Linda Chavez: Republicans Need To Call Dems' Bluff On Estrada Nomination

CNSNews.com ^ | February 26, 2003 | Linda Chavez

[Stand Watch Listen]

It's time Republicans learned to play hardball. Democrats don't really want to filibuster Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

They aren't anxious to stay up all night and give marathon speeches on the dangers Estrada purportedly poses to the Republic. Tom Daschle needs his beauty rest, after all.

But the Republicans haven't been willing to call the Dems' bluff. Normally, a filibuster requires a senator to take the floor and keep it, an arcane privilege that prevents the Senate from voting on the issue at hand, unless 60 senators vote to cut off debate.

Former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond (then a Democrat) filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight in an attempt to kill the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Former senator William Proxmire (D-WI) talked for 16 hours and 12 minutes on a debt-ceiling bill in 1981, and then-senator Alphonse D'Amato (R-NY) filibustered a tax bill for 15 hours and 14 minutes in 1992.

No one seems to have the stomach for a real filibuster today, Democrats or Republicans. Instead of holding the Democrats' feet to the fire to force them to keep talking, the GOP leadership allowed senators to go home for the Presidents' Day recess without voting on Estrada.

Now, Republicans are letting the Democrats drag out the debate day after day, without forcing obstinate senators to stay on the floor round the clock and on weekends.

It's understandable that Democrats wouldn't want to talk about Miguel Estrada hour after hour. They have nothing to say. Estrada is obviously well qualified for the position, having received the highest judicial recommendation from the American Bar Association.

His stellar qualifications have earned Estrada a left-handed compliment from Democrat Sen. Harry Reid (NV), who said, "We don't know anything about Estrada, other than he's smart."

The Democrats' real complaint is that Estrada hasn't commented publicly on controversial issues such as abortion and affirmative action. But is it fair to oppose a nominee on those grounds alone?

Ironically, the Democrats and liberal interest groups launched a similar attack on a previous Republican judicial nominee, calling him a "stealth" candidate for his refusal to say how he might vote on abortion cases. When a Republican-controlled senate confirmed that nominee, National Abortion Rights Action League executive director Kate Michelman accused senators of "a dangerous leap of faith (which) placed in jeopardy American women's fundamental right to choose."

The nominee -- Justice David Souter -- went on to become a stalwart pro-abortion vote on the Supreme Court.

Estrada isn't likely to become another Souter. Conservatives certainly don't believe he will. But the point is, his failure to inform the Senate about his private views on abortion shouldn't be held against Estrada, even by the pro-abortion ideologues that constitute the Democrats' senate ranks.

Nonetheless, by not exposing the Democrats for the obstructionists they are, Republicans have opened themselves up to the charge by Democrats that it is Republicans who are to blame for bringing Senate work to a standstill with the Estrada nomination.

Worse, Republicans have confused the issue by insisting on talking during this phony Democrat filibuster in a misguided attempt to make sure the pro-Estrada side gets equal time in the debate. Anyone tuning in to the debate on C-SPAN wouldn't have any idea from watching this charade that the Democrats are the real holdup on Senate action.

I've seen it time and again in my 30 years in Washington. Republicans play by gentlemen's rules. Democrats play to win. Republican sportsmanlike conduct has cost them dearly over the years. Republican diffidence helped doom Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, almost derailed Clarence Thomas' confirmation to the high court, and is likely to defeat Miguel Estrada's appellate court bid as well.

It is probably too late now to force the Democrats' hand. Republicans moreover may believe that if Democrats succeed in blocking Estrada's confirmation, Hispanic voters will punish Democrats at the polls. Don't bet on it.

More likely, Hispanics will see that for all their good intentions, Republicans can't deliver when it counts.

Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles: and some reminders of how the Dems have obstructedDems h

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

[RobRoy]

I think the repubs are allowing it on purpose. The Dems are digging themselves a hole, and every time one of them opens his mouth on the floor, another shovelfull is removed.

Frist is just trying to decide how deep a hole he wants before he moves.

[Eva]

Bush is on TV, talking about Estrada right now.

[Wright is right!]

Linda didn't consider the extry security costs of a 24/7 Senate session, and that is supposedly one of the reasons why the choice has been made to simply let the Dems hang themselves on this one.

Estrada WILL be confirmed without being "conformed." 100% certain.

Michael

[small voice in the wilderness]

I don't know, I think I would pony up some extra tax $$$ for security just to watch sen. byrd 24/7. I want to see reports of dem. senators falling over, fainting, holding their heads and running out of the senate screaming, blood running from their ears, and begging for a floor vote. That's about as close to torture as any American deserves.

