Filibustering Priscilla Owen

New York Times ^ | April 17, 2003

[Chuckster]

Filibustering Priscilla Owen

Senators opposing Priscilla Owen, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, are considering a filibuster to head off her confirmation vote. Filibusters are an extreme measure in which a minority of senators block an issue from being voted on. But the system for picking judges, which should be a relatively nonpartisan effort to seat jurists who reflect broad American values, has broken down. Filibustering Judge Owen's confirmation would send the Bush administration two important messages: the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's role.

[Mat_Helm]

The New York Times and ABCNNBCBS are still behaving badly and twisting and lieing to everyone in munchkinland and if they continue to distort the truth throughout the greator land of Ozz, somebody just might drop a HOUSE ON THEM TOO and take those ruby red slippers!!!!!!!!

[syriacus]

Sore_{Senate 2003}

LoserDems

[Theodore R.]

Well, the Democrats did get the message. Because it takes 60 votes to shut off a filibuster, and the Republicans have only 51 votes (and some of those are unreliable), the Democrats consider themselves in "moral" control of the Senate by at least 9 votes! That's the way liberals like Hillary Rodham Clinton think. It is Daschle, not Bush, who is still setting the domestic agenda.

[princess leah]

Frist needs to wait until those 4 dem senators are out on the campaign trail and then bring up the Owens nomination!

[Theodore R.]

It's Priscilla OWEN, and Frist is much too gentlemanly to do anything that the Democrats would brand as "sneaky." Besides, once the Democrats figured out what was happening, they would fly in for the vote. The problem lies with voters from mostly conservative states who repeatedly chose liberal Democrat senators or moderate Republican senators.

[votelife]

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.

[Chuckster]

well said.