As you are fully aware, Democrats are still delaying several important judicial nominations and are expected to block even more. However, just a few years ago, leading Democrats were crying on the Senate floor about how long Senate Republicans were taking to confirm Clinton's nominations.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) even went so far as to agree with George Bush that "presidential nominations should be acted upon by the Senate within 60 days."
Yes, I know, you're probably getting tired of reading a bunch of quotes from Democrats. But these are just too good not to share.
I promise, this is the last set . . . for a while.
Sen. Leahy: All the talk about needing six months or more to process and review nominees is just that - talk. (Congressional Record, page S7531, July 25, 2000)
Sen. Leahy: If I could make a recommendation, I would join an unusual ally in that. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas [stated that] presidential nominations should be acted upon by the Senate within 60 days. He said: 'The Constitution . . does not empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation. Yet somewhere along the way, that is what Senate confirmations became - lengthy, partisan, and unpleasant. It has done enough harm, injured too many good people, and it must not happen again.' Governor Bush is right. . . . I have said the same thing. (Congressional Record, page S7437, July 21, 2000)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa): I hope the Judiciary Committee and the leadership on that side. . .will listen to the words of Texas Governor George Bush. He said he would call for a 60-day deadline for judges - once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor. . . . If he said he would call for a 60-day deadline, I ask my friends on the Republican side: Why don't we act accordingly? (Congressional Record, page S9665, October 3, 2000)
Sen. Leahy: The Judiciary Committee needs to do a better job and the Senate needs to proceed more promptly to consider nominees reported to it. . . . The Senate needs to consider judicial nominations promptly and to confirm without additional delay the many fine men and women President Clinton is sending us. (Congressional Record, page S3671, April 14, 1999)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.): I believe there is a time and a place for us to consider any nominee and, once having done so, we need to get on with it. I cannot imagine that anybody could justify, anybody could rationalize, anybody could explain why, in the name of public service, we would put anyone through the misery and the extraordinary anguish that these nominees have had to face for years. Why would anyone ever offer themselves for public service . . . ? (Congressional Record, page S1365, March 9, 2000)
Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.): The Judiciary Committee held hearings for three of the nominees and approved those nominations less than a week after the nominations were received. Other nominees wait in vain for years just for a hearing. That strikes me as being an arbitrary and inexplicable system, unfair to nominees . . . and unfair to the districts or the circuits in which they would serve if confirmed. I believe it is also unfair - perhaps this is most important of all - to the people who await justice in their courts. (Congressional Record, page S9661, October 3, 2000)
Sen. Leahy: [Judge Julio Fuentes'] nomination has already been pending for over seven months. He should get a hearing and prompt consideration. (Congressional Record, page S12689, October 15, 1999)
