[truthkeeper]

Great move in gathering these quotes. Now they actually need to use them, over and over, during the filibuster.
Big BTTT.

[Slicksadick]

We should be screaming this from all roof tops. The racist Dims never had any questions at all...

[scooby321]

What burns me is the GOP has not Blasted Paul Bender as a so called reason PAUL BENDER: His record

Bender appears to be the one whose ideology interferes with his lawyering. As the "political" deputy in the Solicitor General’s Office, he had inordinate influence over policy on a range of controversial issues, including child pornography. Bender had been chief counsel to the 1970 presidential commission on obscenity that recommended eliminating all legal restraints on obscenity and pornography. The Senate voted 95 to 5 to reject this extreme proposal.

Bender apparently carried the cause forward to the Clinton Administration. A case titled United States v. Knox involved a pedophile convicted of possessing videotapes of young girls provocatively posed and scantily dressed. The legal issue in his U.S. Supreme Court appeal was whether the federal child porn statute, banning depictions of a minor engaging in "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," could apply when the minor was at least partially clothed. The Clinton Justice Department first argued in March 1993 that the statute did not require actual nudity.

After the Supreme Court accepted the case, the Justice Department switched positions and in September 1993 sided with the pedophile, arguing for a narrow definition of child porn. The difference? Bender had come on board. Since the prosecutor now supported the criminal, the Supreme Court sent the case back without deciding it. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, later twice rejected this unprecedented and radical re-definition of child porn

This time the Senate voted 100 to 0, and the House voted 426 to 3, for a resolution condemning Bender’s position. President Clinton himself, no prude in sexual matters, agreed in writing with the Senate that the new Benderized definition was unacceptable. But Bender is the man claiming Estrada is an ideologue. No wonder Bender hasn’t given interviews on this subject in months.

This is his critic???

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[lonestar]

clymers! bump

[linn37]

I really don't understand the Democrats,they are opening a can of worms that can be used against them in the future and they just don't care.

[Judith Anne]

There's only one question, and democrats won't ask it because they know if they expose their position, the folks back home won't forget.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting this! Bryon York is right on top of this with facts!

[Kryptonite]

As the filibuster continues, when a Democratic senator complains that Estrada has failed to answer questions, Republicans will ask whether he or she asked Estrada any questions when the White House invited such inquiries. Republicans, of course, already know the answer. Their goal now is to make sure the public knows, too.

I called my dim senator's office yesterday to grill the handler about her assertion that my senator needed more information. "Did the senator submit any written questions as White House counsel Gonzalez invited him to do? Did he sit down with Estrada? How does he expect to get more information if he doesn't do these things?" She then claimed that he wants to see DOJ memos. "Why would the DOJ change its rules for Estrada, other than that he's Hispanic? Don't you know how racist that sounds? Not a single nominee in history has ever had DOJ or Solicitor General or other internal memos released to the Senate when considering a nominee? Do you even know that? Does the senator know that? Why is the minority nominee being singled out? Why is a double standard being applied to Estrada?"

It's actually quite fun and best of all the call was free.

[SpinyNorman]

I guess it is one thing to verbally ask a rhetorical question that has no answer, but putting themselves on the record with written questions seems to have frightened the poor Dems.

Gutless hypocrites. I want to see Hillary's questions, on the record, for public discussion. Put up or shut up.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[OrioleFan]

All of the Republican Senators should have submitted a set of questions to make their case stronger, "We Republicans took the White House up on their offer and submitted our questions - all of which he answered to our satisfaction. We can't understand why you Democrats did not take advantage of this opportunity..."

[HateBill]

I think the Republicans should tie the Estrada filibuster to the 9th Circuit decision that the pledge is unconstitutional. Every Republican Senator should claim that the Democrats would rather have judges on the circuit courts who would throw a five year old in jail for reciting the pledge than a model citizen like Miguel Estrada.

Put them on the defensive. Have democrat after democrat get up and say how much he/she supports the pledge of allegiance.

Conflate the issue. The pledge is such a loser issue for them.

[CyberAnt]

Thanks for that little reminder about Boxer's statement. I just sent her another email reminding her of that statement and the fact that SHE has offered NO questions for Estrada to answer.

I intend to help get her unelected in 2004.

[SpinyNorman]

After hearing Chris Dodd on Imus this morning, whining about Estrada's refusal to answer "simple" questions, I sent the following letter to his web page:

Dear Senator Dodd,

I heard you on "Imus in the Morning" this morning (3/6/03) complaining about the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

I am curious. Last week, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales sent you and every other Senator an invitation to submit written questions to Estrada, that he pledged to answer as best as possible. The deadline was Friday, 2/28/03.

I would like to have a copy of the questions you submitted and the text of the answers that Mr. Estrada provided, so that I can see for myself what sort of obstructive or non-answers he gave that are causing you to resist his nomination. Feel free to email them to me at the provided email address.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Spinynorman

I wonder if I will get a response?

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles: and past Democrat Senate obstructionism

Left-Wing Democrat U.S. Senators Thwarting The Will Of 'We The People'
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: March 10, 2003; author: Wallace Honley

Estrada and the future of the judiciary
Source: Washington Times; Published: March 110, 2003; Author: Nat Hentoff

Barbara Stanley: Hillary Barks Her Marching Orders To Democrats: Bork Miguel Estrada!
Source: Toogood Published: March 7, 2003: Author: Barbara Stanley

The Minority Democrats' War In The Senate For Control Of America
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: Febraury 28, 2003; Author: Mary Mostert

Senate Democrats: Filibusters Are No Longer Just For The Floor
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 28, 2003; Author: John Nowacki

Senator Leahy's Comments on Senate Floor against Estrada (26 Feb 2003) (Revised)
Source: The Congressional Record (New Search required each time); Published: 27 Feb 2003; Author: | Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Ted Kennedy's Grand Design
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 27, 2003; Author: Robert D. Novak

Linda Chavez: Republicans Need To Call Dems' Bluff On Estrada Nomination
Source: CNSNES.com; Published: February 26, 2003; Author Linda Chavez

Senate Democrats Can't Get Their Facts Straight
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: February 14, 2003; Author: John Nowacki

Leahy’s Surprise Attack
Source: National Review Online; Published: October 9, 2002; Author: Byron York

Shedded by Judiciary: Senate Democrats cast off another appointee
Source: Wall St Journal; Published: October 9, 2002

Miguel Estrada May be Next Victim Of Judiciary's 'Gang Of Ten'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: September 09, 2002; Author: Paul M. Weyrich

Toward Priscilla Owen, Not Even The Pretense Of Fairness
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: August 01, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

The Owen Nomination: Liberals Don't Let Truth Stand In Their Way
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: July 18, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

Democrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Christine Hall

Judge The Senate Judiciary Committee Not By What It Says, But What It Has Done
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: | June 06, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

The Left Keeps Trying -- And Failing -- To Smear Brooks Smith
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

Pickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002; Author: Jeff Johnson

Make them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002; Author: David Limbaugh

The GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002; Author: Byron York

Pickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002; Author: Mort Kondracke

Still Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

Dismantling Democracy through Judicial Activism
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 12, 2002; Author:Tom Jipping

'A Troubling Pattern': Ideology Over Truth In Judicial Confirmations
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: February 10, 2002; Author: Paul E. Scates

Democrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002; Susan Jones

The Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002; Author:Byron York

SYMPOSIUM Q: Should the Senate Take Ideology into Account in Judicial Confirmations
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 4, 2002;
Authors:
Ralph G. Neas -- YES: The ideology of nominees for the federal judiciary matters more now than ever
Roger Pilon -- NO: Since judges apply law, not make it, the Senate's concern should be with judicial temperament

What is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Blasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002; Matt Pyeatt

Judicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Senator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001; Author: By John Nowacki

Senator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001; Author: Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

A Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published December 3, 2001

Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001; Author:Editorial

Sen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Paul E. Scates

Judicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001; Author: Audrey Hudson

Patrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001; Author: William A. Mayer

Judicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001

Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001

Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Partisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001; Author: John Nowacki

Leahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Obedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Why is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: October 26, 2001; Author: Mary Mostert

Pat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: John Nowacki

Operation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: T.L.Jipping

Daschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001; Author: Dave Boyer

Leahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001

Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001; Author: Tom Jipping

Dems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping

[k2blader]

Bump!

[votelife]

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