White House to Schumer: You’re Wrong. The White House defends Miguel Estrada — again

NRO ^ | 2/25/2003 | Alberto Gonzales, The White House

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The RATS filibuster of Mr. Estrada demonstrates the same political tin-ear on display at the Wellstone "memorial". While the nation ponders war and peace, they are blocking the nomination of a well qualified jurist for partisan political reasons.

[MeekOneGOP]

Somebody send a copy of this to the WSJ. Love to see it printed on their editorial page.

Here is the e-mail I sent to EIGHT folks at the WSJ and Barron's, along with a copy of the text in the posted article here:

Please note the letter below was sent to Chuck Schumer by the White House Counsel. Can you print this and comment about the letter in your Opinion Column please? Thank you.

Sincerely,

It can't hurt, and hopefully it will get some coverage now...

[anniegetyourgun]

I don't think he would have to do something that EXTREME (and abortion is nothing if not extreme). In fact, he might even turn a few more D heads if he would simply criticize the President's tax cut plan, war efforts, or intelligence.

[Tunehead54]

Indeed, in 1998, Senator Leahy stated: "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators." 144 Cong. Rec. S6522 (June 18, 1998).

---

Is this the same guy running the judiciary committee til this year that denied Owens and Pickering even a chance for a floor vote?

If so, this quote makes him look a little hypocritical.

[Dog Gone]

Excellent. I'd like to see BOTH Estrada and Gonzalez on the bench.

[TontoKowalski]

There's a morning tack-on post to yesterday's Live Thread that talks about Zell Miller in the WashTimes this morning, saying that Dimocrat resistance was all political, caused by special interests.

Of course, we all knew that, but it's a rather stunning admission, coming from a dem, even a "moderate" dem.

Unable to find the article; have any of you seen it?

[TontoKowalski]

Found it: From article Fillibuster Support ebbs on Estrada, Washington Times, 2/19/03, posted, of course, on Free Republic under title of article.

Mr. Miller said his party's opposition to Mr. Estrada is "all political" and can be attributed to pressure from outside interest groups.

"The groups run everything around here," the conservative Democrat said Monday.

[Dog Gone]

Miller is obviously a Democrat, but he's one of the few who put country before party.

[Elkiejg]

Sent this letter to Neal Boortz, Rush and Sean. Hope they will talk about it on their radio shows.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks for the ping, Utah Girl. Great letter. Our Sen. Nelson finally made a public statement in support of Miguel. We're still working on Bob Graham.

Have you noticed that even the Democratic Senate office workers sound embarrassed about this? Keep calling. (^:

[Utah Girl]

Yes, I called my honorary Democrat senators today: Lieberman and Dodd and expressed my concerns again. I'm going to Massachusetts next week for a couple of months; Kennedy and someone else will be my honorary Senators. Oh goody. I also call my real senators, Hatch and Bennett and praise them for the great job they are doing in regards to the Estrada debate.

[votelife]

bump for Estrada

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