Novak claims GOP about to give up on Estrada

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 20, 2003 | Robert Novak

[Oldie]

Senate Republicans are tiring of the battle to confirm contested judicial nominees, indicating that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's Democratic plan to prevent President Bush from shaping the federal judiciary is succeeding.

Weekly meetings of Republican senators produce increased grumbling. The senators ask the White House and the Republican leadership why they should keep fighting to confirm as appellate judges Washington, D.C., lawyer Miguel Estrada and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. Not only liberal GOP senators but also some old guard committee chairmen claim this fight is neither important nor politically prudent.

Kennedy's unprecedented plan to block Bush's judicial selections always has been based on the theory that Republican senators soon would tire of the struggle.

[Oldie]

There have been a few threads here on the Estrada nomination and on wheather, or not, a 24/7 filibuster would be enforced ... I sure hope that Novak is wrong on this, but I fear he may be exactly right.

[txzman]

Bush needs to get out front on this and stay there. He has been amazingly silent about Estrada and Owens, except for a few platitudes here and there.

This is as important as anything GW needs to accomplish during his term(s).

[the Real fifi]

He's wrong. Internal polls show the longer the fillibuster goes on, the worse the Dems are viewed in the polls of ALL the voters. They are viewed as more and more partisan and obstructionist.

[TLBSHOW]

First thread on this story.........

GOP tiring of judicial confirmation battles

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896538/posts?page=

Happy Easter!

[xrp]

Especially since Estrada is of Honduran origin, the Democrats are obviously RACIST.

[Wphile]

Looks like the Senate GOP is going wobbly. Gee, what a surprise.

I hate the Senate.

[pupdog]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment. I see one and only one good reason to drop this: the Dems can only play this card once. If the GOP lets Estrada go, and the Dems pull this again, they'll reveal their hand so badly that not even the mainstream media will be able to gloss it over. Each new filibuster will be followed with a line about the "second filibuster in X months". It'll make them look abysmally bad.

That said, I still think Bush should push on this one. With the war over more attention can be focused on this, and it's a great opportunity to highlight every day how obstructionist they're being. But if Bush decides to fold, I don't think all is lost, however frustrating it will be at the time to see that.

[w_over_w]

I sure hope that Novak is wrong on this, but I fear he may be exactly right.

When I read that this was a Novak perspective, I was relieved. There have been too many conclusions by him that were reactionary hot air. Had this been a Fred Barnes, David Dryer, Newt Gingrich (or any number of real conservative insiders) I would give it more credence.

[TLBSHOW]

Democrats are obviously RACIST.


that is a given fact

[Astronaut]

The logic seems to be that the GOP will get mileage out of this with Hispanic voters in 2004 (ie) the democrats will be seen as 'racist' and 'anti-hispanic' because they continue to obstruct on Estrada. I sure hope thats true, but I have my doubts. Blacks seem to march lockstep with the democrats, and I hope hispanic voters aren't inclined to do the same. It would be a shame if "the swimmer's" strategy prevails.

[San Jacinto]

Novak cites no source at all. He does not even refer to "Senate staffers", or whatever.

I won't give this any credibility whatsoever until there is some public confirmation. I fully expect Frist to keep this in front of the Senate.

[capt. norm]

The major problem is the news media. As long as the liberal media can keep this off the radar screen of the typical voter, it wll remain painless to the Democrats.

The Republicans should do like the libs do and and constantly bring this up.

We all know that if the situation were reversed, Daschle, Gephart, Pelosi and the whole gang would be talking about it every time they got near a microphone.

[Starrgaizr]

GOP did not try to enforce a 24/7. The "gentleman's fillibuster" is a gift of a veto to the minority. Newt Gingrich learned the hard way that shutting down the government got attention in a big way. The press simply blamed him. With Bush's credibility at a high point, shutting down the senate with the president publicly blaming the dems every day will work. But only if they do it.

[TLBSHOW]

May 4, 2002


Bush rails at Democrats
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


President Bush yesterday chastised the Democrat-controlled Senate for dragging its feet on judicial appointments, saying political posturing is "endangering the administration of justice in America." Top Stories





"I have nominated 100 outstanding jurists for these posts. But the Senate, thus far, has not done its part to ensure that our federal courts operate at full strength. Justice is at risk in America, and the Senate must act for the good of the country," the president said in a speech to commemorate national Law Day.

"By its inaction the Senate is endangering the administration of justice in America. I call on Senate Democrats to end the vacancy crisis in our federal courts by restoring fairness to the judicial confirmation process," Mr. Bush said.

[secret garden]

This would be a huge mistake, don't you think?

