Judicial battles

The Senate Democrats have undertaken the most dishonest and anti-constitutional campaign against the President's judicial nominees in the history of judicial nominations. A minority of 41 Democrat Senators have misused the filibuster power to prevent up-or-down votes on numerous Bush judicial appointments. The advice-and-consent of the Senate clause only requires majority votes, these filibusters require supermajorities.

What about Republican actions against Clinton nominees? No Clinton nominees in his first term were bottled up for ideological reasons. Similarly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had an immense track record as a liberal jurist, won Supreme Court confirmation by 97-3. Clinton had some nominees who were not appointed at the end of his second term, just as Pres. Bush the Elder had (more) nominees who did not receive their appointments as his term ended.

What about the filibuster against (Democratic nominee) Abe Fortas for Chief Justice in 1967? The Fortas filibuster could have been broken by a simple majority, not a 60-Senator supermajority, and was led by Democrats.

The Democrats have been shameful, the Republicans have been spineless. C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel, has details on one of the latest victims of the Democrat witch-hunt, Claude Allen, and the overall judicial blockade.