King George or President George?

Tarun · March 27, 2002

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

On Senate Judiciary Committee's Rejection of Judge Charles Pickering

Delivered on Floor of US Senate

March 15, 2002

t r u t h o u t | Statement

Mr. REID. I rise to defend the Senate Judiciary Committee, not for what they did or didn't do yesterday but because I believe they have a tremendously difficult job. I also wish to defend individually the members of the Judiciary Committee--the Democratic members specifically--on unfounded attacks against these men and women who voted their conscience on the nomination of a judge. This judge was being asked to be elevated to the second highest court we have. The only one above it is the Supreme Court. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this man deserved a promotion, given his record as a judge. I am terribly concerned, however, that some people, even some colleagues, are making this committee vote over one person into an unfortunately acrimonious fight.

It is not the vote of people of goodwill on the confirmation of a judge but the voices of anger and disappointment that will hurt our institution.

I hope we are not entering the era in which any disagreement is vilified and harsh, inappropriate rhetoric is employed to make points with the fringes. We have to have disagreements here. That is what this institution is all about. We have an aisle here that separates Democrats from Republicans. We have different philosophies about a lot of issues. The fact that there was a person who was not approved by a committee doesn't mean the institution is falling apart. It shows the strength of the institution. The American people should be glad we don't agree on everything.

I have heard a lot of talk, as I have listened since yesterday evening, about religion. I have had three Democratic Senators come to me and say they had no idea what Judge Pickering's religion was. I have since learned he is a Baptist. I don't think it had anything to do with what happened. I know it had nothing to do with what his religion is. I never heard it mentioned in the hearings I watched. It was not anything I read about in the newspaper. This is just a red herring people have thrown out to try to make this into a much more difficult situation than it should be.

Whether a nominee goes to a church, a temple, a mosque, or not, has not been used by Congress in the consideration of any judicial nomination, and it should not be. Article VI of the Constitution requires that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States. But the responsibility to advise and consent on the President's nominees is one that the Senators take very seriously.

I have attended meetings where individual Senators have been very concerned about what they do on any particular issue, whether it deals with antiterrorism, a specific part of that legislation, whether it deals with a specific matter dealing with abortion, or a judicial nomination. Some of our Democratic Senators have been receiving calls and criticism based on their religious affiliations.

The Judiciary Committee is made up of Catholics, Jews, Protestants. People who are Democratic members of that committee have been receiving phone calls since last night saying: You did this because you are a Jew; you don't like Baptists; you are Catholic; you don't like Baptists. This is really a big stretch.

There are strong views on both sides regarding this matter of yesterday. But so what? There is nothing wrong with that.

One of the subjects I want to touch on briefly today is to express some concern about statements from the administration, including from the President, that the Senate's treatment of judicial nominees "hurts our democracy." His statement is unsettling, unfounded, and it is a misunderstanding of the fundamental separation of powers in the Constitution, the checks and balances in the Founders' design.

In our democracy, the President is not given unchecked powers to pack the courts and give lifetime appointments to anyone who shares his view. Instead, the Constitution provides a democratic check on the power of appointment by requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.

This little document was given to me by Senator ROBERT BYRD. He signed this little worn document. It means a lot to me personally. I carry it with me almost every day. Sometimes I forget it, but not often. It gets in the way of a lot of things we try to do around here. The Constitution gets in our way because the Constitution prevents us from doing certain things.

We have three separate but equal branches of government. That is the way it is. This little document established three separate but equal branches of government. The legislative branch of government has all the power that the executive branch of government has and all the power the judicial branch of government has. We have responsibilities also given to us by the Constitution. For someone to say that the Senate's treatment of judicial nominees hurts our democracy is a terrible disappointment.

George W. Bush is President of the United States, not King of the United States. He is President Bush. He is President George, not King George.

I also want to take a minute and respond to the criticism that circuit court nominees are being treated unfairly. I believe nothing could be further from the truth. By having fair hearings and voting on nominees, up or down, the Judiciary Committee is proceeding, as it should. Unlike the many judicial nominees who did not get hearings or were accorded a hearing but were never allowed to be considered for a vote by the committee, we are trying to accord nominees whose paperwork is complete and whose blue slips are returned both a hearing and a fair up-or-down vote.

Senator Daschle on this floor and in press conferences has said that we are not going to be in a payback mode. We are not going to treat them like they treated us. If we did, Judge Pickering would not have had two hearings. I said last night in closing, after I listened to all the speeches, as we were going out: Isn't it interesting the item of business today, Friday, that what we are going to do is a judicial approval. We voted on a judge. We approved an Arizona judge. Arizona has two Republican Senators. This is not payback time.

Until Judge Edith Clement received a hearing on her nomination to the Fifth Circuit court last year, there had been no hearings on Fifth Circuit nominees since 1994 and no confirmations since 1995. If Senator Leahy wanted to get even, he had a lot of even to get because he was not very well treated as a ranking member of that committee. In 1999 the Fifth Circuit declared an emergency because it had three vacancies that had not been filled. Last year, in 2001, we were able to confirm the first new judge in the Fifth Circuit in 6 years.

Jorge Rangel was nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 1997 by Bill Clinton and never received a hearing on his nomination or a vote by the committee--never. His nomination to a Texas seat on the Fifth Circuit languished without action for 15 months.

Enrique Moreno was first nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 1999 and never received a hearing on his nomination or a vote by the committee. His nomination to a Texas seat on the Fifth Circuit languished without action for 17 months.

H. Alston Johnson was first nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 1999 and never received a hearing on his nomination or a vote by the committee in 1999, 2000, or the beginning of 2001.

His nomination to a Louisiana seat on the Fifth Circuit languished without action for about 2 years.

In contrast, under the Leahy-led Judiciary Committee, President Bush's nominees to the Fifth Circuit: Edith Brown Clement and Judge Pickering, were treated fairly. Both received hearings less than 6 months after their nominations. In fact, Judge Clement was the first Fifth Circuit nominee to receive a hearing since Judge James Dennis had a hearing when Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee in 1994. She is the first person confirmed to that circuit since Judge Dennis's confirmation almost 7 years ago.

Those who assert that the Democrats have caused a vacancy crisis in the Federal courts are, regrettably, ignoring recent history. At the end of the 106th Congress, December 15, 2000, there were 76 vacancies on the Federal courts. There were 80 when President Bush took office. There were an unusual number of retirements taken by Federal judges during the first 6 months of this Republican President. By the time the Senate was permitted to reorganize after change in minority, the number reached 111. Since then, 41 judicial nominees have been confirmed, and another one was confirmed this morning. There will be another one on Monday. There are currently nine vacancies due to retirements and deaths, but our rate of confirmation is greater than the rate of attrition. We have made more progress than was made in 4 of 6 years of Republican leadership.

On January 3 of last year, there were 26 vacancies on the Federal appellate courts, some of these seats had been vacant for years, since 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Because of these long standing vacancies, President Clinton re-nominated nine court of appeals nominees who had either not been given a hearing or a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee under Republican leadership. None of those nominees received hearings or votes last spring before the change in majority, and in fact no nominees were confirmed by the time the Democrats became the majority.

By the time the Senate was permitted to reorganize last summer there were 32 vacancies on the circuit courts. Since that time, an additional six vacancies have arisen on the circuit courts. In spite of the extraordinary rate of attrition since the presidential election, combined with the number of long-standing vacancies that were not acted upon during years of Republican control, we have kept up with the rate of attrition and exceeded it. We are doing what the Republican majority did not do: keep up with the rate of attrition and move in the right direction. While there are now 31 seats open on the appellate courts--most of which were left vacant by Republican tactics in the previous six years--seven nominees to the court of appeals have already been confirmed, and next week we will have a hearing on another circuit nominee who I hope will turn out to be uncontroversial and well regarded by people from both sides of the aisle. Our task is made easier when the President works with members of both parties to nominate consensus nominees who are not outside of the mainstream and whose record demonstrates that they will follow precedent--not try to find a way around it.

