Proposed Compromise on Janice Brown nomination

[dolstein]

While I think Janice Brown embodies the kind of conservative judicial activism that doesn't belong anywhere near the federal bench, I wouldn't have a problem with the Democrats allowing a vote on her nomination -- provided that Bush agreed to nomimate her to the 9th Circuit court of appeals instead of the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit is closely divided ideologically. The 9th Circuit still leans clearly to the left. The 9th Circuit could survive a Brown appointment, the DC Circuit can't.

[Mitt Chovick]

1. I always wondered why * didn't

pick her for the 9th Circuit instead. I mean she is Californian.

[dolstein]

4. He picked her for the DC Circuit for two reasons

First, the DC Circuit is considered the most prestigious of the Circuirt Courts. Scalia and Thomas both served on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals before being elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I have absolutely no doubt that Bush would just LOVE to put Brown on the Supreme Court.

Second, the DC Circuit handles a lot of regulatory issues, and Bush wants to further his deregulatory agenda by appointing someone who is openly hostile to government regulation on the court.

The fact of the matter is that if Bush had nominated her to the 9th Circuit, I think it's much less likely that the Democrats would have filibustered her nomination.

[Mitt Chovick]

7. I think you are right and I think it's the plan to elevater her to SCOTUS

[ClintonTyree]

2. She's not fit....

for traffic court. I don't want her near a Federal Court, period.

[whistle]

3. If Bush would agree, then we could shuffle the other six nominees

...around also and let them whither for life in circuit court appointments where their prejudice and bigotry would have little impact. Who would we put in DC then?

[Yupster]

9. Were I president, I would enter into

no such deal.

The Constitution gives the president the right and or duty to nominate judges.

Even if the deal worked for me, I wouldn't do it to protect the power to nominate for future presidents.

[MiniMe]

11. Its all a prelude to the SCOTUS nominations

If the repubs win this one, the dems have no way to stop a SCOTUS nominee from being confirmed unless they can convince somebody to vote for them in committee.

I have a question though, can Frist replace committee members as easily as DeLay did?

[salin]

5. Pointless... they won't compromise... the whole point is to trigger

a showdown... to get break the senate procedures by changing the rules in a way that itself defies senate rules (that is - having Cheney come and do it - rather than by supermajority as is procedure) - thus setting precedent for Cheney to do this again on other issues.

Better to keep one's eye on the REAL issue / power play being set up - so we can figure out how to proceed when they (WH) tries to break the senate.

[jpgray]

6. I agree with salin--they won't accept a compromise

And it's not clear to me what political gain the party would have from offering one. Would this not be an instance of compromising our "moral values"? If we could make some of the hurt of these nominations go away, maybe I'd agree, but I just don't see that happening.

[splat@14]

10. They won't accept compromise & we shouldn't sell one. Let in go nuclear.

It isn't what I want for judges but compromise sets a precedence that later would be hard to define. We don't have a say in the nuclear option, if thats what they want. That sucks short term but does provide some mileage similar to the deficit philosophic position that "Shrub has been in office for better than a term, you can't blame Clinton for the financial mess you see before you". Long term, I think we can make the changes we want and make it stick. Believe we'll have the help of moderate repubs disgusted with Shrub and gang.

Just an opinion. :smoke:

[GreenArrow]

8. they already voted on her

The bitch lost.

[Dinger]

12. Green Arrow, I Like The Way You Think! (nt)

[Disturbed]

13. Rethugs will settle for nothing less that ..

total Fascist Rule.

btw Free Speech is a great concept but calling Judge Brown a bitch doesn't speak well for Dems or anyone else. Yes, her ideas are extreme and she shouldn't be on any court but foul name calling doesn't advance our cause.

[GreenArrow]

14. you're right

It's pure frustration, intensified by all the talk of "deals" and "compromise".

I find I've been doing a lot of name calling on here lately; maybe it's time to take a break.