A WAY FR CAN HELP TO FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!

9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals | 2/28/03 | self

[Steven W.]

Here is a way the wise investigative folks on FR can help confirm Miguel Estrada and demonstrate the lunacy of the liberal judicial activists: identify the Judges on the 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals and which of the Senators currently serving eagerly voted for the idiots who think the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional but are now currently fillibustering a fine, well qualified nominee in the person of Miguel Estrada!

[Steven W.]

I'm sure there are probably some choice comparisons to be made and probably some good quotes or prior experience of those prior nominees (which they confirmed) and would readily demonstrate how out of the mainstream his opponents are when it comes to judicial selection.

[Mister Baredog]

I was thinking the same thing.These are the mainstream judges the dems are fighting to get more of!!

[2timothy3.16]

good thinking, put me on your ping list if a list comes up.

[jackbill]

With all due respect, I doubt that you will be able to identify the judges on the 9th circuit that voted to not reconsider. The first decision was made by three of the judges. This last decision was "en banc", i.e. the whole court.

I've been trying to get some folks here to take the Hardball approach. I've fax'd the following letter to my Senator - Barbara Mikulski (Sarbanes doesn't publish his fax number) - and to Senators Edwards, Kerry, Graham and LIEberman, i.e. those running for President in 2004.

I just thought that you might like to be made aware of a movement on a particular Internet forum, with 100,000 members, to punish the Democrats for their filibuster of the Estrada nomination.

At least half of the states in the United States have open or blanket primaries. Since President Bush will not have any serious opposition in the Republican primaries, many of us are planning to either cross-over and vote in the Democrat primary in those states that allow it or change our registration to Democrat just before the elections - and cast our votes for the Rev. Al Sharpton.

We may not be able to obtain the Democrat nomination for the Reverend, but I suspect that we may be able to turn the tide in a number of states, especially when you consider the number of candidates that apparently will be on the ballot.

You and your Democrat colleagues in the Senate might be able to stop this movement by stopping the filibuster of Miguel Estrada immediately and stopping your attempts to change the Senate's process of advice and consent on presidential nominees. What you are doing is anti-Constitutional.

Very Sincerely,

[ez]

With all due respect, the Democrat Senators no doubt consider the judges on the 9th circuit to be moderates.

[syriacus]

A synopsis of what I have posted here.

1. Leahy asks for an "up or down" vote.
2. Berzon's resume has some similarities to Estrada's
3. Some senators who voted to confirm Berzon, did so with reservation, because she had no record as a judge for them to look at and they wished she had a more balanced background.[1.] Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on
   Nomination of Marsha Berzon to the
   U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

   .... This is a highly qualified and distinguished nominee who does not deserve this treatment. This nomination is being killed by unjustified, unexplained and anonymous nonaction. I remind the Committee of the criticism of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in his Year End report: “The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.”The “necessary time” has passed with respect to this outstanding nominee. After almost nine months, two extended sessions of questioning at the hearing and multiple rounds of written questions, it is time for the Committee and the Senate to vote on this nomination.

   Leahy got his vote...

   ---

   [2.] SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS BERZON NOMINATION/9th Circuit Judge
   Compiled and written by the staff of the Republican Policy Committee-Larry E. Craig, 106th Congress,March 9, 2000,

   ACTION: NOMINATION CONFIRMED, 64-34
   Those favoring confirmation contended:
   Ms. Berzon's training and experience qualify her for a life of public service as a Federal appellate judge. She completed her undergraduate studies at Harvard/Radcliffe College, and graduated from the Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California. After graduating she worked as a law clerk for several years, including for former Justice Brennan. She has spent the last 25 years of her career in private practice, focused almost entirely on civil labor law. As a private litigator, she has argued numerous cases before State and Federal trial and appeals courts, including four cases that she argued before the Supreme Court. She has been endorsed by numerous groups, including law-enforcement groups, and by a broad, bipartisan range of politicians and lawyers. Some Senators have complained that she has zealously defended the positions of labor unions in litigation and have said that if she were confirmed she would likely prove to be a liberal judge who would ignore the Constitution and substitute her own policy preferences. They further contend that this practice of judicial activism is already common on the Ninth Circuit, for which she has been nominated.

   In response, we admit she has advocated vigorously on behalf of her labor union clients, but no one should have expected her to do any less. Every lawyer should always be a vigorous advocate for his or her clients. We understand from her affiliations with liberal groups that she is probably on the left of the political spectrum, but that is the norm for this President's nominees, and it does not mean that she will be an activist if she is appointed. As for the claim that Ninth Circuit judges are liberal activists who are out of control and constantly being reversed by the Supreme Court, some of us who support this nominee agree, but we add that we see nothing in this nominees' record to indicate to us that she will be anything other than a moderating influence on the circuit. We urge our colleagues to support her confirmation.

   While favoring confirmation, some Senators expressed the following reservations:
   [3.] Though this candidate is clearly qualified for this post, we wish the President had nominated someone who has been a judge with a record we could examine, or at least someone who has had a more balanced background. As it is, we are appointed someone with a very liberal background who has never been a judge, and we are appointing her to a court that has been infamous for making unconstitutional, liberal decisions. We are doing so largely based on assurances we have received from people who know her that she will be an impartial judge. We hope we are not making a mistake. Time will tell.

   In other words, in the case of Berzon, Democrats were willing
   • to overlook her lack of record as a judge
   • To allow the president to choose a candidate that was liberal, because that was the norm for his candidates
   And, in the case of Berzon, some Republicans voted for her even though
   • She did not have a balanced background
   • She had no experience as a judge
   • They did not know how things would turn out with her ("time will tell")
   The Democrats do have a double standard

[Jonez712]

That is so true. Bill Clinton appoints psychos to the bench (which Republicans relunctantly accepted, because they respect and understand the Constitution) and then President Bush appoints the best man for the job, and the Democrats stop at no length to ruin his life, just because he's Hispanic and conservative.

I truly do not want to see any more 9th Jerk-it Courts of Schlemielles, which is why we must get our GOP leadership to stand up for what is good for America, and continue to elect Republican presidents. I am sick and tired of psychos like these, especially when I live under their juristiction. And to think, before their original ban against the Pledge of Allegiance, I thought Botox Boxer was bad...

[syriacus]

we must get our GOP leadership to stand up for what is good for America,

I agree. The task is daunting, the opposition is ruthless and deceiving, but it seems the work needs to be done now.

It's obvious that the Democrats recognize this is a defining moment.

[Saundra Duffy]

Is there any hope left for the Estrada nomination? From what I've been hearing, it's all over. I am so furious it's beyond putting into words. What do you think? Have the Republicans rolled over and let the democraps screw them again?

[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

[votelife]

My email to W:

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.

[votelife]

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

[Consort]

For God so LOVED the world he gave his only begotten son so that FreeRepublic could exist and new threads could spread the word amongst the masses and HIS word would not be abused by recycling stale threads and wasting precious bandwith.

Consort 1:01