No filibuster: Vote on Boyle
Terrence Boyle's nomination to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals finally has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But a filibuster is possible on the Senate floor, as all the usual left-wing groups adamantly oppose the North Carolina federal district judge. They love to point out he once worked for Jesse Helms (for about a year more than three decades ago). Republicans strongly defend him.
The long saga of Boyle's nomination is recounted here by the Washington Post.
But is Boyle a bad judge, as Sen. Patrick Leahy says?
He has been rated as "qualified" by the American Bar Association.
The News & Observer of Raleigh, hardly a liberal newspaper (correction, thanks to Lex: hardly a conservative newspaper), has endorsed his nomination.
At the very least, Boyle should be granted a vote by the full Senate. His nomination is not so extraordinary as to fall outside the bounds of the agreement reached earlier this spring that broke a logjam in the judicial confirmation process.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I think the fact that there are rumors of another filibuster reveal the uselessness of the agreement.
Posted on June 17, 2005 10:31 AM
It was useful to the extent that three judges got through, but that might be about it.
Posted on June 17, 2005 12:56 PM
Uh, Doug, didn't you mean, "The News & Observer of Raleigh, hardly a CONSERVATIVE newspaper ... "?
Posted on June 17, 2005 1:04 PM
Thanks, Lex. I did mean that. Although, since I have been working at THIS liberal newspaper, maybe my perspective has changed without my realizing it.
Posted on June 17, 2005 1:07 PM
I believe our courts deserve WELL qualified candidates; the ABA designation of 'qualified' really means mediocre. It's the only distinction between 'well qualified' and 'unqualified.' Can't the President nominate better than mediocre to the contentious 4th circuit that is arguably the "most unliberal" or "most conservative" in the country?
Posted on June 18, 2005 9:41 PM
Sue, I;m not sure it's fair to equate a rating of "qualified" for a high judicial office with the term mediocre. Mediocrity shouldn't qualify someone for the lowest judicial post, let alone a seat on the federal appellate bench.
And, then, there's controversy about the ABA methodology. One critique can be found here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95000927
Posted on June 20, 2005 8:43 AM
Jumping back in, I think it's more than a little disingenuous for the Post to suggest that Boyle has "spent 15 years as a nominee" when, in fact, the White House was controlled by the other party for eight of them.
Posted on June 20, 2005 4:47 PM