Replies

Clearly, Bush was given fully opportunity to exercise his powers to make the appointment during the recess but failed to act.

A recess appointment would have been temporary. Most judicial nominees wouldn't be interested in quitting their current jobs for a temp job.

You are so right! I keep hearing recess appointments bandied about on here and it is obvious that these folks have no knowledge of recess appointments. They are temporary not permanent appointments!

I think recess appointments should be used with caution and not used for judicial nominations that are contentious.

Whatever happened to the rational discourse with facts that used to be on this site? Seems more and more I am seeing people that don't like what happened, threatening not to vote. If Estrada decided to pull his nomination, what was President Bush supposed to do -- lock him up and demand he stay in the fight! Some things are not worth it to an individual to keep fighting for and this may have been one of those for Estrada.

I want to shout -- LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! Going into 2004, the fact that the DemocRATs defied the will of the majority in the Senate on judicial nominations can be used against those same DemocRATs.

What if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans were in the minority, and a DemocRAT President nominated a judge that they didn't want -- what do people on here think would happen? The very same thing!

But then I remember some of those great filibusters of the past where Republicans talked and talked for hours to hold up something they didn't like. Some of those fililbusters were funny -- loved to hear what Strom Thurmond had to say!