Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: Politix
Kavenaugh Vote Delayed
2018-09-18
[WaPo]Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her decades ago will testify publicly before the Senate on Monday, setting up a potentially dramatic and politically perilous hearing that could determine the fate of his nomination.
The WaPo article is timestamped 10:53 pm, yet the local Dallas News managed to hold the presses and get this on the front page, delivered at 7 am.
"I have never done anything like what the accuser describes ‐ to her or to anyone," he said in a statement. "Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday."

Yet his denials only prompted further questions. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Kavanaugh had told him that he was not present at the party in question ‐ which prompted some to wonder how Kavanaugh could make such a claim given that Ford had never specified the exact date or location of the gathering.
The same way I could testify I was not there, without knowing the date or location. ...30-odd years ago.
Unexpectedly Soon after Grassley announced the hearing, Democrats began to protest his decision, insisting instead that the FBI reopen his background check investigation rather than going ahead with a full-fledged public airing of the accusation.

"If there's a hearing before that investigation, the committee is going to be shooting in the dark with questions," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the committee. "As a former prosecutor and state attorney general, there's no way I would put a crime survivor on the stand in front of a jury, let alone the American people, without a full investigation so that I know what the facts are before I start asking questions."
Crime survivor? So the Judge is already guilty?
In a statement Monday, the Justice Department signaled that the FBI doesn't plan on re-opening Kavanaugh's background check for now ‐ noting that it forwarded information about Ford's allegation to the White House, consistent with federal guidelines.
Link


-Land of the Free
Sen. Hatch demands secret memo that’s aided Obama executive actions
2016-04-29
[WASHINGTONTIMES] President Obama’s unilateral pen-and-phone approach to governing has been aided by a decades-old secret memo that allows him to avoid economic scrutiny of some of the most intrusive rules and regulations his administration has issued, a top senator said Thursday.

Now Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and chairman of the Finance Committee, has demanded Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew release the 1983 memorandum of understanding and defend the Reagan-era policy that has let Mr. Obama pursue changes on everything from corporate taxes to Obamacare without first giving a full heads-up to Congress.

“This non-public MOU between the Treasury and White House further cloaks the regulatory process in secrecy and decreases regulatory transparency at a time when the Executive Branch is attempting to achieve a great deal of policy through regulatory measures generally and tax regulations specifically,” Mr. Hatch wrote to Mr. Lew.
Link


-Lurid Crime Tales-
Lois Lerner, IRS official at heart of tea party scandal, retires
2013-09-24
[WASHINGTONTIMES] Lois G. Lerner, the woman at the center of the IRS tea party targeting scandal, retired from the agency Monday morning after an internal investigation found she was guilty of "neglect of duties" and was going to call for her ouster, according to congressional staff.
So she gets to keep her pension, then? That's justice, that is.
Her departure marks the first person to pay a significant price in the scandal, though Republicans were quick to say her decision doesn't put the matter to rest, and pointed out that she can still be called before Congress to testify.

The IRS confirmed Ms. Lerner's retirement in a statement, but said it couldn't release any more information because of privacy concerns.

But Rep. Sander Levin, ranking Democrat on the HouseBoodle Central, said an Accountability Review Board set up to investigate the people at the agency involved with the scandal, completed their review and were set to recommend her ouster. The review board, though, found no evidence of political bias, he said.

Ms. Lerner was head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, which oversaw applications for tax-exempt status, including those from political groups.

Several congressional committees had been looking into her behavior and into emails that seemed to suggest she was looking for reasons to deny political groups approval for tax-exempt status.

Last week acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel said he'd asked both a review board and the agency's inspector general to look at the emails.

Republicans said Ms. Lerner's resignation, while a first step, isn't the end of the scandal.

"Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over. Far from it," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "In fact, there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth."
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
HHS Sebelius Solicits Contributions to Fund O'care Implementation
2013-05-11
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has gone, hat in hand, to health industry officials, asking them to make large financial donations to help with the effort to implement President Obama's landmark health-care law, two people familiar with the outreach said.
Do they get to eat lunch with the Prez, too?
They're having his dinner...
Her unusual fundraising push comes after Congress repeatedly rejected the Obama administration's requests for additional funds to set up the Affordable Care Act, leaving HHS to implement the president's signature legislative accomplishment on what officials have described as a shoestring budget.
Budget? I remember it being "revenue neutral". Or was that only for those that don't contribute to revenue, anyways?
HHS spokesman Jason Young added that a special section in the Public Health Service Act allows the secretary to support and encourage others to support nonprofit groups working to provide health information and conduct other public-health activities.

Sebelius is working "with a full range of stakeholders who share in the mission of getting Americans the help they need and deserve," Young said. "Part of our mission is to help uninsured Americans take advantage of new, quality affordable insurance options that are coming thanks to the health law."
My Daddy taught me you deserved what you could pay for.
Young said that Sebelius did not solicit for funds directly from industries that HHS regulates, such as insurance companies and hospitals, but rather asked them to contribute in whatever way they can.
Who could contribute 2,500 bedpans, fer instance?
But dastardly Republicans charged that Sebelius's outreach was improper because it pressured private companies and other groups to support the Affordable Care Act. The latest controversy has emerged as the law faces a string of challenges from evil GOP lawmakers in Washington and skepticism from many state officials across the country.

"To solicit funds from health-care executives to help pay for the implementation of the President's $2.6 trillion health spending law is absurd," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a statement. "I will be seeking more information from the Administration about these actions to help better understand whether there are conflicts of interest and if it violated federal law."

Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which researches government ethics issues, said she was troubled by Sebelius's activities because the secretary seemed to be "using the power of government to compel giving or insinuate that giving is going to be looked at favorably by the government."

The success of the Affordable Care Act largely hinges on whether enough people sign up for insurance coverage. If only a small number of sick people participate, premiums would spike.
Hence, the fine - excuse me - tax, if you don't sign up.
But spreading information about the law to the 30 million uninsured Americans has been a struggle, partly because there isn't enough money to fund the effort, HHS officials have argued.
What about all the folks who lined up the day after it was passed, looking for their free health care? They don't need more information, do they?
So set up a website, Kathleen...
The Affordable Care Act included $1 billion to be used in overall implementation of the law. Congressional Budget Office projections, however, estimated that federal agencies will need between $5 billion and $10 billion to get the law up and running over the next decade.
I wonder how long it'll take to pay off they $10 billion 'investment' in order to achieve revenue neutrality?
And because many states have refused to partner with the federal government in setting up the law, the burden on HHS has grown.

In 2012, budget documents show that HHS pulled hundreds of millions of dollars from programs not specifically earmarked for the Affordable Care Act's implementation. On top of that, the agency announced Thursday that it would use $150 million in Affordable Care Act funds meant to build additional community health centers to train thousands of health-care outreach workers at facilities that already exist.
How will they be able to demonstrate revenue neutrality with the funds shifting around like that? Oh. They can't? So revenue neutral was a ... prevarication?
"Investing in health centers for outreach and enrollment assistance provides one more way the Obama administration is helping consumers understand their options and enroll in affordable coverage," Secretary Sebelius said in a statement.

Health insurers plan to run their own outreach campaigns alongside the work of the Obama administration. They have a vested interest in recruiting Americans to enroll in their specific products rather than those of their competitors.

"As open enrollment gets closer, health plans will be engaged in a variety of innovative outreach activities," spokesman Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the trade association America's Health Insurance Plans, said.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Walpin-gate opens wider
2009-06-23
President Obama's excuses for firing AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin look weaker every day. The FBI has opened an investigation into a Sacramento program formerly run by a close ally of President Obama's, giving credence to the IG's work.

The president fired Mr. Walpin June 11 after Mr. Walpin filed two reports critical of Obama friends. The highest-profile of the two reports focused on misuse of funds at Sacramento's St. Hope Academy, then run by former NBA star Kevin Johnson before Mr. Johnson was elected Sacramento's mayor in November. Mr. Johnson was a frequent stump speaker for Mr. Obama during last year's campaign and has claimed in TV interviews to be particularly good friends with first lady Michelle Obama.

The inspector general detailed numerous irregularities in St. Hope's use of AmeriCorps funds, including AmeriCorps grantees being used to wash Mr. Johnson's car. Mr. Walpin complained vociferously, though, that acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown had negotiated far too lenient a settlement of the charges against Mayor Johnson and St. Hope.

In turn, the U.S. attorney filed a complaint against Mr. Walpin, charging him with unethical behavior throughout the investigation. The White House fired Mr. Walpin long before the relevant committee would have finished its assessment of the U.S. attorney's complaint.

As The Washington Times reported in a previous editorial, U.S. Attorney Brown's complaint included at least two major, easily discernible errors of fact. Many other complaints against Mr. Walpin, both by Mr. Brown and by other AmeriCorps officials, were strangely petty in nature.

Now here is where the story gets really interesting. On the very same day that the president fired Mr. Walpin, St. Hope's executive director, Rick Maya, left his job at St. Hope. He did not go quietly. His resignation letter charged Mr. Johnson and several St. Hope board members with numerous ethical violations. Most explosively, he charged that a board member improperly deleted e-mails of Mr. Johnson's that already were under a federal subpoena.

Suddenly, the problems at St. Hope begin to look as severe as Mr. Walpin had charged rather than being minor infractions.

On Wednesday, the Sacramento Bee reported that Mr. Maya's allegations have been deemed serious enough that the FBI is investigating potential obstruction of justice at St. Hope. In that light, the firing of Mr. Walpin, who properly blew the whistle on mismanagement and possible corruption, looks ill-considered.

Early last week, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, publicly questioned the White House handling of the firing, as did Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. On Thursday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, and Sen. Michael B. Enzi, Wyoming Republican, sent a strongly worded letter to the White House indicating serious reservations about whether the administration had abided by the laws governing inspectors general.

It also was learned last week that the White House is involved in major disputes with two other inspectors general who were poking around the administration's business, including Neil M. Barofsky, whose job is to serve as watchdog for spending the $787 billion in controversial economic bailout funds.

All of this suggests that the purported White House mistreatment of independent inspectors general is a scandal that might have real legs. As well it should.
Link


-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Talk of Rationing Healthcare begins
2009-04-27
Washington -- Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the number of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.

The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary-care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.

One proposal -- to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists -- has touched off a lobbying fight.

Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors -- a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.

Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Barack Obama's goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care, but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.

The need for more doctors comes up at almost every congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. "We're not producing enough primary-care physicians," Obama said at one forum. "The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they've got to specialize." New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.

Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health-care professionals is already having serious consequences. "We don't have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, "The work force shortage is reaching crisis proportions."

Even people with insurance are having problems finding doctors.

Miriam Harmatz, a lawyer in Miami, said: "My longtime primary-care doctor left the practice of medicine five years ago because she could not make ends meet. The same thing happened a year later. Since then, many of the doctors I tried to see would not take my insurance because the payments were so low."

To cope with the growing shortage, federal officials are considering several proposals. One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. Another would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods.

Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, said Medicare payments were skewed against primary-care doctors -- the very ones needed for the care of older people with chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.

"Primary-care physicians are grossly underpaid compared with many specialists," said Baucus, who vowed to increase primary-care payments as part of legislation to overhaul the health-care system.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has recommended an increase of up to 10 percent in the payment for many primary-care services, including office visits. To offset the cost, it said, Congress should reduce payments for other services -- an idea that riles many specialists.

Dr. Peter J. Mandell, a spokesman for the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, said: "We have no problem with financial incentives for primary care. We do have a problem with doing it in a budget-neutral way. If there's less money for hip and knee replacements, fewer of them will be done for people who need them."

The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional new doctors each year.

"If we expand coverage, we need to make sure we have physicians to take care of a population that is growing and becoming older," said Dr. Atul Grover, the chief lobbyist for the association. "Let's say we insure everyone. What next? We won't be able to take care of all those people overnight."

The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary-care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.

"Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care," said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corp.

The ratio of primary-care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.

Increasing the supply of doctors could have major implications for health costs.

"It's completely reasonable to say that adding more physicians to the work force is likely to increase health spending," Grover said.

But he said: "We have to increase spending to save money. If you give people better access to preventive and routine care for chronic illnesses, some acute treatments will be less necessary."

In many parts of the country, specialists are also in short supply.

Linde A. Schuster, 55, of Raton, N.M., said she, her daughter and her mother had all had medical problems that required them to visit doctors in Albuquerque.

"It's a long, exhausting drive, three hours down and three hours back," Schuster said.

The situation is even worse in some rural areas. Dr. Richard F. Paris, a family doctor in Hailey, Idaho, said that Custer County, Idaho, had no doctors, even though it is larger than the state of Rhode Island. So he flies in three times a month, over the Sawtooth Mountains, to see patients.

The Obama administration is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into community health centers.

But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.

Doctors trained in internal medicine have historically been seen as a major source of frontline primary care. But many of them are now going into subspecialties of internal medicine, like cardiology and oncology.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Schumer Sets Record - 49 First Person References in 1 Speech
2005-09-13
Let me introduce, from the state of New York, the US Senate's most self-important member...
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, September 13, 2005; A07

Yesterday's opening of the John Roberts confirmation hearings was a time for historic firsts.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) made 49 first-person references in a 10-minute statement that was, ostensibly, not about himself.
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) showed exceptional emotional versatility, working a crossword puzzle during the hearing and then choking back a sob while making a prosaic statement about partisanship.
Oh, boy. Grow a pair.
Roberts delivered what may have been the shortest opening statement by a modern Supreme Court nominee -- less than seven minutes, including the thank-yous and two baseball metaphors.

But in the end, the confirmation kickoff was anticlimactic: As word spread through the gallery midway through the session that FEMA Director Michael D. Brown had quit, reporters knew the Roberts story would, once again, be a sideshow. Karl Rove, Super Genius! Roberts may well be confirmed as chief justice of the Supreme Court, but in the case before the court of public attention, in re: Katrina v. Roberts , the defendant doesn't have a chance.
"The defense rests."
With the nation distracted by the hurricane and flooding down south, neither left nor right nor middle displayed much energy. By 10:30 a.m., only 170 people had shown up for public tickets to witness the noon proceedings -- making unnecessary the plastic cordons and the queue signs leading almost all the way to Union Station. Outside the Russell Senate Office Building at 11 a.m., a grand total of 21 people demonstrated against Roberts, chanting: "Two-four-six-eight, separation of church and state!"

Even inside the storied Senate Caucus Room -- scene of the Teapot Dome, McCarthy and Watergate hearings -- some were preoccupied with Katrina.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the committee's ranking Democrat, led off with an observation that the hurricane was "a tragic reminder of why we have a federal government." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, in one of three references, "Katrina tore away the mask that has hidden from public view the many Americans who are left out and left behind."
Spotted elsewhere - Kenndy should not comment on things involving cars that are under water.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), opening the hearing, called the confirmation "perhaps the biggest challenge of the decade." But at times it appeared to be a swearing-in ceremony. Before the hearing, Kennedy shook the hand of Jane Roberts and said to the nominee's wife, "Congratulations."
Let's hope Arlen's on our side for this one.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) seemed to be taking confirmation for granted when he listed a range of issues likely to come before the court and told Roberts, repeatedly, "You will rule on that." In the park across the street from the Russell Building, a modest but confident group of conservatives sipped from water bottles labeled "Roberts YES."
Sounds like Biden's giving Roberts a pass.
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who had the job of formally introducing Roberts to the committee, offered some advice to the nominee's playful young son, Jack: "You can wiggle a little bit. Don't worry."
Wiggle it, just a little bit!
As it happens, that was similar to the advice GOP members offered. In their 10-minute opening statements, they repeatedly urged him not to answer questions about his views.

"Don't take the bait," suggested Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said it is "patently false" that Roberts must provide answers. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) thought it could be "unethical."
The Ginsburg defense - can't say squat about it if it's gonna come up.
Democrats were almost as uniform in the opposite view. "It is our duty to ask questions," Kennedy replied.

"It is not undignified to ask questions," submitted Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

"It is our obligation to ask and your obligation to answer," Schumer said.

Roberts sat still, shoulders slightly rounded, moving his head thoughtfully from side to side, and keeping a polite gaze on each speaking senator; after three hours of this, the nominee shamed the lawmakers with a brief speech blending jurisprudence and the national pastime. "I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat," he said.
Heh...
Specter, determined to keep the proceedings on schedule, even cut himself off at the 10-minute mark, saying, "I'm down to 10 seconds . . . that's it."

But there were unscripted moments. Cornyn and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) spent a chunk of the afternoon whispering and joking. A woman in a 19th-century hat and dress sat in the back of the room wearing a "Women for Roberts" sticker. After Feingold predicted longevity for the 50-year-old nominee because he looks "healthy," Coburn, a doctor, said that cannot be predicted without a "physical exam or a family history" -- neither of which is on this week's hearing schedule.

A television camera behind Coburn caught the senator working a crossword puzzle. But Coburn went from detachment to emotional overdrive when it was his turn to talk; seconds after asserting that "a super-legislator body is not what the court was intended to be," he paused and wept.

Colleagues looked alarmed. One GOP committee aide put his hand to his mouth. It was the biggest Senate choke-up since Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) cried while opposing the nomination of the ambassador to the United Nations -- and Coburn has to get through three more days of hearings.
If it takes ths spotlight off Roberts, by all means cry every day!
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
Liberals Rethink Filibuster Deal
2005-06-08
Democrats generally cheered, and Republicans groused, when a bipartisan group of senators crafted a compromise on judicial nominations last month. But with the Senate now confirming several conservative nominees whom Democrats had blocked for years, some liberals are questioning the wisdom of the deal and fretting about what comes next.

