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)
And yet those of us who continually try to point out the continued falsehoods being posting on this forum are branded as "harpies," "mean-spirited," and "disruptors."
Not to me. What the Constitution ordains is that the appointment be a lifetime one where the president and the Senate agree on a candidate.
Total, unadulterated BS.
Next you'll be saying that YOUR posting on FR is what caused the whole thing.
Rush went with a story that was WRONG -- even Rush said HE was wrong; and now you're here trying to make it something that it isn't. As usual, you're willing to go to any exteme to make your point.
Totally bogus.
First of all, I am not in that camp.
Secondly, I was addressing your comment that there is good in printing false stories because of what people learn by rooting out the falsity. To that point I turned the question around as a personal hypothetical: would you feel the same way if the falsity was directed at you, because of what people would learn when the falsity was pointed out (if ever)?
I apologize if the hypothetical intent of the comment wasn't obvious. Reread post 171 and my reply and you'll see what I mean.
-PJ
Thank you; you proved MY point for me.
And yet YOU continue to post tripe like this:
and its clear to me that the Gop was going to cave until the outrage from Rush against the GOP was on his show for almost 2 hours yesterday and the calls started to pour in about the peoples outrage
Now, Rush said on the air EXACTLY what happened.
Why are YOU continuing to lie about it?
And therein is the reason so many have been discussing this issue with you, Todd.
It was a false story that the GOP was going to cave.
You admit on one thread that you understand that and say you were wrong.
And yet....on this thread you state the 'cave of the GOP' was real and only Rush and the outrage of the people stopped this cave.
Thank you....now we can stop trying to discuss this issue with you. You have made your position crystal clear.
Either you were dishonest when you stated you had been mistaken on the other thread....and earlier on this thread, or you are dishonest with the statement right here.
Which brings us full circle to questioning.....WHY?
Why don't you spend a little less time criticizing those of us who are interested in the truth being posted on this forum and spend a little time asking yourself what this particular poster continues to post LIES even in the face of the truth?
Maybe I'm being anal here (it won't be the first time), but is a filibuster not a filibuster until it is attempted to shut it off? The House has a cloture rule that automatically ends debate; the Senate has a cloture vote that allows for unlimited debate. Until someone tries to stop debate, it is just debate. Once an attempt to stop debate fails and debate continues, wouldn't that then become filibuster?
On point (2), if the Constitution's "advice and consent" language doesn't permit filibusters, then the filibuster of Abe Fortas in 1968 was unconstitutional. I've never heard anybody argue that.
I looked up Foras' brief bio on an on-line almanac site, and I think the differentiation is this: Fortas was already on the Supreme Court. The filibuster was on his appointment as Chief Justice.
-PJ
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.