"To date, however, the tit-for-tat game has played out within a fairly narrow category of nominees who are deemed controversial."

This is utter nonsense. To take but one example, Miguel Estrada was nominated in 2001 and withdrew in 2003 once it was clear he was NEVER going to get a vote. To take another example, the entire "Group of 14" exercise was conducted because the Democrats refused to give a vote on non-controversial appointees.

Estrada was controversial. For one, he had no judicial experience. His replacement was quickly confirmed.

The only thing controversial about Estrada was that he was a conservative Hispanic. Lack of judicial experience has never been a disqualification, especially at the court of appeals level. Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't have any judicial experience before she was nominated to the DC Circuit.

Bull fucking shit. Estrada was suspected of being a right-wing ideologue, and had no public record of any kind to make any sort of judgement. Not only had he not written a single opinion, but the solicitor general's office refused to release any of his writings there. He was about as controversial as they come. And, fucktard, Ginsburg was nominated 29 years ago.

Every Bush nominee was suspected of being a "right-wing ideologue" by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. By the time of his nomination, Estrada had developed a reputation as a distinguished appellate attorney, and every living former SG (including Seth Waxman) agreed that the release of SG memos would be inappropriate. And what difference does it make that Ginsburg was nominated 29 years ago? Has the criteria for determining who is qualified to sit on a court of appeals changed since then? The only thing that has changed is the Democrats' decision, starting with the Bork nomination, to turn the judicial nomination process into a purely political battle about idealogy rather than about qualifications. If jj64's vitriolic comment is any indication, it will be a long time before the Democrats will moderate their approach to this issue.

Hehe, I love it when they get all grouchy. Your chimperor nominated Harriet Meiers for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That ends the discussion regarding whether or not anyone should have given Bush any benefit of any doubt on any judicial nomination of any sort.

jj64's personal attacks aren't constructive and make him/her seem a little irrational. However, pointing to a single outlier (Estrada) in the Bush era (a nomination which was blocked for both solid ideological and shameful political reasons) and using that to justify the wholesale obstruction of *all* Obama nominations is disingenuous. Then again, being disingenuous is the current Limbaugh GOP's modus operandi. Over 95% of Bush's judicial nominations were approved without any obstruction whatsoever.

Estrada was blocked both because he's Hispanic and that would have theoretically given the GOP a "win" with Hispanics (I'm doubtful that it would have had any real impact, just as Thomas's appointment had none, but it is a shameful political calculation regardless) and because Estrada refused to supply any evidence of his judicial philosophy and he had no record indicating one. Ginsburg on the other hand was an ACLU lawyer, her judicial philosophy was well-known.

As Kimmitt said, Bush proved that *all* of his upper court nominations were deeply suspect when he nominated Harriet Meiers. When one is appointed who refuses to reveal his judicial philosophy and has no track record to work from, blocking him is perfectly reasonable.

More to the point, only those Republicans who thought it was really great when Democrats used Senate rules to block Bush appointees are in a position to do the same thing now. Otherwise they're big fat hypocrites. Even if it were correct, "they did it too" is not a defense.

PS: Andre Davis was confirmed when he was nominated in 2000, too, but his nomination died when the GOP refused to let it come to a vote during Clinton's last year in office. He is an experienced and accomplished judge and to my knowledge not a single person on either side of the aisle has a negative thing to say about him; there is no reason on Earth to hold his nomination up a second time other than generic, reflexive Republican petulance.

No one is trying to justify the wholesale obstruction of all Obama nominations. The Senate should have a reasonably prompt up or down vote on all judicial nominees, regardless of who is in control of the White House or the Congress. But it's absurd to claim that the Republicans are now more obstructionist than the Democrats were when Bush was president. I'm not sure where your 95% figure comes from, but numerous Bush nominees to the courts of appeals were held up by Democrats -- Charles Pickering, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, William Haynes, Priscilla Owen, to name a few. Some of these were only confirmed after the Gang of 14 compromise was reached.

As for Estrada, his judicial philosophy was every bit as ascertainable as Jeff Sutton's or John Roberts's. The Dems went after him because they didn't want Bush to have a young conservative Hispanic with judicial exprience to put on the Supreme Court.

Could you clarify? What is the "shameful political calculation"? The dems blocking Estrada on the basis of his race? Or the Reps nominating a minority in the first place?

I realy hope I am reading you wrong,

thanks,