Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada?
rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/28/2003 | rushlimbaugh

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)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; estradafilibuster; filibuster; gop; rushlimbaugh; senatedemocrats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 601-604 next last
To: woodyinscc
The poster knew the heading was not right when he posted it!!!!

Oh, good Lord. I guess the Thought Police really are here. Are you saying he should have CHANGED the title to something he liked better? That is frowned upon here, and one of the fastest ways to get your post pulled. How long have you been on FR, anyway?

161 posted on 03/01/2003 5:30:07 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper; Howlin; cyncooper
go to post 6, and then down .... there are links to show that this mis-titled article was written based on wrong information, discussed, apparently, at length on Rush's show and the other thread (link provided at #6 on this thread)...and, I'm sure, Howlin and cyncooper can provide more info as I was not part of the thread discussion or even knowledge of the thread content until last night...
162 posted on 03/01/2003 5:39:22 AM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Thank you. I've been reading my head off over here, trying to fill in all the details (thanks, PKM). I'd better hurry up and finish, gotta get to work!
163 posted on 03/01/2003 5:47:11 AM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
It's mob mentality at work. I wonder if the mob in this case realizes how ridiculous it is making itself look.
164 posted on 03/01/2003 5:51:26 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
The point is, Byron York had the "the story is wrong" story on the NRO website LONG before Rush ran with it. Look, Rush can't read or see everything, but this is two days in a row that he had a story that was either wrong or retracted (he had some challenges on the Maine National Guard story).

I think ANY story that suggests the Republicans are "spineless" needs to be triple checked, because there is a rumor mill, often fed here at FreeRepublic, that LOVES to portray the GOP as "caving." Estrada will be confirmed.

165 posted on 03/01/2003 6:04:14 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Again, though the point is that Rush's story was WRONG, and it was already proven wrong before he ran with it.
166 posted on 03/01/2003 6:05:32 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LS; TLBSHOW
I'm afraid I haven't followed this story closely enough to be able to say with confidence that the story is wrong. But, if it is wrong, there are certainly people on this thread arguing that position. So, don't you think posting this article did people here a service even if it turns out that the article is wrong?
167 posted on 03/01/2003 6:17:53 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I think posting a story that is essentially false does no one any good.
168 posted on 03/01/2003 6:23:19 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; TLBSHOW; PhiKapMom
I don't understand what the harm would be in calling for a cloture vote. Why not make the RAT senators go on the record as supporting the filibuster?

I don't see why calling for a cloture vote does any more for establishing a precedent than the RATs having this filibuster in the first place.

OK, I've read through all the posts and can't see where this question is answered. Rush goes on and on about it, but never explains how holding a cloture vote sets precedent, just that it takes 60 votes, super majority, yada...yada...yada.

Went to the US Senate Glossary page and found this...

"cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes."

So I remain confused. I can see where obtaining cloture closes debate and moves on to a vote, but I don't see how cloture failure closes the debate. So cloture fails, doesn't the debate rage on? Is there some sort of Senate courtesy that failing cloture the debate is halted and Senators move on to new business? I'm missing the rules around what happens after a cloture vote is called and fails. Not the courtesy, the rule.

I've not heard Rush or anyone address this. PhiKapMom, you seem on top of all this, Can you explain?

169 posted on 03/01/2003 6:28:01 AM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
You are right. A failed cloture vote would only shut down the Estrada issue if the Republican leadership decides to shut it down. They would be perfectly within their rights to continue that discussion, which would mean continuing the filibuster.

I have repeatedly seen the argument made that having a cloture vote would set the precedent that 60 votes in the Senate are needed to confirm a judge. I do not understand that argument. I think the precedent has already been set, by the DemocRATs insisting on continuing the debate. And I think it is conceding the point to the Democrats by dropping the issue that would consolidate that precedent. It would even do so without having forced the RAT senators to go on the record as supporting the filibuster.

170 posted on 03/01/2003 6:48:24 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: LS
I think posting a story that is essentially false does no one any good.

Why not? Doesn't it give people the opportunity to point out and to learn that the story is false? How is that not doing good for people?

171 posted on 03/01/2003 6:50:45 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Why not? Doesn't it give people the opportunity to point out and to learn that the story is false? How is that not doing good for people?

Isn't it more useful and doesn't it do more good to post stories with real news?

If I know a story is false, and post it anyway, especially with no disclaimers, IMO it makes me look stupid and the site look stupid, especially when the misleading and inflammatory headline persists.

Yes, the headline is Rush's fault, and I know we aren't supposed to change headlines - although the part in parentheses was added by the poster. A disclaimer that the article and/or headline were false or misleading could have just as easily been added, don't you think?

172 posted on 03/01/2003 7:03:26 AM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
A disclaimer that the article and/or headline were false or misleading could have just as easily been added, don't you think?

It could have been added by someone who knew Limbaugh's story was false. I, for my part, am still not convinced that the story is false. I say we wait and see.

Don't the postings by the later posters claiming the story is false serve the same purpose an original disclaimer would have done?

And, if this story by Limbaugh is indeed false, then it was likely to deceive people. The discussion here makes that less likely at least for FReepers.

I detect here an atmosphere that more and more wants to shut down discussion and close our eyes to unpleasant facts. (Even if Limbaugh's article is false, it remains a fact that he published it. In fact, I believe it remains up on his site.)

173 posted on 03/01/2003 7:12:45 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper
I was referring to the substance in the heading!

I should have been more clear, but the poster knew what I meant!!
174 posted on 03/01/2003 7:13:36 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
He has a stuttering problem. I admire him, he has not let it bother him one bit!!
175 posted on 03/01/2003 7:20:44 AM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Rush I am sure will stay on top of the story this week.

Rats need to be mde to Filibuster 24/7
176 posted on 03/01/2003 7:51:01 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
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!


You may want to look at Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule V...... It requires a 24 hr written notice......
177 posted on 03/01/2003 8:04:46 AM PST by deport (Where fools rush in..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: deport
Note that, under Rule V, the notice is not required to amend a rule if the amendment is by unanimous consent. So I guess each party needs to be sure always to have at least one reliable member present whenever the Senate is in session.

I assume that amendments of rules are subject to filibustering. If that's true, it means that you need to have at least 60 senators on board to amend a rule.

178 posted on 03/01/2003 8:09:38 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
In fact he wrote it and didn't put it on his site till way after 630 last night...

This is the message he wanted to get out. Check with Fox they have not offered a correction either except to change a day from a tuesday to a Monday.

Rush even said on the show why get rid of Lott. LOL

Best part is this will be at his web site for the public all weekend.
179 posted on 03/01/2003 8:10:47 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
If the Gop call for a cloture vote the constitution will be in effect well as Fox news says...

....

a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."
180 posted on 03/01/2003 8:13:52 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 601-604 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson