At last, one of the best judges in the country has been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. What's more, there are other judicial nominees who will be confirmed soon.

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed California judge Janice Rogers Brown for the federal appeals court, ending a two-year battle filled with accusations of racism and sexism and shadowed by a dispute over Democratic blocking tactics.

Senators quickly followed by ending another long-term filibuster, clearing the way for a vote Thursday on former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as outlined in an agreement last month that averted a showdown that could have brought Senate action to a halt.

After giving Pryor a final vote and confirming two Michigan nominees to other appeals court posts, senators plan to leave President Bush's other controversial nominees dangling, moving on to other matters after devoting a month to historic but exhausting debate over judges.

President Bush commended the Senate for voting to confirm Brown. "During her tenure on the California Supreme Court and California Court of Appeal, Justice Brown has distinguished herself as a brilliant and fair-minded jurist who is committed to the rule of law," Bush said in a statement.

The Senate voted 56-43 to confirm Brown to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and 67-32 to end the filibuster of Pryor's nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — the last of the three nominees Democrats agreed to clear in exchange for Republicans not banning judicial filibusters.

As a bonus, the Senate will confirm on Thursday Michigan nominees David McKeague and Richard Griffin, nominated to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

While those two weren't part of the deal to avoid a fight over judicial filibusters, Democrats withdrew their objections to their confirmation during the back-and-forth negotiations.

Andhaving confirmed these judges, there will be no case to be made that any future nominees with similar backgrounds and philosophies are extreme -- not that there ever was a legitimate case to be made in the first place.

And who knows -- maybe we will be fortunate enough to get Miguel Estrada or John Cornyn nominated to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Not a legitimate case?

So Pryor ruling repeatedly against gay citizens every chance he got, even publishing anti-gay tirades over cases that never entered his court doesn't mark him as an extremist.

I surely hope you're not being a hypocrite and would equally agree that there was no extremism present in a nominee that did exactly the same thing to Christians.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 04:13:52 2005 (fgsGh)

2 Dolphin: The fact that it bothers him doesn't make him an extremist. It just means it bothers him.

Following your logic, every single politician and judge that is a significant advocate for gun control is an extremist.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 05:41:30 2005 (lkCzp)

3 Dangit - that was Subjugator.

I use a different ID on another blog and accidentally signed off as that here.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 05:42:07 2005 (lkCzp)

4 I disagree. When a judge goes out of his way and out of his job to attack an entire population of US citizens it makes him an extremist.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 06:28:34 2005 (fgsGh)

5 Define 'attack'.

Democrat judges and politicians consistently attack HUGE populations.

If you like guns, you're a redneck, a caveman, or a 'gun nut'.

If you oppose "reasonable" gun control, you're a "gun nut". Funny that the slippery slope argument has proven to be true with gun control. Every year it's just a little bit more "reasonable" control. "All we're asking for is x", but then next year, they want x AND y. The year after that, it's even more.

So yes, following your logic, most Democrat politicians and judges are extremists.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 06:35:19 2005 (lkCzp)

6 Democratic politicians and judges are not denying the humanity of gun-owners however. Therein lies the difference.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 08:40:49 2005 (fgsGh)

7 Got any quotes where he called homosexuals inhuman?

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 08:47:06 2005 (lkCzp)

8 Oops...

One more thing...I'll tend to agree with you if you can.

Sub (NOT BARTLEBY! GAH!)

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 08:48:53 2005 (lkCzp)

9 Marriage is a human right, he argues that gay people don't deserve marriage. An entity that does not deserve a human right is not a human by definition.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 09:38:36 2005 (fgsGh)

10 OK - we disagree here. I do not believe that marriage is a human right. I don't believe it is something that governments should even acknowledge.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 09:46:25 2005 (lkCzp)

11 To help make it a little clearer. Pryor (as AG) put links to anti-gay sites on the STATE WEBSITE for Alambama. I think that's completely inappropriate, regardless of your views.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 11:24:43 2005 (4CZkM)

12 Marriage is a human right -- but marriage is also something that, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

That is where your whole argument falls apart, as you fail to take the mandatory first step -- proving that your revision of the definition of marriage that has been applied for the last couple millenia is correct and that the traditional one is wrong. You start with that as a given, rather than your initial assertion to be proved, and therefore convince no one of the rest of your argument.

And from there, the argument about Pryor (and the rest of us opposed to government recognition of homosexual marriage) falls apart. Disagreeing with a point of your argument does not mean that we don't believe you are a human being -- it merely means that we believe you to be a human being who is wrong in his position on the issue at hand.

