Posted on 02/13/2003 11:51:59 AM PST by kattracks
Last night, Sen. Orrin Hatch, with over a quarter-century experience on the Senate Judiciary Committee, ripped into the Democrats for filibustering to block a vote on President Bush's judicial nominee to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C., Miguel Estrada.
First, Hatch fired this salvo at Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who accused President Bush of acting like a child on a playground: "I have been listening to this day after day after day. It is clear this is a game. It is a bad game. If they don't like the answers Mr. Estrada has given, vote against him. That is the remedy here. Don't filibuster. Vote against him. Talk against him, like we have had plenty of. Then you have an absolute right to vote against him if you want to."
He also said that blocking Estrada's nomination smacked of racism. Hatch snapped, "It is hypocritical. It is wrong. It is unfair. It is establishing a precedent that could hurt this country immeasurably. ... To do it against the first Hispanic nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is particularly reprehensible, especially since he has every qualification a person needs to fulfill this responsibility. How far do we go with these ridiculous arguments, these unfair arguments, these discriminatory and prejudicial arguments, against a person who has every qualification to be on this court?"
Where the Democratic petition to the solicitor general is concerned, the senator from Utah accused the Democrats of stalling the nomination with frivolous paperwork. (The Democrats were arguing that Estrada had not answered their questions at the Democrat-controlled hearing, so they now need his confidential papers from his time at the solicitor general's office to find out what his opinions are on various subjects.)
Hatch remarked caustically: "Some of the arguments we have had around here are ridiculous. ... I have seen some unfair things here from time to time ... but I have never seen anything more unfair than what is happening here, with senators hiding behind this, I think, phony request for documents. They know they should not have a right to ... documents of recommendations of employees in the solicitor general's office concerning appeals ... and briefs. This is one of the phoniest excuses I have ever heard. Keep in mind, four of their former solicitors general, Democrat solicitors general, are on Miguel Estrada's side. And three of them reviewed every one of those documents. That is not good enough for them??
Hatch ripped the request for Estrada's papers further, accusing the Democrats of having prejudicial double standards: "This is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard on the floor of the Senate. And it is all done for political purposes," he said, because Estrada is a Republican, "which is very tough for them [the Democrats] to take."
He added, "There is nothing more than prejudice going on here; nothing more than unfairness going on here; nothing more than a double standard going on here; nothing more than trying to trip up the president of the United States and make his life even more miserable than it is every day with North Korea, with Iraq, with all the other problems we have in this world."
He did not stop there: "What gets me is we are in the middle of a filibuster of a federal judge, when the Constitution says we should give advice and consent, not advice and obstruction, not advice and a filibuster, not advice and unfairness.
"I have to admit there were some on our side who treated President Clinton in a shabby fashion. [But] I will tell you one thing: We never, ever filibustered a Clinton nominee, not once."
Hatch even pleaded with his compatriots on the other side of the aisle: "I have to say I care a great deal for all of my colleagues in this body. These are 100 of the greatest people on Earth. I care for my colleagues on the Democratic side. But where are they? Why aren't they telling us why? Why don't they give us a reason that is a good reason for being against Miguel Estrada, with all of the qualifications he has? Why couldn't they treat us the way they wanted us to treat their circuit court nominees, which I made sure we treated right? Why can't they be decent to this Hispanic nominee, the first ever nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, one of the most important courts?"
The Judiciary Committee chairman then floated these questions, which are the subject of many talk shows around the country: "Why is it that senators from the Democrat side get on the floor and act as if, because a person is conservative, that person is not going to do what is right under the law; that person is not going to make sure the law is fulfilled; that person is not going to make sure the principle of stare decisis or prior precedent is followed? Why is it they think only liberal ideas are any good?"
Indeed, why?
In summation, he had this to say to his colleagues: "I have been on the Judiciary Committee ... 27 years now. There are very few who you would rate at the level with Miguel Estrada. Every Hispanic in this country ought to be proud of it. I am calling on every Hispanic in the country, whether Democrat, Independent, Republican, whether you are liberal, moderate or conservative, you better start calling the Democrats and let them know this is not fair, this is not right. It is abysmal. Some would say abominable."
Indeed, it is.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
DNC
Ohfercryinoutloud, Orrin......... just grow up would ya? Jeez............
They don't like you. They never have. They hate everything you stand for. They have played you for a chump for decades. They despise All Things Conservative. If you don't "think" as they do, if you don't subscribe to the proper groupthink, then you are beneath contempt and there are no holds barred in their play book.
How come someone like me knows this and I've never served a day in the U.S. Senate, Orrin? Quit being a chump. Grow a set and learn the fine art of "brass knuckles".
Still is, it's called the Democrat Party of Merdemont.
I was just remarking that Hatch was using poetic license when he was saying there were 100 honorable guyes there.
No reflection on Hatch. It is just their way of addressing the rest, whether honorable or not. Several are not.
Now, WHERE WERE these "explosions" when we needed them in the past?
I think he's been constipated and should "explode" a little more regularly around there..
Below is an obviously liberal opinion, but it shows that both sides are playing games with a vital process, and endangering our democratic society.
Excerpt:
"If we deny Mr. Estrada the position on the D.C. Circuit, it would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in January. Last year, Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi said of the Democrats: "They don't want Miguel Estrada because he's Hispanic."
Never mind that eight of the 10 Hispanic appellate judges were appointed by Clinton. And never mind that Republicans had no problem blocking such Hispanic Clinton nominees as Enrique Moreno, Jorge Rangel and Christine Arguello."
That's untrue.
"Consider these statistics, gathered by the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are 13 circuits: 11 regional plus the D.C. Circuit and the federal court that handles specialized cases. If all of Clinton's nominees had been approved, the circuits would have been evenly balanced in partisan terms by the time he left office. Six would have had majorities appointed by Democratic presidents, six by Republicans, and one would have been evenly split.
But if Bush succeeds in filling every open seat, some of them vacant because Clinton nominees were blocked, 11 of the 13 circuits will have Republican-appointed majorities. In eight of the 13, Republican nominees would have majorities of 2 to 1 or more."
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.