ESTRADA Live Thread- 3/06/03

I don't think that would work, because in order for the amendment to be voted on, you would need unanimous consent to bring it to a vote, correct?

That doesn't make sense. If you have Unanimous Consent, there would be no need to vote, and any senator that wanted to hide from a vote, could merely object.

Do you think there would have been a cloture vote.

The obstacle to rules change is the Percentage it takes (2/3 of those PRESENT and Voting)....Not unanimous Consent.

From what I understand, unanimous consent is not a voting procedure, per se, but a motion made to move a procedure along. IOW, here's how I think things like this have to be done:
First you have a senator(s) bring a bill or rule change forward for consideration. Then there is debate on the merits of it. Then, when everyone has discussed it to their satisfaction, and knows how they want to vote, they ask for unanimous consent to move to the vote. If even one senator isn't ready to stop discussing it, they just object to the motion to move to the vote (so you no longer have unanimous consent.) That's what the democrats are doing with the Estrada nomination. They just keep objecting to moving to the vote on the issue.

The only way to FORCE the senate to move anything to a vote is to invoke cloture. That takes 3/5 of the entire senate (it used to be 2/3 of the senators present and voting, that's how the old-style 7/24 filibusters used to be, you had to keep your entire caucus present for the entire discussion)

This procedure would also have to be used for a rules change. As long as one democrat was present to object to the unanimous consent motion to move to the vote, it couldn't happen, except by invoking cloture, hereby insituting the 48 hour rule. The only difference is when you finally were able to move the issue to a vote, the vote itself would just need 2/3 of those present to approve the acutal rule change. The Estrada nomination only takes a simple majority to approve, however, we are unable to get the motion to stop debate and move to the vote approved...........YET

Clear as mud???

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.

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.

C-SPAN