Senate OKs an Obama pick, but rancor returns
WASHINGTON — The Senate approved President Obama's pick for a top post at the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday, but the chamber approached showdowns over other nominees that were starting to revive the partisan rancor a similar fight ignited last summer.
In the key roll call, senators voted 62-37 to end Republican delaying tactics against Richard Griffin, whom Obama nominated to be NLRB general counsel. Senators then confirmed the appointment on a near-party line 55-44 tally.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., planned votes in coming days aimed at halting what he said were GOP roadblocks against six other nominations. The most controversial were Obama's picks of Patricia Millett to join the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which was developing into a key flashpoint, and Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Republicans said Reid and Obama were trying to tilt the partisan balance of the D.C. appeals court's judges, now 4-4, toward Democrats with Millett's nomination. That court, which gets involved in many cases involving federal regulations, is considered by many to be the second most powerful federal court, behind the Supreme Court.
“The majority leader and his allies are attempting to pack the court with judges who will rubber stamp their big government agenda,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader.
Obama has nominated attorney and law professor Cornelia “Nina” Pillard and U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins to fill D.C. appeals court vacancies.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.