Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems shameless in Estrada nomination
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | Feb.27, 2003 | Robert Novak

Posted on 02/27/2003 6:22:41 AM PST by conservativecorner

The Democratic filibuster against judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has little to do with the 41-year-old Honduran immigrant. It is part of a grand design to talk to death a succession of conservative judges selected by President Bush. Democrats are intent on keeping the Senate from voting on any appellate nominations that do not meet the party's specifications.

This extraordinary design, without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations, was launched Jan. 30 in the office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Present were Assistant Leader Harry Reid and six Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. With all pledged to secrecy, the fateful decision was made to filibuster Estrada's nomination.

That was only the beginning. One Judiciary Committee member there was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate's 71-year-old liberal lion. In private conversations with Daschle and in Democratic caucuses, Kennedy has pressed a plan to prevent Bush from putting his ideological stamp on the federal bench. As Republicans returned this week from recess, they had no immediate response to this threat.

Internal Senate sources depict a Senate minority on an audacious mission. Rare use of the filibuster to keep a judicial nominee off the bench is only the tip of the iceberg. Multiple filibusters would generate the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.

At the Jan. 30 meeting in Daschle's office, the eight senators agreeing to filibuster the Estrada nomination did not discuss his merits or demerits as a nominee for the District of Columbia appeals court, second in importance only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather, the objections to Estrada were political and procedural. His confirmation, they agreed, would set a precedent that appellate nominees need not answer detailed questions and would make it hard to stop him as a possible future Supreme Court nominee. The senators talked about slowing down a Bush ''assembly line'' of conservative nominees and cited support from an energized Democratic base.

Considering these politicized views, what Kennedy said when he took the Senate floor five days later sounds disingenuous. Demand for Estrada's memos as a government lawyer, Kennedy said, ''would be helpful in understanding Mr. Estrada's fitness for a judgeship''--as if he had not decided to talk the nomination to death.

Off the Senate floor, Kennedy was more candid. According to Senate sources, he urged Daschle to devise a long-term strategy: to make a short list of judicial nominees whom the Democrats would keep from ever coming to a vote. Privately, Kennedy talks frankly of a filibuster strategy.

While conceding that Estrada is ''intelligent,'' Kennedy has told colleagues that he must be filibustered because of the need to win an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the White House. Kennedy tells his younger associates that Bush's application of an ideological litmus test constitutes the ''worst'' judicial nomination process he has seen in 40 years of service. He accuses the president of daring Senate Democrats to keep ideologues off the court and refers to Estrada as a ''stealth right-wing zealot.'' Such comments belie the notion that Bush's nominees would be given a Senate vote if only they would answer some questions.

Such an intractable position raises the question of how Democrats would expect to get any judges confirmed in the event that Bush is defeated for re-election but the Senate remains Republican in the 2004 voting. The Republican Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, is outraged by the Democratic strategy and ready to respond in kind. But Hatch will not be chairman in 2005, thanks to Republican term limits. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, next in GOP seniority, as chairman might stop the cycle of vengeance.

That's what worries Republican strategists, who talk about jumping conservative Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona above Specter to guarantee a strong hand in the confirmation wars. Well in advance, there is consideration of blocking a vote on future judicial nominees by a Democratic president until the Republican nominees who had been blocked by filibuster are confirmed.

That is the morass into which the Senate is being led by Teddy Kennedy, its second most senior member.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: appointments; estrada; filibuster; judicial

1 posted on 02/27/2003 6:22:41 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
My word, the swimmer is one sick, wicked man.
2 posted on 02/27/2003 6:30:12 AM PST by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
This is another example of the evil donkey and their pals in the rat media loosing control of what is and what is not news. In the past the lemmings would be TOLD that this man was not worthy of confirmation. No other voice would be heard and that would be it. Enter FOXtv talk radio and the net. Now the rats can't just lie about Estrada and get way with it.
3 posted on 02/27/2003 6:36:43 AM PST by jmaroneps37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
This is a great Bob Novak...

This amorale action by the Dem's "leadership" should be viewed as a declaration of war by ALL Republicans in Congress. If this filibuster is sustained, it should become the Just Desserts that the GOP will serve up to ANY and ALL future Demo administrations (hopefully there won't be another one in a generation or three).

4 posted on 02/27/2003 6:37:33 AM PST by ReleaseTheHounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
If the DemonRATS do this with every nominee up for judgeship, they will be able to squash all of the rest of the President's agenda like energy, economic stimulus, tax cuts and repaeals, drug plan for seniors...all the things the House passed (50-plus bills) in the last congress that Dasshole held up or completely squashed.

Without a 60 seat Republican "supermajority" in the Senate, and that means without RINOS like Specter, Snowe, Collins and McCain, the Dems still have complete control. They will lie cheat, fillibuster or whaterver it takes, but if the Republicans can't get their and the President's agenda through or confirm Bush's judicial nominees, then we're just as screwed as when the Dems were in the majority...

What's the difference?

5 posted on 02/27/2003 6:48:11 AM PST by KriegerGeist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
When have the 'Rats not been shameless?

They were shameless when they were running around all over the place yammering on about how clintons' affair with an intern in the Oval Office was "just about sex" and no big deal.

The 'Rats were shameless when they were defending clinton while he was lying to a Grand Jury, telling us that is wasn't perjury.

The 'Rats were shameless when they were spewwing forth with their very personal and baseless attacks that suggested that then presidental candidate George W. Bush was somehow responsible for the dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas.

The 'Rats were shameless when they were actively working to disallow the absentee ballots cast by our men and women in the armed forces that were deployed overseas.

The 'Rats were shameless when they were actively attempting to thwart the legitimate election results in Florida during the 2000 presidental election.

The 'Rats were shameless when they went to court to keep the polls open in St. Louis for 3 hours after the law said they were to close, allowing the election of Senator Jean Carnahan during the 2000 election.

The 'Rats were shameless when they decided that their Senator Torecelli was going to lose his re-election bid by a wide margin and they swapped candidates well beyond the period allowed under New Jersey law in order to thwart the will of the voters.

The 'Rats were shameless when they turned a memorial service for their fallen comrade Senator Paul Wellstone into a political rally just days before an election.

I think you get the idea. The democRAT party is as unprincipled, shameless, unethical, dishonest bunch of scumbages and slimey maggots as one could possibly find anywhere.

6 posted on 02/27/2003 6:49:00 AM PST by Howie66 (Lead, follow or git the hell out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
I posted here yesterday that President Bush should really approach this Estrada nomination in a whole different manner. Pointing out that the Democrats are opposing the Estrada nomination for political reasons is going to generate the same kind of "So what?" response that resulted when it was proven that Bill Clinton had perjured himself and obstructed justice in a Federal civil suit and criminal grand jury investigation.

Instead, someone (perferably not someone directly connected to the White House, for political reasons) should make the case that the Democrats are opposing the Estrada nomination simply because they don't like minorities. Period.

An ad campaign by a "non-partisan" group that points out the Democratic Party's shameful history in terms of supporting slavery, opposing emancipation, opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposing the Clarence Thomas nomination, etc. would be very effective, especially when the focus of the Estrada nomination changes from: "What kind of views does Estrada have on these issues?" to: "WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATS LIKE MINORITIES?"

7 posted on 02/27/2003 7:11:22 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"WHY DON'T THE DEMOCRATS LIKE MINORITIES?"

Becuz they don't have them in their lockbox anymore.

Minorities are people too, not sheople. :-)

8 posted on 02/27/2003 9:58:00 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner; upchuck
This extraordinary design, without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations, was launched Jan. 30 in the office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Present were Assistant Leader Harry Reid and six Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. With all pledged to secrecy, the fateful decision was made to filibuster Estrada's nomination.

Hillary wasn't at that meeting?

If all those senators are sworn to secrecy, I wonder who Novak's source is.

9 posted on 02/27/2003 11:08:32 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
Aren't you ignoring the president's power of making recess appointments?
10 posted on 02/27/2003 11:12:34 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
No weapon formed against this president will prosper. I believe these senators efforts will backfire, big time.
11 posted on 02/27/2003 11:59:32 AM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
...One Judiciary Committee member there was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate's 71-year-old liberal lion.

Novaks eyes are getting bad. Senator Lard is a liberal jackass.

12 posted on 02/27/2003 1:12:04 PM PST by SGCOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
"Aren't you ignoring the president's power of making recess appointments?"

Answer: NO!

The President should not have to make his judicial appointments during recess. He is as entitled to have his appointments confirmed the same as Clintoon did.

I would consider it a surrender by the President to appoint his judges this way. We're supposed to be in the majority. We're supposed to be setting the agenda and not the DemonRATS! Otherwise, what is the advantage of having a majority if it now has to be a "super-majority"? What's next? Will we have to have a "super-duper-major-mega-majority" of 1/2 to 3/4 majority to get anything passed or any nominee voted on?

This is just plain total crap! The hypocrisy of the DemonCRAPS should be exposed and branded upon the American memory.

13 posted on 02/27/2003 1:50:05 PM PST by KriegerGeist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
After watching Sen. Lautenberg read from his prepared text, and then be prompted by Reid from Nevada because he couldn't spew enough invective on his own, I wrote him the following email: Why are you ignoring the facts regarding Migual Estrada's qualifications? I can only assume you are anti-Hispanic in general, since you have not provided any objections to him on a specific qualification. I will support anyone who runs against you, and will campaign against any pro New Jersey legislation you propose, because of your bigotry.
14 posted on 02/27/2003 1:54:15 PM PST by khenrich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
This one needs bumped. Very good read.

btt
15 posted on 03/02/2003 5:35:08 AM PST by MissBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissBaby
bttt
16 posted on 04/25/2003 11:07:06 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
bookmarked
17 posted on 04/30/2003 6:06:42 AM PDT by syriacus (Our tagline composers are assisting other customers. Your input is important to us. Enjoy the music)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson