The question of whether the President's judicial nominations will get a vote in the Senate may be answered this week. The Washington Times provides some background on how we got here:
The "nuclear" showdown that is expected to begin unfolding in the Senate today has its origins in closed-door discussions more than three years ago between key Senate Democrats and outside interest groups as they huddled to plot strategies for blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.
In a Nov. 7, 2001, internal memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who is now the minority whip, an aide described a meeting that the Illinois Democrat had missed between groups opposed to Mr. Bush's nominees and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee.
"Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below," the staffer wrote, listing 19 nominees as "good," "bad" or "ugly."
Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either "bad" or "ugly." None of those deemed "good" by the outside groups was filibustered.
Among those listed as "ugly" was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whose nomination will be brought to the floor today by Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.
The internal Democratic memos, downloaded from Democratic computer servers in the Judiciary Committee by Republican staffers, offer a unique look into the early stages of the filibuster campaign, when Democrats were clearly doubtful that they could succeed in blocking any of the nominees.
In the 14 memos obtained in November 2003 by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, Democratic staffers outlined the concerns held by outside groups about Justice Owen's "hostile" position toward abortion and her "pro-business" attitude.
In a June 4, 2002, memo to Mr. Kennedy, staffers advised him that Justice Owen would be "our next big fight."
"We agree that she is the right choice -- she has a bad record on labor, personal injury and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her," the aides wrote.
Another nominee discussed often in the memos is Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer who became the first filibustered nominee and who withdrew his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after waiting two years for a final vote.
In the 2001 memo to Mr. Durbin, the staffer explained the concerns that the outside groups had about Mr. Estrada.
"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous because he had a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment," the aide wrote.
The memos also reveal the close relationship between Democrats and the outside groups.
In a June 21, 2002, memo to Democrats Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, a staffer urged delaying a hearing for Mr. Estrada to "give the groups time to complete their research and the committee time to collect additional information."
Recent Comments