And he did it with such nonpartisan fairness that even Clinton's attorneys, both prominent Democrats, wrote a letter to the Washington Post in support of Griffith's nomination, saying "the federal bench needs judges like Tom, an excellent lawyer supported across the political spectrum. We support Tom and believe he has the intellect and judgment to be an excellent judge."

But Griffith has his detractors, including those who disagreed with — or misinterpreted — what he wrote about the federal law that affords gender equity in college sports. And some asked whether he was too religious for the bench.

For many senators, it wasn't about Griffith's qualifications, but about his conservative credentials and what they see as Bush's efforts to pack the courts with conservative, activist judges.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., led the effort against Griffith, calling it "another in a series of inappropriate nominations this president has made to this same court."

Leahy reminded senators that Griffith was being appointed to one of two seats where Republicans had blocked Clinton's nominees, saying the positions just weren't needed, that the case load was too low.

Leahy called it "a bit hypocritical" of Republicans to say the judges are needed now, especially when the D.C. caseload is lower than it was during Clinton's tenure.

Leahy also pointed out that Republicans blocked a Clinton nominee using an argument that long-held policy dictated a negative vote when both home-state senators were opposed. But then Republicans approved Janice Rogers Brown to the same court earlier this month, even though both home-state California senators were opposed.

"The takeover of this court is now complete," said Leahy, noting that seven of the 11 judges on the court have been appointed by Republicans. "And this takeover will have been contrived through a web of Republican double standards and double-talk so audacious and intricate that it would make a spider blush."

Aside from what he deemed Republican hypocrisy, Leahy attacked Griffith specifically for his failure to pay his bar dues — an oversight Griffith has admitted, but which has dogged his nomination.

"Mr. Griffith's decision to practice law without a license for a good part of his career should be disqualifying," Leahy said. "He has not honored the rule of law by his practicing law in Utah for five years without ever bothering to fulfill his obligation to become a member of the Utah Bar. In this regard, he appears to think he is above the law.

"That is not the kind of nominee who should be entrusted with a lifetime appointment to a federal court and, least of all, to such an important court as the D.C. Circuit, which is entrusted with protecting the rights of all Americans."