And then to start with

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 11:30:53 2005 (JMjzp)

13 Oh, and by the way -- your definition of "anti-gay websites" tends to be pretty extremist in and of itself. You have labeled this site as such, due to the fact that I have the audacity to disagree with you on the issue of homosexual marriage. Therefore I am inclined to argue that such links are not only not inappropriate, but are probably mainstream sites that would be acceptable to the majority of Americans -- and certainly the majority of Alabamans.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 11:34:01 2005 (JMjzp)

14 I'd like to see what you label as an anti-gay site Dolphin. I don't think RWR is anti-gay...and if you think his site is anti-gay, then we may disagree on others as well.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 12:06:35 2005 (F02fZ)

15 Subjugator, I'm Deaf first of all. Pryor is pretty much anti-disabled.

It's a setback -- certainly a huge setback.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:35:26 2005 (ODDFf)

16 Actually RWR, we've been through this a million and one times. You know that your "traditional marriage" have been constantly changing and evolving throughout history and cultures and at various points throughout history and cultures has even contained the very same definition you now feel so threatened by.

Sub:

To answer your question, one of the sites that Pryor linked to was the Family Research Council (www.frc.org). While RWR may consider this group to be "mainstream" and "acceptable to the majority of Americans" I do not and I believe a look at the site speaks for itself. Aside from being a blantantly religous site, and being blantantly anti-gay (in fact a major stated purpose of the FRC is to stop marriage equality), the president of FRC has confirmed KKK links.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 13:51:29 2005 (MIt/1)

17 Interestingly enough, your assertion doesn't make it fact, dolphin. And while there may have been relatively small modifications, one thing has been a constant -- that marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same.

Also, I think your assertion that the FRC is a hate group is proof that your defingition of "anti-gay hate group" is "anyone who disagrees with dolphin on gay issues." And the documented Klan links" consist of renting David Duke's mailing list and speaking to a conservative citizen's group that has its roots in groups opposing integration. Unfortunately, though, that would also require you to state that many Democrats, including the homosexual friendly Dick Gephardt, also have documented links to the KKK.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 15:43:50 2005 (wfdL5)

18 The links go beyond that and you know it.

Like I said, I'll let the FRC site speak for itself. They are a well known anti-gay organization and I am by far not the first person to assign that designation to the organization. The fact that you honestly think they are an appropriate "resource" for the government to link to scares me about the fate of this country should people like you get hold of it and quite frankly knocks down much of the respect I once held you in.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 17:08:46 2005 (MIt/1)

19 Actually, I know no such thing. Care to document them.

And you are right -- others have made the same statement about them -- and they are wrong.

Or does the fact that some have made statements about the ACLU and NAACP which call them extremist and anti-American make such charges true? And are such labels a legitimate basis for banning them from governemnt websites?

What you and yoiur ilk engage in is nothing more than a left-wing form of McCarthyism.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 17:48:19 2005 (WrPVI)

20 First of all, I don't call anybody Anti-American, that's the tatic of the right. mcconnel is a good example since we're on this site.

Like I said, the site speaks for itself. I don't have to defend my views of it, it's all there.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:57:13 2005 (fgsGh)

21 Here's another that speaks for itself:

www.afa.net

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:58:00 2005 (fgsGh)

22 Which of course is essentially a carbon copy of FRC anyways.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:58:32 2005 (fgsGh)

23 dolphin, give an example of my "anti-American" posts. I'm curious.

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Jun 10 04:20:56 2005 (LmcbS)

24 First, dolphin, are you not familiar with the concept of analogy? I was seeking to copare the different charges made by extremists against mainstream organizations -- the NAACP, ACLU, FRC, and AFA.

But as I've thought about it, it seems clear to me that your statements above (linking folks to the Klan, labeling groups as hate groups, and as found on another thread, saying that right-wingers have made this country stand for something other than freedom) really are accusations that conservatives and their organizations are anti-American. You just lack the integrity and testicular fortitude to come out and say it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 04:48:36 2005 (LGV5B)

25 Oh, and here's that thread, down near the bottom.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/086019.php

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 04:56:15 2005 (LGV5B)

26 Hi Dolphin,

I checked out the FRC website and cannot say that I find it to be inherently bigoted. Instead I would say that I find it to be religion oriented and that part of their beliefs is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

While I don't care who marries whom, I don't find it to be bigoted to say that marriage is a religious bond that was formed by Christianity and that such omits same-sex pairings.

What I *am* curious to find out is if RWR et al would mind some other form of legislated domestic pairing for homosexuals.

...well?

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 06:41:45 2005 (lkCzp)

27 Hate = Anything Dolphin Doesn't Agree With.

Posted by: Hube at Fri Jun 10 08:41:38 2005 (SlnGf)

28 Hube - that is starting to sound like a theme. RWR doesn't sound like a person driven by hate, but of logic and a consistent belief system.

While my Christian beliefs don't match his 100%, that makes neither he nor I less Christian. It just means that we see His word in different ways.

RWR isn't a hater - any true Christian is a lover of all.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 09:04:16 2005 (lkCzp)

29 I'm open to some form of partnership that would be recognized by government, carrying with it some of the advantages (inheritance & medical decision-making, as examples) and disadvantages associated with being married. At the same time, I would hope that recognition, while binding on government and certain other entities, would not necessarily impart a general obligation for private parties to recognize them against their beliefs or morality.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 10:24:27 2005 (GRVNH)

30 Sounds fair to me. I hope Dolphin got to see that before he left. He and I disagreed a lot, but I kinda liked him anyway.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 14:09:43 2005 (F02fZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment