Posted on 02/28/2003 6:33:29 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Miguel Estrada is the first court of appeals nominee to face a real filibuster in the history of the Republic. Having finally crossed that threshold, Senate Democrats showed this week that they are more than willing to use that tactic against any nominee who has the votes for confirmation.
Court of appeals nominees Deborah Cook, John Roberts, and Jay Bybee were all reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday, but not without a fight. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch had postponed their votes twice as a courtesy to Democrats, receiving assurances in return that they would cooperate in bringing them to a committee vote this week. What Hatch got was a filibuster attempt; hardly the cooperation he'd been assured of.
Knowing the nominees are opposed by the usual left-wing groups -- and some committee Democrats, who automatically follow suit -- Hatch bent over backwards to make sure that Democrats had a chance to speak on the nominations.
Patrick Leahy rambled on about congressional oversight and finally got around to mentioning the nominees. Ted Kennedy went on at length about each of the three nominees, misrepresenting the records of each. Russell Feingold criticized Cook and Roberts, and then when a vote seemed imminent, jumped in to take up more time criticizing Bybee. Joseph Biden said a few words. Dick Durbin said more than a few. Every Democrat who did more than sit at the table for a few seconds had the chance to say his or her piece.
After a few hours, Hatch was ready to call the vote, and suddenly the Democrats were having fits. Kennedy claimed that under the rules the committee couldn't vote unless it had the permission of at least one Democrat. Hatch responded that he had spoken with both Senate parliamentarians and had confirmed that it was his prerogative to call a
vote when a quorum was present. That really got Kennedy going.
Kennedy objected, raised a point of order and insisted that a roll call vote was necessary to determine whether the committee could vote on the nominees. It wasn't fair to vote without Leahy present, Kennedy complained, even though Leahy had been there and left.
Others of his party -- who were nowhere to be found -- had things they wanted to say, too. We need to "continue to talk and give others who are not here an opportunity to have the chance to make statements," he said.
With both of them raising voices, Hatch overruled the point of order, repeating that he had consulted the parliamentarians and that there would be a vote today. "I'm not going to put up with any more obstruction," he said. "I've waited all day," he added. If Democrats want to speak, they have an obligation to actually show up.
The few Democrats who were there got up and all filed out into the anteroom, leaving Hatch without the ten Senators needed for a quorum. He and the seven other Republicans sat waiting for Arlen Specter and Charles Grassley to return, but Leahy and a few other Democrats came back in as Specter showed up.
Cook, Roberts, and Bybee each received a vote, but not before Leahy repeated Kennedy's objections to each, and Hatch had to overrule them to proceed. In the end, Cook was approved 13-2 with several Democrats passing or voting present. Roberts was approved 14-3 with passes and presents, and Bybee 12-6 with the same. That they received some Democrat votes in the end isn't surprising; they're highly qualified nominees and a yes vote in committee can be used to claim that Democrats are being reasonable. After years of delay, of course.
Now, Democrats purport to be furious over Hatch's ruling from the chair. Minority Leader Tom Daschle took to the floor yesterday afternoon to complain about high-handedness and a lack of respect for the minority. But Hatch did the right thing.
Yesterday's attempt to block a vote was nothing less than an attempt to filibuster in committee. Hatch gave the Democrats plenty of time to speak on the nominations, and the committee is under no obligation to sit around waiting for members who decide they would rather do something else than take advantage of the opportunity to debate. He consulted with the parliamentarians to make certain he was acting within his legitimate
authority, and he went ahead with the vote he'd scheduled to take place weeks ago.
Committee Democrats dislike President Bush. They may want to block every one of his court of appeals nominations that they refused to act on over the last two years. They may even be frustrated by the American people's decision to hand control of the Senate back to Republicans. But that is no justification for filibustering nominees on the floor or in committee, and when they decide to go to extremes, it's only reasonable for Republicans to defend their right to bring nominees to an up-or-down vote.
In fact, yesterday's attempt to filibuster in committee is part of a pattern. The unjustified filibuster against Miguel Estrada on the floor demonstrates their willingness to target even the most highly qualified and unobjectionable nominees.
Roberts, targeted in committee yesterday, is one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. Cook is a well-respected justice on the Ohio Supreme Court. Bybee is a government attorney who is more than qualified for the bench. And there are many more nominees who are equally qualified -- and whom liberals are equally willing to oppose.
Most, if not all, of these nominees have the votes on the floor for confirmation; Miguel Estrada certainly has more than enough. When the Left can't make a persuasive case against a nominee, filibustering is now the weapon of choice.
