I've been watching the Senate on CSPAN2, it's been pretty interesting due to the fight on judicial nominees. Most of the speeches have been lame, it's obvious all the dealing is happening behind closed doors. But today Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), Judiciary Committee Chairman, made a great speech. He said both sides are to blame (50:50) for the current problems and the first step to a solution is admitting that. Here's my transcript of a little of what he said today at 11:33AM EDT:
"The pattern of delay arose during the last two years of Reagan's tenure after the democrats regained control of the senate in 1986. President Reagan's circuit court nominees were delayed and 7 were denied hearings and 2 more were denied floor votes. The pattern of delay and denial continued through four years of President H. W. Bush. President Bush's lower court nominees waited and average of 100 days to be confirmed which was about twice as long as had historically had been the case. The democrats also denied hearings for more nominees. For President Reagan the number was 30 for Bush Sr. the number jumped to 58. When we Republicans won the 1994 election and gained the Senate majority, we exacerbated the pattern of delays and blocking nominees. Over the course of President Clinton's presidency the average number of days for the Senate to confirm judicial nominees increased even further to 192 days for District Court and 262 days for Circuit Court. Through blue slips and holes 70 of President Clinton's nominees were blocked and blocked in key circuits so it was no surprise when the democrats were searching for a way to return the favor, to keep vacancies in the same circuit courts because of what they concluded was inappropriate treatment. When the democrats initiated the unprecedented move of a pattern of filibusters, and it is true there have been filibusters in the past, but never a pattern, never a systematic effort as has been evidenced recently. And then President Bush responded similarly in an unprecedented move by interim appointments. Never been been done in the history of the Republic where the Senate even by filibuster would be greeted by an interim appointment by the President. That impasse was broken when President Bush agreed to refrain from further recess appointments. Against this background of bitter and angry recriminations, with each party serially trumpeting the other to get even or really to dominate."
He said that this is not about qualifications since Democrats have offered as a compromise to allow Republicans to choose one of four of the nominees to be confirmed. So it's not that they are all repugnant, they are in fact qualified and being used as pawns. He then said:
"Such deal making confirms public cynicism about what goes on behind Washington's closed doors. Instead my suggestion is that the Senate considers each of the four without the constraints of party line voting. Let the leaders release their caucuses from the straight jacket of party line voting and even encourage members to vote their consciouses on the issues of great national importance. It should not be a matter of heresy for someone in this chamber to suggest that senators exercise their own individual judgment and follow their consciouses as opposed to party line voting. But the regrettable fact of life is that the dominant force or the dominant power in this chamber is party line voting. When you come to a matter on a change of the Senate rules on materially affecting the rights of the minority, there ought to be no question that the party ought not to be the determinant."
I wish they all thought this way.
6 comments:
"He said that this is not about qualifications since Democrats have offered as a compromise to allow Republicans to choose one of four of the nominees to be confirmed. So it's not that they are all repugnant, they are in fact qualified and being used as pawns."
I find this line of reasoning particularly offensive. When you are trying to negotiate and are willing to meet the other side halfway its ridicules for the other side to say look he’s giving in on some of his demands so they must not have been valid. In fact I think that all seven are found repugnant, but they are willing to compromise for the sake of the country. By giving the republicans the choice they are really saying is that they are equally repugnant.
I like his suggestion at the end, but my public cynicism make me doubt this will ever happen.
I probably should have been clearer that I paraphrased that one paragraph. I understand what you're saying, but if they were really not at all acceptable, why compromise so? I tried finding details on Priscilla Owen's record and found it difficult. I didn't find anything that listed numbers of trials, or any statistics. I did find things that said she voted against a family in favor of a hospital, but provided no details of the case. So she's pro-life, while I don't agree with that, I don't think it disqualifies her from being a judge. I know she sided with businesses often but again don't know any details of the cases (hey maybe they deserved it).
