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
A primary moving force behind the filibuster is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy. So, just how does Mr. Leahy feel about filibustering judicial nominees? For that we only have to go to 144 Cong. Rec. S6522 (June 18, 1998):
"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."
I guess that was then, and this is now … right, Senator Leahy?
The 9th Circuit declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional last year. That is merely exemplar of the sort of "progress" this country faces on a routine basis if the Bush nominees are not approved.
Um...should someone tell cogitator that we've had Republican presidents in office for 23 of the last 35 years? And therefore a Republican majority of judicial appointees would parallel the free electoral choices of the American people.
I'm kind of curious why someone would be disturbed that the makeup of the federal judiciary would reflect national electoral results.
Excellent observation.
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.