with a study of Mr. Bunning's legal writing style, which he called "plain."
He said Mr. Bunning's 10 years of experience is two years short of the ABA rule, and he has limited experience working only for the government — as opposed to private practice — in civil matters.
"I have had only one client, the United States, but that client has taught me to respect the rule of law," Mr. Bunning said.
Mr. Weiner drew the ire of Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, and other judges on the District Court testifying on behalf of Mr. Bunning, by suggesting Mr. Bunning was not qualified because he attended the University of Kentucky law school, rather than an Ivy League school, and graduated with an average ranking.
"As another UK graduate who graduated in the middle of his class, I thought that stung a little bit," Mr. McConnell said. "First of all, Mr. Weiner, I would not hold my breath on being invited to address the University of Kentucky's alumni law association."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011211-22204648.htm
**********

Now they are gonna trot out the femi-nazis! Sorry gals, you lost your credibility during the Clinton Admin.!
images/icons/tongue.gif