[bushfamfan]

Republicans obviously don't have any fight, but the thing is they obviously could care less about the fact they are so willing to give up so easily to Demonrats and in the process are damaging this country with allowing the Demonrats charades to continue on like this. And then you've got that group of individuals that is incapable of rising above rhetoric and joins the Demonrats class warfare propaganda. This continues to show why it is useless to even support Republicans because they are so spineless so the Demonrats win at the end of the day and it's going to get worse and worse. Funny how the Republicans can be considered so strong on national defense and yet are so weak on the home front in fighting for this country. I hate their lack of principles and lack of conscious in these issues.

[gcruse]

Ain't it amazing what a difference a change of leadership and Senate makeup didn't make? If Bush's coattails in 2004 sweep in a majority Rep Senate, watch them be afraid to use it.

[TLBSHOW]

Democrats Use Three -Pronged Attack on Bush Judges


If the liberals’ national strategy is about the number of Bush judges, their regional strategy is about the kind of Bush judges. Urged on by their leftist constituencies, Senate Democrats are busy changing the traditional confirmation rules by holding Bush nominees hostage until the President nominates others more to the Democrats’ liking.

In the past, senators have blocked nominees to positions in their own states. This step is at least confined to the confirmation phase of the process, which the Constitution assigns to the Senate. The new strategy goes beyond opposition to existing nominees by attempting to leverage new ones. This step tries to manipulate the nomination phase of the process, which the Constitution assigns to the President.

One example involves the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in the Midwest. At the urging of Michigan Democratic Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, the Judiciary Committee is refusing to hold hearings on seven Bush nominees to positions throughout the circuit. These senators do not oppose these nominees, but demand that President Bush offer judicial nominations to liberal former Clinton nominees whom the Senate chose not to confirm.

The third strategy is personal and involves defeating individual nominees by creating false caricatures. First used against Robert Bork in 1987, then against Clarence Thomas in 1991, this tactic was recently used to defeat the appeals court nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering. It involves distorting, even lying, about a nominee’s record and the nominee himself. Judge Pickering was only the fifth judicial nominee in 60 years defeated in the Judiciary Committee, before the full Senate even had a chance to vote.

Each of these strategies—national, regional, and personal—contributes to the far-left’s goal of hi-jacking the judiciary. Each is based on the left’s view that the judiciary should run the country and define the culture. Since, in their politicized judicial world, judges should make law, the big question is what law those judges would make, who would win and lose in their decisions, especially on issues such as abortion.

That’s what the talk about using "ideology" in the confirmation process is all about. Democrats increasingly apply political litmus tests in evaluating nominees, demanding to know how nominees are likely to decide future cases on their pet issues. They cloak this attack on judicial independence in warm-and-fuzzy words such as "commitment to constitutional values." What they really want are nominees committed to the far-left political agenda.

This assault requires a comprehensive response. First, the Bush Administration and its Senate and grassroots allies must expose what this is really all about. The battle over judicial appointments is not about this or that political issue, but about freedom itself. The freedom of the people to choose policies on important issues and to define the culture is at stake.

Second, the response requires sustained, clearly visible presidential and Senate leadership. The Bush administration is making strides here, with President Bush raising the issue publicly, meeting with nominees and their supporters, and working more closely with the Senate and grassroots activists. Vice President Cheney is also speaking out, most recently at the April 8 groundbreaking for a federal courthouse annex.

The Pickering defeat told Senate Republicans they must make the judiciary a higher priority, factoring it into legislative strategies and holding media events, such as the rally on April 10 supporting appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada.

Third, grassroots activists must understand that the kind of judges on the bench determines the chances for success of any other legislative or cultural endeavor. No group’s agenda is safe from an activist judiciary. Thus, no matter what any individual or group’s particular political priority, it must promote the kind of judicial appointments President Bush has promised—those who do not try to make law and define the culture.

Finally, re-balancing the judiciary requires electing a Senate committed to this goal. Former presidential candidate Bob Dole said in 1996 that a President’s "most profound legacy" is the judges he appoints. Senate Democrats’ unprecedented unity and ferocity on this issue show that they and their core constituencies understand this truth. President Bush’ judicial legacy will respect democracy and allow the people to define the culture. That is a legacy of freedom.


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/04-15-02/jipping.htm

[GiveEmDubya]

24/7 filibusters were outlawed by Senate rules not too long ago, and I really would have preferred the rule stayed. At least they were remotely fun. This one in particular would have been fun--watching the Democrats suffer and such.

Frist really has got to get some backbone. He needs to start kicking some behinds into line and doing it fast.

[deport]

24/7 filibusters were outlawed by Senate rules not too long ago,

---

Can you link the rule that did this?