How do you spell hypocrisy? How about............... S-A-N-T-O-R-U-M?

Democrats say Santorum blocked judges, tooMonday, May 02, 2005

By Maeve Reston, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sen. Rick Santorum's visibility on the issue of judicial nominations and his passionate arguments that every nomination that comes to the Senate floor deserves an up-or-down vote has led Democrats to point out that he blocked several judicial nominations during the Clinton years. At that time, an individual senator on the Judiciary Committee could place a confidential hold on individual nominations.

In his recent speeches, Santorum has carefully stated that it is wrong of Democrats to block judicial nominees "who would otherwise have majority support" and has said that all nominees deserve a vote "when they arrive on the Senate floor."

In an impassioned speech this past week, Santorum pointed to several of President Clinton's judicial appointees that he had supported. He argued that he had deferred to Clinton because Clinton had won the presidential election and had a right to "nominate who he wants as long as they are in the mainstream."

Santorum, R-Pa., acknowledged this past week that he held up confirmation of several of Clinton's district court nominees, but he said that was a very different scenario than blocking appellate court judges, as Democrats did with 10 Bush nominees last session.

Santorum said he objected to the nomination of John H. Bingler Jr. to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania because he did not believe Bingler was qualified for the post.

Santorum said he held up the confirmation of Lynette Norton, who also was nominated for a seat on that court, because Clinton White House officials did not follow through on their standing agreement with him and Specter that for every three Democrats, the senators would get to choose a Republican. Santorum favored a different person for the slot: Arthur Schwab, who is now a federal district court judge.

In the case of another stalled Clinton district court nominee, Robert Freedberg, Santorum said he had held up the nomination because Democrats in the state had objected.

Asked why he did not believe those nominees were entitled to an up-or-down vote in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor, Santorum said the process of holding up district court judges is very different than blocking appellate court nominees that otherwise would have majority support on the Senate floor.

"The precedent of the Senate has been that individual senators can hold nominees from their states if there has been a disagreement between the president and that member," Santorum said, referring to district court judges. "A senator ... has always had the right with district court judges to be basically deferred to."

In February of 2000, Santorum did stop a Clinton appeals court nominee -- then-U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Cindrich, whom Clinton had named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Santorum said last week that Cindrich's appointment simply came too late in Clinton's term.

posted by Stash @ 2:15 PM