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.

[Chuckster]

Apparently, the Dims in the Senate did not get the message last November.

[Paleo Conservative]

Apparently, the Dims in the Senate did not get the message last November.

I guess we'll just have to send a louder on in November 2004.

[AMNZ]

Hey, the RINO's have let the dim's get away with that on Estrada. Why would they change about the only thing that's working for them. I had hoped for a little more hudspah(sp?) from the Senate's new leader. Doesn't appear to be happening.

[votelife]

bob graham is travelling the country for himself, but he won't take the time to address the Senate judicial quaigmire. Owens is qualified. Estrada is qualified. I guess blocking conservatives is all the Dems can do. Well let's let the Dem's and Bob Graham know that we care more about America than the Dem party!

Check out this Pro-Estrada editorial in the Miami Herald (Graham's hometown!)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/5301721.htm

Bob Graham, ESTRADA deserves a VOTE!!!

Email Senator Bob Graham -- http://www.senate.gov/~graham/email.html

Write Bob Graham 524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Call Bob Graham Phone (202) 224-3041 --

Fax Bob Graham Fax (202) 224-2237

Just do it now!

[Argus]

The filibuster may have been "an extreme measure" when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, but now that they're not it's their preferred way of blocking business. They're filibustering everything, including a bill that just passed the House to limit frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The party of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer doesn't just need to be defeated - it needs to be destroyed.

[spokeshave]

If they have two fillibusters going does that mean they read from two phone books.....?

[votelife]

from the article: "But the Senate has been right to use it against the nomination of Miguel Estrada, who is HIDING his views on legal issues. It should do the same to stop the once-REJECTED Judge Owen, and tell EXTREME conservatives in the Bush administration to stop trying to HIJACK the federal judiciary."

How extremely biased can this paper get?
Did the Times EVER use words like this when Clinton was POTUS? Hijack? This woman got like 80% of the vote in Texas. I guess democracy is only good for the times when it produces liberal results. REJECTED? sure, on a straight party line vote enforced by the abortion squad.

NEVER BUY THE NY TIMES PAPER!

[TomGuy]

I guess we'll just have to send a louder on in November 2004.

The Republicans won't gain enough even then. They'd have to gain something like 9 seats. After all, the Republicans can't control unless they have a 60 majority, while the Democrats can control with a 41 minority.

The Dems are in control of the Senate, because the Republicans don't have the cajones to cram the Estrada filibuster down their throats and make them fear trying to filibuster Owens...then Pickering...

[votelife]

If the Repubs can get to 55-57 there will be a LOT more pressure on the "moderate" Dems to be more flexible with Bush. ie, we get our judges.

[Political Junkie Too]

But the system for picking judges... has broken down.

The "system" for picking judges is a relatively simple one: the President chooses. The "system" for confirming judges is a bit more complicated, and that is what is broken.

-PJ

[marktwain]

But the system for picking judges, which should be a relatively nonpartisan effort to seat jurists who reflect broad American values, has broken down.

Translation: We haven't been able to force the elected representative of the American People to put in the activist judges that will continue to gut the Constitution. Therefore, we will justify any action to prevent judges with integrity from being placed on the Court.

[votelife]

Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada and Owen, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847037/posts

[Mr.Atos]

"...the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's role."

Now this is an interesting observation on the part of the New York Times. We don't even have to read between the lines to dissect this bit of objectivity. So, anyone who adopts an idea and stands by it to the degree that they could be considered to maintain values and have integrity is considered, by the left, to be an 'ideologue,' and should therefore be excluded from holding office. Well, why don't we just staff Congress with Monkeys and a dart board?

1. It is the responsibility of the President, as framed by the Constitution, to appoint qualified judicial nominees consistent with the vision that he has for the nation's continued vitality. That is one of the things that we elect him to do.

2. It is not, as clearly outlined by the Constitution, the 'role' of Congress to be an ideological filter for the Presidents appointments. They have NO role in this regard except to ensure that a nominee is qualified for the position.

[Henrietta]

Gee, isn't it the Demo-rat presidents who have packed the court with ideologues? Since when is upholding the Constitution a dirty act?

[votelife]

bob graham is travelling the country for himself, but he won't take the time to address the Senate judicial quaigmire.

Check out this Pro-Estrada editorial in the Miami Herald (Graham's hometown!)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/5301721.htm

Bob Graham, ESTRADA deserves a VOTE!!!

Email Senator Bob Graham -- http://www.senate.gov/~graham/email.html

Write Bob Graham 524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Call Bob Graham Phone (202) 224-3041 --

Fax Bob Graham Fax (202) 224-2237

Just do it now!

[Pharlap]

Note that the NYT editorial says "the SENATE has been right to use [the filibuster] against the nomination of Miguel Estrada." (Emphasis added) This statement is a total distortion. If the Senate opposed (rather than a minority of senate Democrats) the nomination there would be no need for a filibuster. There simply would be a vote and the nomination would be defeated. It is precisely because the SENATE does not oppose the nomination that the Democrat minority has launched a filibuster.

[Mister Baredog]

Apparently, the Dims in the Senate did not get the message last November.

The "message" they seem to have gotten is that they cooperated too much with BUSH and they better cut it out. I think they got the WRONG message, but who am I to tell them anything.

[mabelkitty]

The Pope better make sure the Bishops got the memo.

More Democratic Senators pushing pro-abortion.

All you Catholics should call your Dioceses and tell on them.

[votelife]

good point, the article should say, the liberal Democrat Senate leadership has chosen to filibuster (and force other Dems to go along)

If the paper had integrity, they would write it that way!

[garyhope]

"Gee, isn't it the Demo-rat presidents who have packed the court with ideologues?"

Yes, but those are left wing (I just typoed this as "left wind") ideologues and Babs and Ms. Sarandon said that's OK with them. It's just us VRWC members who should go get screwed.