"Our problem with the compromise is the price that was paid," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said yesterday. She and other Congressional Black Caucus members plan to march into the Senate today to protest the impending confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown.

President Bush nominated Brown, an African American on the California Supreme Court, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, second in prestige and importance only to the Supreme Court. She has expressed her vividly conservative philosophies in speeches and written opinions that dismay liberals. Brown's record "shows a deep hostility to civil rights, to workers' rights, to consumer protection and to a wide variety of governmental actions in many other areas," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in the first of two floor speeches opposing her nomination yesterday.

The Senate voted 65 to 32 yesterday to end a nearly two-year Democratic filibuster of Brown. The vote stemmed from last month's deal in which seven Democrats agreed to drop filibusters of Brown and four other long-contested nominees, and to refrain from future judicial filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances." In return, seven GOP senators agreed to scuttle Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposed rule change banning judicial filibusters.

Before the deal was reached, Democrats had used the filibuster -- which can be stopped only with 60 votes -- to block 10 of Bush's appellate court nominees. Republicans hold 55 of the Senate's 100 seats. Bush renominated seven of the 10 this year, and senators were headed toward a bitterly partisan showdown until the 14 negotiators announced their pact.

The deal cleared the way for five of the seven renominated jurists to be confirmed, probably this week. Controversy has largely faded for two: Richard A. Griffin and David W. McKeague, Michigan judges tapped for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. But the other three -- Brown, Priscilla R. Owen of Texas and William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama -- still draw sharp denunciations from liberal groups who say they are outside the political mainstream.

After a four-year impasse, the Senate last month confirmed Owen for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A confirmation vote on Brown is scheduled for today, and Senate leaders said they expect approval of Pryor for the 11th Circuit court by late tomorrow.

Several conservative commentators described the "Gang of 14" deal as a setback for Frist (R-Tenn.). Frist reinforced that notion with speeches describing his disappointment that two of the renominated judges -- William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry W. Saad of Michigan -- appeared unlikely to be confirmed. But others say several sharply conservative judges are now being seated, and it is far from clear that the "extraordinary circumstances" clause will enable Democrats to block future conservative nominees to the Supreme Court or elsewhere.

"It looks like in some ways Frist is seizing the initiative," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. Moreover, he said, liberals may be deluded in thinking the bipartisan deal will thwart another contentious nominee -- Brett M. Kavanaugh, the White House staff secretary -- who is not named in the two-page agreement. Two years ago, Bush nominated Kavanaugh, who helped independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr pursue the Monica S. Lewinsky case, to the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

"I think it's wishful thinking by the Democrats that he won't move forward," Tobias said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said of Kavanaugh in an interview yesterday, "I intend to push him."

Yesterday, the Senate devoted itself entirely to Brown. Frist called her "a superb judge" who applies the law "without bias, without favor, with an even hand." Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 negotiators, called Brown "an extremely talented and qualified judge" who will "advance the cause of conservative judicial philosophy."

But Democrats recited a litany of Brown's controversial statements, including several from a 2000 speech titled "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom." She said senior citizens "blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much 'free' stuff as the political system will permit them to extract." Elsewhere, Brown has said: "Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates. . . . When government advances . . . freedom is imperiled, civilization itself [is] jeopardized."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told reporters that Brown is "one of the most extreme nominees that has ever come before the United States Senate in the 32 years I've been a senator."

Others warned that last month's compromise could be threatened soon. The pact permits the seven Democratic signers to filibuster Myers -- whom environmentalists strongly oppose -- without triggering support for a filibuster ban by the seven GOP signers. But Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said that if Myers is filibustered, "the 14 are going to be in a real quandary, because they know how good he is."

Nan Aron, head of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said the accord reached by the 14 senators "is very mixed. Like all compromises, it had some really good and some really bad. . . . It was a bright day for the Senate and a dark day for the judiciary."

Be interesting to see what happens after the agreed 5 are seated. Wonder how the poker player in the White House will bid.
Link


Home Front
Hatch says evidence points to bin Laden
2001-09-12
  • "Strong evidence from multiple sources" points to Osama bin Laden as having been involved in yesterday's attacks, the Washington Post reports. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said he was told in a briefing that electronic intercepts yesterday showed "representatives affiliated with Osama bin Laden over the airwaves reporting that they had hit two targets." . . . (JAMES TARANTO AND IRA STOLL WSJ Best of the Web Today)
  • Link



    Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
    -9 More