Bush's Judicial Nominations: What's Bad for the <br>Goose Apparently Isn't Bad for the Gander

Bush's Judicial Nominations: What's Bad for the
Goose Apparently Isn't Bad for the Gander

10/29/01

During the last years of the Clinton Administration, Senate Democrats wailed loudly and long about the Republican-controlled Senate's failure to act adequately on judicial nominations. This, despite the fact that in its almost six years as the Senate minority, the GOP rejected only one Clinton nominee. Apparently this record was, to slightly revise the old saw, "bad for the Democrats' goose."

Now, Democrat-controlled Senate is performing far less "adequately" with President Bush's nominees. But apparently, what was bad for the Democrats' goose isn't bad for the GOP's gander. The following facts and figures reveal the hypocrisy of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and his Democrat colleagues.

At the end of the day on Fri., 10/26/01, there were:: 106 judicial vacancies
40 of these declared "judicial emergencies"
62 Bush nominees
12 nominees confirmed from among the 62 (fewer than 20%)

Confirmation rates for the first year of presidential terms are far better in the past than the present. The first year confirmation rates for the previous three Presidents are:
Reagan-91%
Bush, I-62%
Clinton-57%

Previous Presidents have been later in submitting their first nominations than has been President Bush. Bush and the three previous Presidents named their first selections on the following dates:
Reagan-7/9
Bush, I-8/4
Clinton-8/6
Bush, II-5/9

The Democrats' confirmation pace this year has been a real crawl compared to previous years.
During the years 1981-2000, the Senate averaged 32 confirmations by October 1. This year, the Democrats had confirmed only 6 of 55 nominees by October 1.
At the time of the November, 2000 elections, there were 66 judicial vacancies. Today there are over 100, and the number has remained above 100 since the first of May, 2001.
Confirmation rates for the first year of presidential terms are far better in the past than the present. The first year confirmation rates for the previous three Presidents are:: Reagan-91%
Bush, I-62%
Clinton-57%

Previous Presidents have been later in submitting their first nominations than has been President Bush. Bush and the three previous Presidents named their first selections on the following dates:
Reagan-7/9
Bush, I-8/4
Clinton-8/6
Bush, II-5/9

The Democrats' confirmation pace this year has been a real crawl compared to previous years.
During the years 1981-2000, the Senate averaged 32 confirmations by October 1. This year, the Democrats had confirmed only 6 of 55 nominees by October 1.
At the time of the November, 2000 elections, there were 66 judicial vacancies. Today there are over 100, and the number has remained above 100 since the first of May, 2001.
Previous Presidents have been later in submitting their first nominations than has been President Bush. Bush and the three previous Presidents named their first selections on the following dates:: Reagan-7/9
Bush, I-8/4
Clinton-8/6
Bush, II-5/9

The Democrats' confirmation pace this year has been a real crawl compared to previous years.
During the years 1981-2000, the Senate averaged 32 confirmations by October 1. This year, the Democrats had confirmed only 6 of 55 nominees by October 1.
At the time of the November, 2000 elections, there were 66 judicial vacancies. Today there are over 100, and the number has remained above 100 since the first of May, 2001.
The Democrats' confirmation pace this year has been a real crawl compared to previous years.: During the years 1981-2000, the Senate averaged 32 confirmations by October 1. This year, the Democrats had confirmed only 6 of 55 nominees by October 1.
At the time of the November, 2000 elections, there were 66 judicial vacancies. Today there are over 100, and the number has remained above 100 since the first of May, 2001.

Stay tuned for more insight into the starving of justice in America through excessive judicial vacancies and what YOU can do about it!

PERSONAL NOTE: During the last few months, a number of you have e-mailed me your encouragement and prayer support as I have battled major health problems. I appreciate your concern and communication more than I can say and deeply regret that I can't answer each of you personally. I am much better, and I know that your prayer faithfulness is a major reason why. I covet your continued prayers as I recover and as I seek to guide Court Watch in the direction which God would have it to go.

— Virginia Armstrong