About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post's Weisman falsely claimed Senate Judiciary Committee "has shown no interest in" judicial nominations

April 30, 2007 12:01 pm ET
image

6 Comments

During an April 27 online discussion on washingtonpost.com, when asked whether "the Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding any hearings/votes on judicial nominees," Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman responded: "No, that process has pretty much stopped in its tracks. The president may continue to do the nominations, mostly as a statement that he still is relevant, but the committee has shown no interest in the issue." In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported on the nominations of two judicial nominees on April 25 and held hearings on four judicial nominations on April 11. Also, since the Democrats assumed control of the Senate, 16 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed.

From Weisman's online discussion:

New York: Jonathan: With the ongoing U.S. Attorneys scandal, do you know if the Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding any hearings/votes on judicial nominees? It seems to me that if they want to get more White House/Department of Justice cooperation, they could simply slow all judicial nominees down to a crawl or halt them completely.

Jonathan Weisman: No, that process has pretty much stopped in its tracks. The president may continue to do the nominations, mostly as a statement that he still is relevant, but the committee has shown no interest in the issue.

In fact, on April 25, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported district court nominees Frederick J. Kapala and Benjamin H. Settle favorably to the full Senate. On April 11, the committee held a hearing on Debra Ann Livingston a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, as well as district court nominees Roslynn Renee Mauskopf, Richard Joseph Sullivan, and Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.

On March 15, the full Senate voted unanimously to confirm 3rd Circuit nominee Thomas M. Hardiman, and 9th Circuit nominee Norman R. Smith on February 15. Since March 1, the Senate has also voted unanimously to confirm district court nominees Halil Suleyman Ozerden, George H. Wu, and John A. Jarvey, and approved district court nominees John P. Bailey, Otis D. Wright, II, and Sara E. Lioi by voice vote and Vanessa L. Bryant by unanimous consent.

When the Senate confirmed Ozerden to a Mississippi district court seat, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated on the Senate floor: "By approving yet another lifetime appointment, we continue to proceed promptly and efficiently to confirm judicial nominees. With this confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 16 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench so far this year." He also pointed out: "The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts lists 48 judicial vacancies, yet the President has sent us only 27 nominations for these vacancies. Twenty one of these vacancies -- almost half -- have no nominee. Of the 16 vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 6 of them. That means more than a third of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee." Leahy added:

LEAHY: I have worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle on our committee and in the Senate to move quickly to consider and confirm these judicial nominations so that we can fill vacancies and improve the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts. The nomination we consider today has the support of both Senator [Thad] Cochran [R-MS] and Senator [Trent] Lott [R-MS].

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by AmericanMutt (April 30, 2007 12:41 pm ET)
         

      well, there goes that 'lib-rull' media again! Seriously the WaPo needs to just change their motto to 'Only facts we like will be printed, and lie about the rest'

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Conchobhar (April 30, 2007 12:56 pm ET)
         

      Nobody called him on it on Friday, which is disconcerting.  One would expect people who take the time to join these discussions to be a little better informed.  Perhaps someone from MMFA should take him to task next time he's online.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NotThatGeorge (April 30, 2007 3:18 pm ET)
         

      In that online discussion, Weisman was talking about the emails he gets from those on the left, and he said...

      "The left-wingers tend to be more shrill and self-righteous."

      And this surpirses him? People who have been disregarded and disrespected by those on the right are indignant?

      We were right, and we are right much more often. It is those on the right who are lying much more often. Clinton said that she had done no wrong over Whitewater, and she was proven to have told the truth. The Bush White House says that they have done no wrong over many issues, and we continually prove that they have done wrong.

      It should not surprise him that people who are correct are "self-righteous."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (April 30, 2007 7:50 pm ET)
         

      Game, Set, Match!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (April 30, 2007 7:55 pm ET)
         

      You know, sometimes there are issues on this site where you can quibble over semantics, or bend the facts to suit your argument, but this is NOT one of those.  This is yet ANOTHER case of easily obtained FACTS indusputably proving that WaPo is a bald-faced LIAR.  If someone were keeping track, I'd bet MMFA's won/loss record is something like 15,000-2.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2007 9:59 pm ET)
         

      it's amazing when people whose job it is to know these things either don't know or lie. it's not like the guy has a regular job, like many of us do. 

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    1150 15th St. NW
    Washington, DC 20071