Louisiana Representatives To U.S. Senate: Stop Obstructing the Estrada Nomination

Louisiana House of Representatives passes resolution requesting U.S. Senate to allow Estrada vote.

WASHINGTON - On April 22, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed House Resolution 29, a resolution demonstrating that state's strong support of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Estrada is President Bush's nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals based in Washington, D.C. His nomination has been held up for well over a year.

Since Feb. 6th, the Senate has spent nearly 100 hours debating the Estrada nomination. The anti-Estrada obstructionism comes at a time when the country is wrapping up a war and the economy is slumping. Meanwhile, the Senate cannot go about its daily work until the filibuster is either defeated by a vote to end floor debate or the nomination is pulled.

"Senate Democrats have undertaken a style of raw, vile, snake pit politics at its worst," said taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist, "and all at a time when the United States is on the verge of a two-front war against terrorism and Saddam Hussein - not to mention that the economy is in the doldrums." Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the nation's leading taxpayer advocacy organization, and a critic of the politicization of the judicial nomination process.

On Feb. 18th, The Washington Post called on Senate Democrats to "Stop These Games and Vote," and even Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), the leader of the filibuster, is on record supporting up-or-down votes on judicial nominees during the Clinton administration (Congressional Record, 10/5/99).

"The Louisiana House has it right," continued Norquist, "This vote is just one more example of the strong support for Miguel Estrada across the country. If the obstructionist Senators are not listening to their people, who are they listening to? It is time for them to choose between their voters and the Washington special interests."

The filibuster, as applied to the confirmation process most recently, is a violation of the Senators Oath of Office and the Constitution.

US Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > ... I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

US Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & ...

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

Senate Is to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay The Framers Envisioned A Narrow Role for The Senate in The Confirmation Process.

Senate Democrats have undertaken a style of raw, vile, snake pit politics at its worst," said taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist, "and all at a time when the United States is on the verge of a two-front war against terrorism and Saddam Hussein - not to mention that the economy is in the doldrums

Let's ask what Bubba, the NY cellulite-legged senator, Dashole, Kennedy, Boxer,etc would do if they had the majority in Congress & their person was held up by the minority? That president would be on TV exploding UNTIL THEY GOT THEIR GOALS ACHIEVED! But this ONLY works in this "TWO-PARTY CARTEL" when it is CONSERVATIVISM that loses. And don't for one second think that this is just happenstance. The puppetiers of this bought & paid for Congress has NO intentions of making this country conservative. So keep voting the same & get the same results.

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.