Liberman on Estrada "breakdown in the system"

The Union Leader ^ | March 1, 2003 | JOHN DiSTASO

[tubebender]

Afterward, Wise, who was wearing a “Bush/Cheney” political button, said Lieberman had not won him over.

"One small step for mankind"...

[aristeides]

Doesn't sound like Lieberman is enthusiastic about the filibuster. Has he gone on record as supporting it? Haven't a lot of the RAT senators been missing in action during the filibuster?

[elephantlips]

Also, it would have required a deeper knowledge of the Federalist Papers and deeper knowledge is something democrats avoid at all costs.

[MinuteGal]

Is Mr. Wise a freeper?

If not, he should be!

Leni

[Xthe17th]

There were something like 85 Federalist letters. Is the one Wise referred to #78? If anyone knows the exact letter, LMK. In the meanwhile, thanks for the link to the Constitution website - will try to look it up.

[ez]

I checked the Federalist Papers quickly and didn't find anything that actually says "vote," but it might be there. I would, however, like to say that "advise and consent" MEANS debate and vote. To advise is to speak top a person's qualifications...to tell the President "send us more like this" or "don't send any more like this." To consent is to affirm the nomination. This can only be done by registering an up or down vote. Consent comes at the vote.

To deny the vote is never to allow the Senate to register its consent, and it is ignoring the Constitution.

[ez]

This is from #78... And as there would be a necessity for submitting each nomination to the judgment of an entire branch of the legislature, the circumstances attending an appointment, from the mode of conducting it, would naturally become matters of notoriety; and the public would be at no loss to determine what part had been performed by the different actors. The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate; aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the Executive. If an ill appointment should be made, the Executive for nominating, and the Senate for approving, would participate, though in different degrees, in the opprobrium and disgrace. There are no penalties for acting inappropriately except for the notoriety among the populace. If the free press does not publcize the conflict, however, such pressure is abrogated.

Our course should be then to publicize this conflict as widely as possible.

[Stay the course]

George Will quoted #76 in his column this week. That's probably where Wise got it from.

[not_apathetic_anymore]

This from #76 But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.

[votelife]

Lieberman, if it's a breakdown, what are you going to do to FIX it?

[votelife]

Maybe if we can't get common sense into Lieberman, we can get into Graham's noggin:

Check out this Pro-Estrada editorial in the Miami Herald (Graham's hometown!)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/5301721.htm

Bob Graham, ESTRADA deserves a VOTE!!!

Email Senator Bob Graham -- http://www.senate.gov/~graham/email.html

Write Bob Graham 524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Call Bob Graham Phone (202) 224-3041 --

Fax Bob Graham Fax (202) 224-2237

Just do it now!

[votelife]

"Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname," said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "It means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American."

This is the Democrat case against Estrada...

[votelife]

Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/847037/posts

[votelife]

bttt

[green team 1999]

Lieberman admitted he had never before had a voter cite the Federalist Papers to him in a question

will never be done by a democrat voter.

[Rummyfan]

“I don’t know what the answer (to the Estrada gridlock) is, exactly,” said Lieberman.

What the answer is, Senator Lachrymose Lieberman, is to stop filibustering a judicial nominee, a first brought to us by the Dems in the Senate today.

[votelife]

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[PISANO]

You answered your own question. GW is at fault for nominating a highly qualified man who will strictly uphold the constitution. Gimmies don't approve of the constitution or of a Republican President nominating Federal Judges. It is that SIMPLE!!

[votelife]

Why Frist and all won't go 24/7 (Vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/958139/posts?page=1