The one thing I have not mentioned, Mr. President, is not only have we had a change in leadership, but keep in mind what happened since the change in leadership: September 11. We didn't have places to hold hearings. I attended a hearing down here in the Capitol. People were jammed into this room. I don't think most people would have had the hearing. Senator Leahy decided to have the hearing. If that wasn't enough, we had an anthrax scare that closed down our building, and 50 Senators in the Hart Building were told they couldn't come in and their staffs couldn't come in. That anthrax threat was directed toward Senator Daschle. Then we had one directed toward Senator Leahy.

As I said as I began my remarks today, there should be accolades given to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for what he has done to allow the process to proceed as fast as it has. Our friends on the other side of the aisle didn't even have excuses for holding up action. This Judiciary Committee has had lots of reasons for holding it up, but they pushed it ahead anyway. September 11, anthrax--they go ahead anyway.

Through the efforts of the Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee 14 hearings have been held on judicial nominees. In only nine months of Democratic leadership, seven circuit court nominees have been confirmed. Only seven circuit court nominees were confirmed on average in each year of Republican leadership. During the Republican majority in the past six years, there was even one year in which no, zero, court of appeals nominees were voted out of Committee.

At the beginning of the year, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman LEAHY outlined his plan to reform the process and practices used in the past, under Republican leadership, to deny Committee consideration of judicial nominees. Almost 60 judicial nominees never received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee or received a hearing but were never voted on by the Committee. We are holding more hearings for more nominees than in the recent past. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home State Senators' blue slips public for the first time.

Mr. President, I repeat, as a Senator, there is no more difficult committee on which to serve than the Judiciary Committee. The issues are complex, difficult, hard. But this Judiciary Committee is one that has done extremely well. And if there were a Super Bowl, this committee would be placed in it. If there were a coach of the year, it would be the chairman of the Committee, Senator Pat Leahy.

Tarun · April 27, 2002

Does George Bush deserve support?

--

Posted: April 18, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern

Two weeks ago, I suggested that George Bush's presidency had turned out to be amazingly similar to what we had feared from Al Gore. The only major difference is that there's very little conservative opposition to Bush's expansion of government, while we could have expected fierce opposition to Gore.

The article provoked some angry reactions from people who said that only a fool could fail to notice all the good deeds George Bush has done.

The Bush agenda

Not wanting to be a fool, I've compiled a list of the good things conservatives believe George Bush has achieved so far. Let's look at them:

He opposed the Kyoto agreement on global warming, while Al Gore supported it. But since the Senate had already rejected the treaty, it doesn't matter what the president thinks about it.

He's said he wants to cancel the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty so the U.S. can build a missile defense. All well and good. But he hasn't done anything to get America out of the treaty or to protect us from missile attack, beyond what Bill Clinton had already done. So far, it's just talk.

He hasn't signed a bill imposing new gun restrictions. But, then, Congress hasn't passed such a bill, so we don't know what he'll do when the test comes. But he's already proposed closing "loopholes" in the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. And given the way he's embraced foreign aid, campaign-finance reform, federal health care and practically everything else, why should we assume he won't sign the next gun-control bill? (He signed many such bills in Texas.)

Bush and Gore make opposing public statements on abortion. But just as Bill Clinton did nothing to promote abortion, so George Bush has done nothing to reduce abortions.

On Social Security, Bush has talked about wanting to let you invest a teensy bit of what now goes down the Social Security drain. But he has sent no specific proposal to Congress. Even if Congress would turn it down, shouldn't Bush at least make the Democrats publicly oppose your right to invest your own earnings?

Al Gore probably wouldn't have pushed through a tax cut as Bush did. In my view, a tax cut without a spending cut means only that the monstrous burden of big government is being rearranged – not reduced. But since others may see the issue differently, this matter is at least debatable. However, even here Bush discarded some of the provisions he had labeled essential – such as tax relief for corporations.

Perhaps Al Gore wouldn't have handled the terrorist situation as Bush has. But we don't know what Gore would have done. Prior to Sept. 11, we didn't know how Bush would have handled such a crisis. In fact, he's already reversed some of his earlier promises – such as not imposing pro-American governments on foreign countries.

The scorecard

In sum, George Bush seems very good on things that don't count – gun bills he hasn't had to veto, environmental treaties that won't be enacted anyway, talking about the ABM treaty or reforming Social Security while doing nothing about them.

But where something has actually happened – foreign aid, farm subsidies, education, health care, campaign-finance reform, corporate welfare, and much more – he's expanding government at a blinding pace, just as Al Gore probably would have done.

And I doubt that Gore would have signed a punitive tariff on foreign steel – which could trigger a terrible trade war and injure the economy.

Who's to blame?

Am I carping at George Bush?

No, I'm carping at the conservatives who would have been screaming bloody murder if Al Gore were president and had done exactly what George Bush has done.

Conservatives don't oppose Bush because he's a Republican. For most Democrats and Republicans, it's all just a game – "beat the other team, whatever it takes."

If all you want is a president who will say what you want to hear, George Bush is your man. But if you want a president who actually does something to make your life better and reduce the government to its constitutional limits, you're no better off with Bush than with Gore.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Raise Your Sights

They tell you that in politics you must compromise. But all the compromises have been in the direction of bigger and more oppressive government. There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want.

If you don't ask for what you want – if you don't demand what you want as the price of your support – you shouldn't be surprised that you never get what you really want.

When are you going to raise your sights – and stop supporting those who are selling out your few remaining liberties?

--------------------------------

Harry Browne is director of public policy at American Liberty Foundation. You can read more of his articles and find out about his network radio show at HarryBrowne.org.

----------------

Insider: INS rules still aid terrorists

'You're not killing my animals!'

UK businesses sue Blair government

Le Pen showing leaves Parisians in shock

COMMENTARY:

------------

The high cost of openness

By Notra Trulock

Israel: Can of worms

By Joel Miller

Catholic Church leadership must expel pedophiles

By Rev. Jerry Falwell

Tarun · May 2, 2002

It appears that Bushel is not in charge. Or wields little power.

Bushel's urgent request for Sharony to exit Palestine's occupied areas was met with a shrug & an:

"I'm not finished yet. We'll be done (with them) shortly.

(a roast here, a bake there) Meanwhile chill, George, chill!!"

Personally, I believe sometimes George is correct. I really do.

But because he's really not in charge, I mean REALLY he's not

what can he really do?

As dazama-skandha describes: LIKE AN ACTOR ON A STAGE

This planet is missing an all-powerful person's appearance to set things straight every 100 yrs or so.

I'd suggest oftener, much oftener.

But it appears our 33kk devas r busy doing other things.

Such a superperson would have to be able to drag politicians & billionaires before a jury of the people they exploit...

Like this international ENRON scam. Those ENRON leader now have to reincarnate so many thousands of times just to payback the people they cheated in this one single lifetime!

Just imagine!

AND WHAT TO SPEAK OF EVERYTHING ELSE THEY'VE DONE OR SHALL DO!

Pray for RAm-RAjya. Or at least something similar.

Tarun · May 18, 2002

Each politician's a mixed bag of ideals + undercover embarassments.

Latter may include criminal activity such as unnecessary killing.

Commandment #6: Lo Tirtzach = "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

We already knew, but now none other can deny 9/11 was avoidable.

And subsequent Afghan bombing was absolutely sadistic & unauthorized.

Just imagine keeping track of everyone's karma-phalam for one day!

Or even just a handful of politicians!

Ergo, YamarAj is our busiest demigod. Viduraji ki jaya!

Anyone know how many YamadUtas he employs? Classified info?

R they assigned to one planet or free to roam universally?

And what special cringe fringe benefits to they enjoy?

Summer's off? Warmer climate winters? Witness Protection Programs?

