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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.