[Coop]

Ironically, the Democrats and liberal interest groups launched a similar attack on a previous Republican judicial nominee, calling him a "stealth" candidate for his refusal to say how he might vote on abortion cases. When a Republican-controlled senate confirmed that nominee, National Abortion Rights Action League executive director Kate Michelman accused senators of "a dangerous leap of faith (which) placed in jeopardy American women's fundamental right to choose."

The nominee -- Justice David Souter -- went on to become a stalwart pro-abortion vote on the Supreme Court.

I never heard this before. Good stuff!

[churchillbuff]

I think the repubs are allowing it on purpose. The Dems are digging themselves a hole

You're a Pollyanna. The Dems aren't digging themselves a hole. This issue isn't even making the network news (and is barely covered even on cable news). Chavez is right: the GOP just looks weak. Hatch's threats that Dem nominees will be filibustered in the future as payback, don't scare the Dems, because they know that the Republicans could never must 40 of their number to do such a hardball thing.

[Reagan is King]

I guess getting the spineless Sen. Lott out of the leadership didn't help give the Republicans any courage. We are seeing a rare opportunity to lock in the Hispanic vote by making the Dems filibuster Estrada and we are just going to squander it away.

Just imagine the commercials on Latin television, the constant ranting on the talking head shows, the emotional pleas from the Senate floor if the situation was reversed and the Republicans were filibustering a Hispanic man with a good record. We would be creamed by the Democrats if they were in our shoes. They are great at opportunities like this.

We need Tom DeLay in the Senate or someone with some guts, this stinks.

[Iconoclast2]

You're right. I remember telling people that even if voting Republican wouldn't accomplish anything else, at least we might get some decent judges, and that was reason enough. Now I find out that Estrada worked for Clinton, and is in all probability an accursed moderate, and the Senate Republicans can't even seem to get him through.

[right wing]

"The Dems aren't digging themselves a hole. This issue isn't even making the network news (and is barely covered even on cable news). Chavez is right: the GOP just looks weak. Hatch's threats that Dem nominees will be filibustered in the future as payback, don't scare the Dems, because they know that the Republicans could never must 40 of their number to do such a hardball thing."

I agree 100%.

Question: Can Frist now enforce the old fillabuster rules and start playing hardball with the Estrada nomination?

[mdwakeup]

Normally, a filibuster requires a senator to take the floor and keep it, an arcane privilege that prevents the Senate from voting on the issue at hand, unless 60 senators vote to cut off debate.

You would think that Linda Chavez would understand how a filibuster works, but apparently she doesn't. So let's go through this one more time.

When you're on the receiving end of a filbuster and you don't have the votes to stop it, you're the one who has to keep talking or you have to fold your tent. Unless senators make a time agreement, a vote cannot occur until there is unanimous consent to proceed to the vote. (The time agreement requires unanimous consent, too.)

What you're seeing now is what happens when you can't shut off debate. The burden is on Frist to round up the 60 votes to invoke cloture. All Dems have to do is keep their 41 votes lined up against cloture. The only option for the Repubs is to have live quorum calls or call a vote to compel the attendance of absent members. They had a couple of the latter the other night and two dozen Dems didn't even bother to vote. (Somewhat interesting, though, that on the second of those votes Senator Breaux was the only senator to vote no.)

Some people who should know better don't seem to understand the way the Senate actually operates. This ain't Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

[mdwakeup]

Question: Can Frist now enforce the old fillabuster rules and start playing hardball with the Estrada nomination?

There are no "old" filibuster rules. There is only the requirement that you need 60 votes to shut one down. When you don't have the votes to shut it down, you can't force the filibusterers to do anything because they're the ones in the driver's seat.

[sinkspur]

The only option for the Repubs is to have live quorum calls or call a vote to compel the attendance of absent members. They had a couple of the latter the other night and two dozen Dems didn't even bother to vote.

Frist could, of course, send Capitol Hill police out to roust fat Teddy et al out of bid to answer the quorum calls.

Republicans are not going to win this nomination. It's clear that the Democrats know exactly what they're doing, and Frist is powerless to stop it.

As for the Dems being hurt at the polls, forget it.

Nobody even knows this filibuster is happening.

And Bush comes out for 20 minutes, once a week, to scream at the Democrats. Other than that, nothing.

Weak, weak, weak.

[votelife]

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