Tarun · June 9, 2002

Will Bush Build an East German Stasi? by Marc Ash

t r u t h o u t | Friday, 7 June, 2002

Where are we going here? This man who could not manage a majority at the polls is back once again, asking us to abandon everything we know about the way the country is run and follow him. It's not clear exactly what he has planned this time, but if recent history is an accurate guide Bush, Ashcroft, Mueller and whoever is guiding them from the shadows will undoubtedly move to attack every thing they have always despised in the name of safety from renegade Arabs.

I have an idea; we may want to wait until we find out what the Bush Administration knew about the Sept 11th attacks before they occurred, and for that matter who attempted to kill Senators Daschle and Leahy before we sign on for years of social repression at the hands of these people who seem to have materialized out of nowhere with a script that appears to be running like clockwork -- for them. Until now, we as a nation have been prepared to assume all the warning signs about the Bush Administration, could not possibly, be leading where they surely appeared to be. God help us if we are wrong.

Courage is often found in the least likely places. One might think the average Israeli would be frightened to the point of hysteria by now. Applying Tom Ridge's Pavlovian "terror warning color scheme" to the situation in Israel, it would be fair to say every day is a "Flashing Red Day." Surprisingly, they're really quite laissez faire about the prospect of dying. The average Israeli is more than willing to carry on without feeling any particular need to destroy Israeli democracy as a remedy to the violence. There is a lesson in that. Bravo, Israel.

What Bush, Mueller and Ashcroft seam to be proposing bears an unsettling resemblance to the dreaded East German Secret Police Agency, the Stasi. As a matter of fact, most of the key elements are already in place now: discretionary surveillance of anyone at any time, defacto suspension of probable cause, open-ended discretionary detention outside jurisdiction of the courts. These are powers a democracy should resist yielding to the state -- at all costs.

Benjamin Franklin once said; "He who would give up essential liberty in order to have a little security deserves neither liberty, nor security." Mr. Bush proposes that, what we fight for, is freedom itself. Very well then -- let's have at it.

Tarun · July 19, 2002

White House Still Selling Privatization of Social Security

By Leigh Strope

Nando Times | Associated Press

Wednesday, 17 July, 2002

The plunging stock market and recent corporate implosions won't stop the White House from driving ahead with plans to overhaul Social Security to allow personal investment accounts.

President Bush's views haven't changed, spokesman Ari Fleischer said Wednesday.

"The president believes that is the right long-term policy," Fleischer said. "He thinks it's good for young people if they want to pursue this on a voluntary basis."

Bush wants to let younger workers invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market, and campaigned on the idea two years ago. A White House panel late last year recommended three plans to consider.

But even Republicans are skittish about running on Bush's Social Security plans this election year, and GOP strategists have warned rank-and-file lawmakers that the issue poses a serious political threat. Control of the House and Senate is at stake in November.

Democrats are eager to exploit Bush's Social Security plans when Enron and WorldCom are on people's minds and the stock market is handing hefty losses to retirement plans.

"The American people are watching their 401(k)s and retirement savings vanish in the stock market," said Rep. Robert Matsui of California, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee. "The last thing they should have to worry about is that their Social Security benefits will follow suit."

But Fleischer said if the system isn't changed, younger workers paying taxes will not get the money returned as benefits.

"The one certainty is demographics work against younger people in Social Security," he said. As the large baby boom generation retires, fewer workers will be paying into the system to fund the increased draw on benefits.

Asked if Bush would counsel young Americans about the risk of the stock market, Fleischer said: "It's not the president's job to counsel people about investment decisions. That's why this is a voluntary program under the president's proposal for people to make those judgments themselves."

Next year is the earliest that legislation would be considered. Democrats argue that Republicans seeking re-election have an obligation to talk about Social Security because they potentially could be deciding its future.

"The president really should rethink his approach now that he has empirical evidence showing that privatization is not a prudent policy," Matsui said. "But if he remains committed to this misguided policy, he and his Republican colleagues in the House have an obligation to bring these plans for a vote before the election."