Wall St Journal reports After calling for bipartisanship, President Bush surprised Senate Democrats with plans to renominate a controversial list of judges – some of whom may be unacceptable even to a few Republican senators. “It’s an unfortunate signal,” said one senior Democratic Senate aide.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has not received the nominations yet. As word spread about the nominations, however, the committee’s Republican Chairman Arlen Specter told reporters: “It is obvious they cannot move during the lame-duck session.” After January, he added, questions about the fate of the nominees should be “directed to someone else.”
(…)
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat slated to become the Judiciary Committee chairman in January, said in a statement that “the president is choosing partisanship over progress and division over unity, at the expense of a fair and independent judiciary. This is exactly the kind of political game-playing that prompted Americans to demand change and a new direction in Washington. The signal the president is sending by renominating these controversial candidates is regrettable. But I hope the president will work with us in charting a new direction in the next congressional session, by choosing consensus nominees who unite instead of divide America.” Merriam-Webster Online Pronunciation: (")bI-'pär-t&-z&n, -s&n, -"zan, chiefly British "bI-"pär-t&-'zan
Function: adjective
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties (a bipartisan commission); specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties (bipartisan support for the bill)
- bi·par·ti·san·ism /-z&-"ni-z&m, -s&-/ noun
- bi·par·ti·san·ship /-z&n-"ship, -s&n-/ noun
Please consider supporting our work.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