It is clear that the much repeated quote by Alberto Gonzales that she's a judicial activist, was clearly taken out of context and he's stated he's for her, but still the left repeats it as a chant, even though it's basically a lie. She's clearly on the right, but Spector also made the case that circuit courts have three justices which means no one person can legislate from the bench on their own. The thing that bothered me most is that Karl Rove managed her election to the court and was paid $250,000 for that work. That's all well and good, but now I know why they want to nominate her as opposed to others since one thing from her record does seem clear, she's not exceptional, has written no great decisions, and doesn't have a lot of trial experience. She just happens to be qualified (the ABA says so), on the right, and knows the president's chief of staff. Not great reasons to be nominated, but that first one (qualified) goes a long way.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/000224c.htm
He clearly is accusing the dissenters of judicial activism
Her record
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/19/21387/6792
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/owens.html
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf
Thanks for the comments and pointers.
http://committeeforjustice.org/cgi-data/press/files/17.shtml is what he said on Jan 6, 2005 at his Senate confirmation hearing. I'm no judicial scholar but I think these statements of his are clear.
As for the three listed sites:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/19/21387/6792 - isn't a record as much as a few sentences from other reports. It presents conclusions like "she too often contorts rulings to conform to her particular conservative outlook." without giving the evidence.
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/owens.html - is better. At least we learn things like "In every judicial bypass case that came before the Texas Supreme Court last spring, Owen voted against granting the young woman a bypass." but it doesn't say how many that was. If it's one, it's not that big a deal. The issue on taking money from companies and later dealing with cases invovling them seems bad, but in Texas this is permissible and common and she's not the only one that does it. I think you can make an argument that Texas should change it's rules, but I'm not sure you can hold it against her for following the rules. The numbers listed that "the court ruled in Enron's favor in five out of six cases involving the company since 1993" applies to the whole court not just to her (she didn't join the court until 1994). And when it adds things like "Has been criticized as being on the 'far right wing' of the Texas court" and being a "Member of the board of the Houston Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative legal organization." it loses points. Being a conservative doesn't make you unqualified. I disagree with Scalia on most things but I think he's brilliant and well deserving of a seat on the Supreme Court (which should represent all sides), I'm just glad they all aren't like him.
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf - Is clearly the best but is also one I read before I posted. I would have liked to have read a list of how many cases she was involved in and how many she voted pro-business. Instead we get a few items like this one:
"State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simmons. A jury awarded the Simmons family actual and punitive damages against State Farm, which refused to pay when the family's house was destroyed by fire. Justice Owen went beyond the majority's reversal of the jury's punitive damage award, joining a dissent by Justice Hecht that would have vacated the entire award, leaving the family with nothing."
Which doesn't say why her dissent was bad, merely that the family wouldn't have gotten money (so I guess it must be bad). There are no details given about the case, and it seems Hecht agreed with her.
This paper does bring up the good point that she seems to be quite slow in writing decisions and thankfully quantifies it:
"A calculation of the time it took justices to issue decisions in cases decided revealed that Justice Owen was indeed the slowest of the four justices who served on the bench around the same time and for roughly the same period: While Justices Spector and Chief Judge Phillips each took about four months each to issue a decision, it took Justice Hecht 7.75 months to put out his opinions, and Justice Owen, 9.35 months."
While speed isn't a requirement of the job it does go to the point that she doesn't seem the mostly qualified candidate, but again the minority doesn't get to pick who's the most qualified.
Back to your "why compromise comment" and to address your later "minority doesn't get to pick who's the most qualified" comment. You compromise for the good of the country. If you were married you would understand about compromising even when you’re right. The senate is all about the rights of the minority.
Here's another good one to read.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_151.pdf
Thanks, that is the best report I've read on why she isn't qualified. The Clerk Perk scandal seemed quite compelling.
I understand about compromise, really. Remember the old manager trick, a valued employee comes to you and quits, you ask if this person would stay for a million dollars and they say "of course", you respond, "well now that we've established that it's not a matter of principle we just have to negotiate on the price". Yes compromise is good, but the rhetoric used by the democrats is that she isn't qualified at all. Sen Spector was merely pointing out that that was an exageration, one in a list that both sides have performed.
Post a Comment