Replies

You are so right! I keep hearing recess appointments bandied about on here and it is obvious that these folks have no knowledge of recess appointments. They are temporary not permanent appointments!

I think recess appointments should be used with caution and not used for judicial nominations that are contentious.

Whatever happened to the rational discourse with facts that used to be on this site? Seems more and more I am seeing people that don't like what happened, threatening not to vote. If Estrada decided to pull his nomination, what was President Bush supposed to do -- lock him up and demand he stay in the fight! Some things are not worth it to an individual to keep fighting for and this may have been one of those for Estrada.

I want to shout -- LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! Going into 2004, the fact that the DemocRATs defied the will of the majority in the Senate on judicial nominations can be used against those same DemocRATs.

What if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans were in the minority, and a DemocRAT President nominated a judge that they didn't want -- what do people on here think would happen? The very same thing!

But then I remember some of those great filibusters of the past where Republicans talked and talked for hours to hold up something they didn't like. Some of those fililbusters were funny -- loved to hear what Strom Thurmond had to say!

I want to shout -- LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! Going into 2004, the fact that the DemocRATs defied the will of the majority in the Senate on judicial nominations can be used against those same DemocRATs.

And just WHO is going to use it against them? The media? Or maybe the Republicans themselves will drop the white glove routine and the "new tone" and actually bring it up themselves?

Like, FIGHT BACK?

And let's face it, the hispanic community paid attention to judicial confirmation hearings probably more than normal, and had to conclude their guy was treated unfairly.

Bush should appoint Estrada to some high-level very visible position, as a reminder to the public how petty and partisan the Democrats are.

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! Going into 2004

Now suppose after 2004 we have GWB, a larger majority in the House, and 60 in the Senate, what will be the excuse then for not cutting 20% of the FedGov monster, and actually trying to follow the intent of the Constitution(not what it has lived and breathed and mutated into) and not pandering to every leftist interest?

I want to shout -- LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!

I am looking at the big picture. And it's one of wimpy Senators who lack the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to take advantage of their majority.

You can bet dollars to donuts that if the tables were turned, Daschle would not have sat around with his thumb up his butt like Frist and company have for the past nine months. He would have forced the hand of the filibustering minority.

And the Administration is complicant in this. They didn't lift a finger to urge Frist along; they didn't use their influence to push the issue; they didn't send Cheney over to drop the bomb. They cajoled, they suggested, they placated, they sat around wringing their hands. Finally, Estrada got tired and said "F--- it. I'm going home. I can get better treatment than this at a myopic Polish laundry."

I'm pissed, and I can't see why you are trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line is that they screwed up and need to be called on it. Otherwise, they get complacent and figure they can throw s#it at us and we'll take it. That we're a captive audience.

Well I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

I think recess appointments should be used with caution and not used for judicial nominations that are contentious.

Recess appointments have been used over some 300 times since the founding of this country but in the earlier days it was more of a necessity as the congress wasn't in session almost year round..... President Reagan, President GHW Bush didn't make judicial recess appointments.... President Clinton made one and that was Gregory in late Dec. 2000 after the congress had adjourned sine die and he was finishing his last days of the Clinton administration.

It's also important to know what Estrada's feelings were on the matter..... Did he want a recess appoint and the notation by his name that he received one? Did he want to work without pay? Was he tired of having his name dragged around in a political process? I'd be interested to know what his true feelings are not what will be disclosed in his letter of withdrawal....