Whether facing a filibuster on the floor or in committee, Republicans have an obligation to use every tool at their disposal if they are serious about confirming President Bush's nominees.
Hatch made the right decision, and even if he cannot yet bring Estrada to a floor vote, it's refreshing to see three other filibuster attempts brought to a quick end.
( John Nowacki is Director of Legal Policy at the Free Congress Foundation.)
Free Congress Foundation
\kerning0
\s1\sb100\sa100\b
\kerning0
Ted Kennedy's Grand Design
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 27, 2003; Author: Robert D. NovakLinda Chavez: Republicans Need To Call Dems' Bluff On Estrada Nomination
Source: CNSNES.com; Published: February 26, 2003; Author Linda ChavezSenate Democrats Can't Get Their Facts Straight
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: February 14, 2003; Author: John NowackiLeahy’s Surprise Attack
Source: National Review Online; Published: October 9, 2002; Author: Byron YorkShedded by Judiciary: Senate Democrats cast off another appointee
Source: Wall St Journal; Published: October 9, 2002Miguel Estrada May be Next Victim Of Judiciary's 'Gang Of Ten'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: September 09, 2002; Author: Paul M. WeyrichToward Priscilla Owen, Not Even The Pretense Of Fairness
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: August 01, 2002; Author: John NowackiThe Owen Nomination: Liberals Don't Let Truth Stand In Their Way
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: July 18, 2002; Author: John NowackiDemocrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Christine HallJudge The Senate Judiciary Committee Not By What It Says, But What It Has Done
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: | June 06, 2002; Author: John NowackiThe Left Keeps Trying -- And Failing -- To Smear Brooks Smith
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: John NowackiPickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002; Author: Jeff JohnsonMake them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002; Author: David LimbaughThe GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002; Author: Byron YorkPickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002; Author: Mort KondrackeStill Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002; Author: John NowackiDismantling 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. ScatesDemocrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002; Susan JonesThe Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002; Author:Byron YorkSYMPOSIUM 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 temperamentWhat is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002; Author: Thomas L. JippingBlasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002; Matt PyeattJudicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001; Author: Thomas L. JippingSenator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001; Author: By John NowackiSenator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001; Author: Rev. Louis P. SheldonA Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published December 3, 2001Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001; Author:EditorialSen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Paul E. ScatesJudicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001; Author: Audrey HudsonPatrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001; Author: William A. MayerJudicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001; Author: Thomas L. JippingPartisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001; Author: John NowackiLeahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Obedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001; Author: Thomas L. JippingWhy is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: October 26, 2001; Author: Mary MostertPat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: John NowackiOperation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: T.L.JippingDaschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001; Author: Dave BoyerLeahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001; Author: Tom JippingDems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Pretty soon, we kids are going to have had enough. We will begin to put Uncle Ted and his friend Patrick into some skilled care facility where psychologists and armies of drug dispensing LPN's can keep them sedated and doing something more appropriate for their stage of psychosis. Like fingerpainting and talking to Nantucket sailors, shouting out orders to "set sail", and "Swim Mary-Jo".
Leftist judges, be it noted, have been generous at awarding themselves the powers of the legislative branch, including the power to impose taxes. They appear to be aiming for a complete concentration of government power in their own, un-overrideable hands. The Left probably likes that idea very much.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Leftist judges, be it noted, have been generous at awarding themselves the powers of the legislative branch, including the power to impose taxes. They appear to be aiming for a complete concentration of government power in their own, un-overrideable hands. The Left probably likes that idea very much.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
While I would like (for spite) to see the President skip the whole advise and consent process for the next 6 years (every nomination is done during recess), I realize that might be too ugly. But if the President appoints hundreds of judges in one day, and then indicates that he won't do it again if the Senate sticks with its constitutionally-specified role, perhaps we can avoid future unpleasantness.
The Democrats are, effectively, changing the requirements for approval of judicial nominees. In the future, 60 votes will be needed, and that is almost an impossiblity in the Senate the way it is presently constituted. The Constitution does not provide for a minority in the Senate to stand in the way of a President's appointees.
Bush is so focused on this war that he doesn't see the rug being pulled out from underneath his judicial legacy.
Pay attention, George! Either put the pressure on these rats every day, or yield the floor to them for the next two years.
Because they covet power, they covet the un-democratic judiciary the most. Almost everything they've "accomplished" over the last 40 years has come through ramming it down the throat of the country through the Federal Court system. Abortion, busing, affirmative action, etc. If there was one more liberal vote on the SCOTUS, we'd have gay marriage tomorrow.
If they lose the courts, they're done. They'll go down with this ship, with all hands and guns blazing.
There's no negotiating with them on this one. They must be defeated.
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.