Skip to comments.Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada?
Posted on 02/28/2003 5:57:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
I am more frosted at the Democrats for what they're doing to the Constitution vis-à-vis Miguel Estrada's than I am over the anti-war movement. Fox News reported that the GOP planned to call for a cloture vote on Estrada next week knowing they'd lose it. That would effectively amend the Constitution - illegally - to read that you need 60 votes instead of 51 to get a judicial nomination through.
Happily, it turns out the GOP isn't going to call such a vote. The offices of Senators Santorum and Hatch rang up my office on Friday, and said that the Fox story is not accurate. There will be no cloture vote. Hooray! If these Democrats want to filibuster the first Hispanic nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court, let them do it! I know they say there are new rules making a filibuster harder, but so what? And don't tell me that it's not "practical" anymore, because people have to go to the bathroom. That's nothing new.
Force them to get out there and filibuster this eminently qualified man, as rated unanimously by the American Bar Association. Miguel Estrada is just a name to us, but his life is being destroyed here. It's not because he's unqualified; it's because Democrats don't like how he might think. Read George Will's column. Chuck Schumer didn't bother to ask Estrada a single question. He claims not to know any less qualified judge, when in fact he knows less qualified judges who went to the Supreme Court! Just this week, President Bush pledged to stand by Estrada until he was sworn in. We know no other nominee has been asked to give nor should give opinions on issues that may come before the court. Their job is to apply the law, not to make law or let their opinions get in the way of rulings.
These senators have to back Bush and Estrada up. The Democrat attitude is, "We ran Washington for 40 years up until 1994, and Bush is illegitimate despite what the Constitution says about the Electoral College, so he has no right to appoint anyone." These people are treating the Constitution like toilet paper. Calling a cloture vote would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent." We cannot allow that to happen. You have to care about this, folks!
These people aren't Democrats or liberals. They don't believe in the Constitution. They don't believe in individual rights, as affirmed in the 9th Amendment; in sharing power with the states, as described in the 10th Amendment; in free political speech protected in the 1st Amendment and shredded in campaign finance reform. They don't support the right to bear arms provided for in the 2nd Amendment. They don't respect private property rights protected by the 5th Amendment! If there's a blade of grass in the backyard, they call it "wetlands" and take it away! This assault must stop.
Listen to Rush...
(...react to the Fox News story, and reject the notion of a cloture vote by the GOP) (...demand Democrats be made to pay a price for shredding the Constitution)
Read More of Rush's Estrada Coverage (Rush On A Roll: Anatomy of a Smear) (Rush On A Roll: Want Estrada? Declare Linda Daschle DOA) (The Limbaugh Library: Ken Starr Tips Us Off on Estrada) (EIB A-B: Estrada Qualifications Blow Away Breyer and Ginsburg)
Read the Questionable Fox News Article...
(FoxNews: Republicans Seek to End Debate on Estrada)
Read the George Will Column on Estrada...
(Washington Post: Coup Against the Constitution - George F. Will)
I think the point here is that the article's title, which is somewhat inflammatory to begin with, doesn't match the content. The poster knew that when he posted the article.
He edited the title, but not in a way that would clarify that the title doesn't match the contents or make it any less inflammatory. Doesn't that make you curious?
Considering the posting history leads some to believe that the article was purposely posted either to deceive, or to bait people.
I'm tending toward thinking that the purpose is to encourage division at FR, but that's just my opinion.
Second, under Senate Rules, a senator may hold the floor for as long as he wants, barring a vote of cloture. Cloture stops debate, but under the rules you need a 60% affirmative vote (note 60%, not necessarily 60 votes if all Senators are not present). Debate may be temporarily stopped with a recess or another privledged motion.
another motion is called a "Quorum Call" (or Call of the House). All Senators are obliged to answer a quorum call by answering in person the roll. The President of the Senate may even send out the Sgt at Arms to enforce attendence. Here is a passage from Roberts ...
"Proceedings in a Call of the House. When the call is ordered the clerk calls the roll of members alphabetically, noting the absentees; he then calls over again the names of absentees, when excuses can be made; after this the doors are locked, no one being permitted to leave, and an order similar in form to the following is adopted: "Ordered, That the sergeant-at-arms take into custody, and bring to the bar of the House, such of its members as are absent without the leave of the House." A warrant signed by the presiding officer and attested by the clerk, with a list of absentees attached, is then given to the sergeant-at-arms, who immediately proceeds to arrest the absentees. When he appears with members under arrest, he proceeds to the chairman's desk (being announced by the doorkeeper in large bodies), followed by the arrested members, and makes his return. The chairman arraigns each member separately, and asks what excuse he has to offer for being absent from the sittings of the assembly without its leave. The member states his excuse, and a motion is made that he be discharged from custody and admitted to his seat either without payment of fees or after paying his fees. Until a member has paid the fees assessed against him he cannot vote or be recognized by the chair for any purpose.
In fact, not attending a quorum call would be very bad for the Dumbocraps, because if the Dumbocraps assembled do not make up more than 60% of the members present, a cloture vote can be immediately moved. In fact, at the quorum call, the doors can be locked to bar tardy members. If successful, the cloture vote would end debate and lead directly to a vote on the confirmation.
Little Dassole wanted this fight, make him pay for it.. Make him and his buddies stand there like jackasses on CSPAN 24/7 in a real, live filibuster mumbling and trying to think of something eloquent to say all day and all night.
[/ Rant Off ]
Now, if you want my honest opinion of what's going on here.. I think it's the GOP overplaying it's hand.
I think they have intentionally not brought out the big guns on this because they are hoping to energize the base and flat out enrage Hispanic voters.. A case of "See, see..! See what the Democrats are doing to us?"
In the beginning, that's exactly what happened. But now it's getting ot the point that instead of angering people at the Democrats only, people are starting to throw barbs at the Republicans as well for being too soft and letting them turn this into an un-constitutional circus.
If they back down on this, Conservatives will be just as mad at the Republicans as they are at the Democrats. Remember Trent Lott? So does everyone else, they don't remember him fondly and the reason they don't is because he wasn't aggressive when that's what the situation warranted.
Estrada has a speech impediment?
I'll need to do a little more research in Riddick back at the office. Until then, I stand corrected.
So I'll throw this into the blend: If, at a quorum call, the Republicans can obtain a 2/3rds majority of members present they can amend the rules!
Put me in the 24/7 filibuster category too. The initial Fox story has been bugging me for 2 days now, and unfortunately I haven't been able to spend much time on FR to get the real skinny. So were those quotes (Santurom, etc.) correct, taken out of context, or what? A turnaround in strategy?
Guess I'll get back to my thread-surfing, have another cuppa, and try to get all caught up on this one.
What a visual. I'd like to just slap him, period.
I just now caught your post about Garrett. What's up with this guy? He was a reporter at CNN for years, correct?
A link to the discussion, please? (Still trying to get caught up over here...)
Exactly. It gave you a chance to vent and me a chance to get caught up, didn't it? ;-)