A Filibuster About Something vs. A Filibuster About Nothing: The dilemma facing Senate Democrats.

National Review Online ^ | April 15, 2003 | Byron York

[freekitty]

Thank you Congressman Billybob.

[ez]

. And as for Republican tactics in the Senate, I hope that Bill Frist is simply looking for the right opportunity to spring the trap on the Democrats.

IMHO, the Republicans wish to keep the cloture rule on Judicial appointees in order to stop particularly odious leftist judges, and instead, will use political pressure on Senators who face reelection next year as their weapon of choice. If the Dems do not conceed, they will drag this out until next fall, where they will use it much like they used Max Cleland's anti-War stance against him.

[John123]

Good point. :)

[Former Proud Canadian]

So why don't they take your advise and implement "PLAN B" sounds good to me.

[Havoc]

I wish Evan Bayh was a Pubbie sometimes

[deport]

IMHO, the Republicans wish to keep the cloture rule on Judicial appointees in order to stop particularly odious leftist judges,

---

Could you name any that they have used this tactic on in the past other than Fortas to be Chief Justice?

[TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa]

Harkin also explained why he's helping Democrats prevent a Senate vote on the confirmation of lawyer Miguel Estrada to a federal court judgeship.

Harkin told his colleagues he's heard that Estrada - who learned English after immigrating to America from Honduras, who graduated with honors from Harvard's law school, who was given the highest possible rating by the American Bar Association, a man Harkin's never met - might be a "right-wing kook."

Harkin also is outraged that Estrada refuses to answer senators' questions.

Senate records show Harkin has not asked a single question of Estrada.

[deport]

If York is correct in his assessment then Owen may have a shot at being confirmed.... It is basically philosophical
that the are opposed to Owen. It will be interesting to see how many of the Democrat Senators will ultimately vote for cloture should it get that far.

[CGVet58]

Dear friends,

the left-democrats have gotten quite used to manipulating our judicial system for social engineering. This is the only reason they are filibustering Estrada. It is the first time in the history of our Nation that a filibuster has been held for an appellate court nomination. Why? 2 reasons: because the Washington DC appellate court is considered to be the inside lane for appointment to the Supreme Court. And more importantly, because Estrada isn't a leftist democrat... and the Dems fear losing hispanic votes to the right.

What is most insulting to me (I am of hispanic ancestry) is the inference in this act that any group can be considered to be "in the Dems pocket" - and that their filibuster is done NOT for the good of the country, but for their own partisan (ie: for the ILL of the country) reasons. But much as I may personally abhor their position, there is something I can do to send them a message. I just did, and urge you to follow suit:

I urge everyone who is following &/or concerned about the Estrada Filibuster, especially Americans of Hispanic Ancestry, to write their senators and demand the filibuster be stopped. A good place online to do this is over at www.townhall.com - they've a hyperlink which allows you to find your representatives and email them (I'm from NY, so good ole Chuck Schumer got a note from me just a bit ago). As a writer on this thread properly noted... "... Applying the filibuster means the Senate is amending the Constitution by force -- requiring 60 Senators to do what requires only 51 Senators per the Constitution..."; it is time that we ALL show these Senators that the TRUE force of the Constitution lies not in their hands, but in the hands of the People.

The truth is that yes, we CAN show these bozos our opinion of their jobs through our Votes - but I'm not willing to wait another 3 years to see my respective Senators (Schumer & Clinton... ugghhh) pull stunts that I'm not happy with, or that I think are not in the interests of the nation. So I wrote them, and I ask that you write your reps/sens as well... especially if they're Dems.

So please, write to them! It only will take a couple of minutes, and spread the word! Let's get ACTIVE!!!

God Bless America,


CGVet58
Juan Rosario
Lieutenant(jg), United States Coast Guard (retired)

[votelife]

I'm glad to see the Estrada issue is alive and well! Keep piling on!

FREEPers, I have created the ultimate Estrada activism thread. On it you will find ways to contact Senators, newsspapers, radio/tv people, organizations etc. Go there and help support Estrada. Keep the thread bumped until we get him confirmed.

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

[John Valentine]

IMHO, the Republicans wish to keep the cloture rule on Judicial appointees in order to stop particularly odious leftist judges, and instead, will use political pressure on Senators who face reelection next year as their weapon of choice.

This might be a viable theory if there were even the slightest evidence that Republicans actually wanted to do such a thing. Far from it, there is virtually no history of filibuster of judicial appointments by republicans.

As far as particularly odious leftist judges, how about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She is about as odious and as leftist you can get and still not be a university professor, yet the Republicans did not filibuster her nomination. In fact most voted for her and her nomination passed overwhelmingly in spite of her odiousness.

Really, here is the issue: The Constitution provides for an up or down vote on judicial nomineees. If we place the filibuster breaking vote of 61 Senators in front of all judicial nomineees one party doesn't like, we have effectuated an amendment to the Constiution in a most unconstitutional manner. This is TRULY odious.

[ez]

Well, I still think the plan is to use this Democrat obstructionism as a campaign bludgeon, but I agree with you that all nominees should receive a straight up or down vote, and no vote in committee. Otherwise, you are changing the Constitution as described in the Federalist papers which says that the executive should have the larger share of the power, by giving a Senate minority a veto over his choices. And the rule allowing a single home state Senator to quash a Presidential selection is particularly unConstitutional.

IOW, a nominee should be so undesirable that over half the Senators agree he should be rejected.

FReegards...

[TLBSHOW]

bttt

[TLBSHOW]

Majority status allowed them to make a frontal assault on nominees by voting them down in committee. Minority status will mean a guerrilla war to kill nominees by filibuster on the Senate floor.

Sure, in the past Democrats have denounced nominee filibusters—at least of Clinton nominees. Daschle has said allowing the full Senate to vote on nominations is "a question of fairness." Outgoing Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) said the Senate "should have a vote up or down."

But actions speak louder than words. During the 1980s, Democrats filibustered Republican nominees to all three levels of the federal judiciary. Three times as many Democrat senators voted to sustain them as Republicans have voted to sustain their filibusters.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/11-18-02/jipping.htm

[TLBSHOW]

This from a rat Feminist site......


Following the committee vote, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) told the New York Times that Owen “would be a good candidate for a filibuster.

snip

The Feminist Majority joins a wide variety of women’s rights, civil rights, consumer rights, environmental, labor and other progressive groups in opposing the confirmations of Owen, Estrada,

and Kuhl.

http://www.singlemomz.com/news/2003/033103-3.shtml

[okie01]

So please, write to them! It only will take a couple of minutes, and spread the word! Let's get ACTIVE!!!

Done. And bump.

[votelife]

bump

[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.

[Alissa]

My money's on Scalia. I think this is an easy call. Bush practically made this decision before he was elected. He's already said that Scalia is one of his role models for Supreme Court Justices.