<< Mr. Barry: Not only are your theories hard to believe you are factually incorrect as well. >>
Ok, ok. I guess that you feel that Chief Justice William Rehnquist is also hard to believe?!
<====================================================================
January 1, 1998 === Extracts from the New York Times:
"In an unusual rebuke, Chief Justice William Rehnquist criticized the Senate on Wednesday for failing to move more quickly on judicial appointments, saying that the "vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice."
But he said that the major problem facing the judiciary was "too few judges and too much work" and that continuing inaction on nominees was imperiling the whole court system.
"The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down," Rehnquist said.
Rehnquist and other judges have complained before about the problem of vacancies but the chief justice's remarks were especially pointed.
Disputes over judgeships have raged for more than a year, sparked by what conservatives have called the activist leanings of Clinton's nominees. The Senate confirmed only 17 judges in 1996 and 36 in 1997, compared with 101 judges confirmed in 1994.
As a result, nearly one in 10 seats on the federal bench are now vacant, Rehnquist said. Twenty-six of the 82 openings have been unfilled for more than 18 months.
In the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, where the conservatives have aimed much of their ire, one third of the seats are empty, a problem Rehnquist called "particularly troubling."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he hoped Rehnquist's report would "help shame the Senate into clearing the backlog." He said that more than 40 judicial nominees were kept on hold in 1997, some of them in limbo since 1995.
In September, in hearings before the Senate, the chief judge of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and his immediate predecessor both warned that the quality of justice in New York, Connecticut and Vermont would suffer if the Senate did not soon fill vacancies there.
===================================================================>
<< Did you know that a part of the alleged delays you speak about
resulted from the Administration's delay in making nominations in the first place? >>
So, I guess that your "logic" is: Because Clinton hasn't made all of the available nominations, it is ok for the conservatives to make the situation much worse by holding up on almost all of the other nominations. But, as you say, this isn't an organized effort, is it! <g>
<< Of what value are your news reports about "a group of Republicans" who agenda is to remove Mr. Clinton. >>
We were discussing whether or not there is an organized conservative effort against President Clinton. I guess my statement's value is dependant upon your level of comprehension.
What is your spin? Are you saying that there is no organized, conservative effort to damage the Democratic Party and/or remove President Clinton from office?
<< If the Christian Coalition needs to be investigated, it should be >>
I agree with you. Perhaps Starr can drop his futile efforts and take on this challenge instead.
<< The man is not fit for the office. He has done, and continues to inflict, irreparable harm on the aura and prestige of the highest office in this land investigated >>
I only regret that President Clinton cannot run for another term of office. He would probably win in a landslide!
But, I could turn your statement around and point it at some conservative fundamentalists, in this country, who are really causing most of the damage to the aura and prestige of our country, IMHO.
Regards, Bob |
