Filibuster Compromise
If this agreement is worth the paper it's written on, then damn, that's gotta be some cheap paper.
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."I tried, but wasn't able to find anything I thought was really good vis a vis the Owen nomination, and by that, I mean something that wasn't from the Eagle Forum or People for the American Way. It's hard to find any wheat in the search engine chaff. But from what I can tell, Owen is opposed because of several TX Supreme Court decisions (she's a justice on that court) involving parental consent to abortion. There are a good dozen cases involved and Owen concurred in some and dissented in at least one, somewhat famously for the purposes of this fight. Those opposed to Owen, from what I can tell and suffice it to say, think she's not a friend to abortion jurisprudence. [Link via Outside the Beltway].
For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
Under the agreement, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, would advance to a final confirmation vote.
I'm working my way through to get a feel for what was going on in those cases but it's slow reading, and I'm not even sure I have the right cases yet. But so far, she doesn't grab me as filibuster material.
Comments
If Owen isn't filibuster material, I don't know who is. Please re-read the piece I sent you off-line. I don't think Owen's decisions on parental consent are relevant to her nomination. But the Searcy case clearly shows how she thinks and operates. My problem with her is that she is universally pro-business, and in the Searcy case, that stance led to some really bad work. One could argue that her actions in that case were reprehensible, and the outcome an injustice that she (and others) caused in their zealousness to protect business interests. After you re-read what I sent, read this one from Daily Kos, and see if you don't agree that Owen doesn't merit this judicial appointment: http://rubdmc.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/181313/453
Your most ardent critic (and paradoxically, WCRS's biggest fan)
Glenn
Posted by: Glenn | May 24, 2005 7:26 PM