 |
||||||||
|
5/01/2003 03:57:00 PM | Brad Plumer Judges and filibusters According to the Washington Post, the Democrats are now promising to filibuster Priscilla Owen, the president's latest nomination for the DC Court of Appeals. So far the Republicans show no sign of backing down, and are even willing to make things nasty: Democratic senators facing reelection next year will be targeted with ads describing votes they took to block female and minority nominees, according to GOP congressional aides.The Post also reports on the proposals for judicial nomination reform that are currently being discussed in the Senate. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to create a bipartisan committee that would propose candidates for presidential nomination. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) want to outlaw filibusters on nominees. Bush has already proposed that the Senate be required to vote on all nominations within six months, though this suggestion has been swept aside for now. Oh, and while we're on this topic... Law professor Jack Balkin (of Balkinization fame) and the mysterious Juan Non-Volokh (from The Volokh Conspiracy) are having a great discussion on the history of Senate opposition to judicial nominees. Balkin starts the debate in this post, arguing that fierce Democratic opposition to conservative appointments is a relatively recent phenomenon. He goes on to explain why: The Republicans have always taken strong interest in federal courts as the most effective way to change the Constitution, while the Democrats have traditionally remained wary of the courts. Case in point: Clinton would nearly always back down or compromise when his nominations were opposed. That all changed after the legal wrangling in the 2000 election, when Democrats finally realized the importance of an activist, ideologically friendly Supreme Court. And thus the present state of affairs. Juan Non-Volokh replies by claiming that the Democrats have always waged fierce battles over judicial appointments, and that the recent clashes are nothing out of the ordinary. This goes on, with a lot of good points being tossed about. Balkin's second reply is here and Non-Volokh's counter-reply is here. All worth reading. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.