|
Dems grapple with appeals nominee, high court’s future |
|
By Elana Schor and Manu Raju
|
|
Posted: 07/19/07 07:35 PM [ET] |
Among the four appeals court nominees quietly announced by the White House late Tuesday is a candidate who could heighten Senate tensions over judicial nominees.
Shalom Stone is the only nominee on this week’s slate who faces the challenge of winning over two Democratic home-state senators. Judicial appointees not OK’d by their senators through the traditional “blue slip” method rarely make it to a floor vote, and both New Jersey senators yesterday appeared to be on the fence about Stone.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) raised questions through a spokesman about the White House’s previously reported plans to nominate federal judge Noel Hillman to the appeals seat. The spot previously belonged to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
“We are seriously concerned both with the manner in which the previous, consensus nominee was withdrawn and with the uncooperative and unilateral manner in which the new nomination was made,” Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi said in an e-mail. “It breaks sharply from the cooperative process in which previous nominees were chosen.”
Hillman was expected to get the nod for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals after his successful confirmation last year to the federal bench in New Jersey, according to local media reports, but the White House chose Stone after several months of inaction on the open seat.
Senate Democrats had used Hillman’s 2006 nomination as an opening to discuss his stewardship of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section during the Jack Abramoff investigation, leaving the door open for similar questions during a second Hillman confirmation.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) acknowledged that the nomination came with little advance negotiation, but added that “the behavior is not unusual” from the White House.
“We’ll review his career and his views” before making a judgment, Lautenberg said. He uses a committee of lawyers throughout New Jersey to make impartial assessments on nominees’ background, and gave Alito a friendly introduction before his confirmation hearing last year.
“[Stone’s] background in private practice makes it less likely that he’s been involved in any matters the Democrats could turn to their political advantage,” a former assistant U.S. attorney and judicial blogger, David Lat, wrote last month on his website, Above the Law.
The other three nominees announced by the White House this week are Robert Conrad of North Carolina, Catharina Hayes of Texas and John Tinder of Indiana.
In the meantime, liberal critics, who are alarmed by the conservative stamp Alito and Roberts placed on the Supreme Court this term, have been preparing for another vacancy on the bench. Democrats and liberal groups say they will fight anyone not considered a “consensus” nominee, warning the White House that a nominee with an ideological bent similar to Bush’s two appointments will face a highly skeptical Senate.
“Many of us feel very badly burned because of what both Justice Alito and Justice Roberts told us about their belief in stare decisis,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees. “So we will be very very cautious with respect to the next nominee — very cautious.”
Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said he would be ready for a fight on any Bush Supreme Court nominee. Leahy also said he has yet to review Stone’s record.
Liberal advocacy groups aren’t waiting. Activists have criticized Democrats for failing to drum up sufficient opposition to Roberts and Alito early in the nomination process, allowing supporters to drown out critics.
Now activists are poring over research of court papers authored by nominees possibly on the short list of future appointments and preparing to feed the press and Democrats with ammunition on nominees who could tilt the court further to the right.
People for the American Way, an advocacy group, has started to mobilize its members, seeking donations to help launch a nationwide campaign to “restore the balance” of the high court.
“From the day Bork was nominated, there were senators that were bringing his record before the public,” said the group’s
president, Ralph Neas, referring to former President Reagan’s failed nomination of Robert Bork to the court. “With respect to Roberts and Alito, there really wasn’t that much discussion by senators until the hearings.”
|
