Posted on 02/15/2003 4:51:15 AM PST by conservativecorner
recess(CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist Friday announced that the Senate will recess for the President's Day holiday instead of forcing a vote on the judicial nomination of Miguel Estrada.
Speaking at a Capitol Hill news conference Friday, Frist said he will try to force a vote on the nomination of Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals after the recess is over and the Senate reconvenes.
The decision to recess the Senate without a vote contradicts what Frist said earlier this week. "We'll stay as late as they would like tonight and tomorrow night," Frist said Wednesday, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. "My expectation is that by the end of this week, and before our recess, and possibly into our recess, we expect what all American people expect and deserve; an up-or-down vote on this outstanding candidate."
Democrats have said they will filibuster the vote on Estrada who, in their view, is reticent about his views and under-qualified. Democrats have said they have the votes necessary to block cloture, which normally ends debate in the Senate and leads to a floor vote on any given issue.
Frist said if "judges are going to be filibustered, not based on qualifications, but...partisan politics, it sets a bad precedent for this Congress and future Congresses.
"I'm willing to be patient to give the Democrats the opportunity to make their case before the American people," said Frist. But, he warned, "I'm willing to stay on this Estrada nomination as long as it takes" to get the full Senate to vote on it.
Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, expressed frustration with court vacancies, many of which have been prolonged by partisan wrangling.
"This is like Groundhog Day every day around here, with everyone getting up and saying the same thing," said Allen, referring to the 1993 movie in which characters repeatedly wake up to the same day. The Senate has been at loggerheads over the nomination since it was brought up eight days ago.
"There are 12 judges allocated to this court (the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals); a third of them are unfilled," said Allen. "What you have is justice delayed, which means justice is denied."
But Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) insisted that it's answers, not more debate, that's needed.
"We don't need more time to debate Mr. Estrada's nomination," said Daschle on Feb. 13. "We need answers from Mr. Estrada. Without those answers, debate is hollow because we lack the basic information we need to make an informed judgment about Mr. Estrada's fitness."
Estrada has not offered specific answers to questions about ideology, saying that doing so could place him in the position of "prejudging" any issue that may come before him in court and would run counter to his "view of the judicial function."
I didn't suggest anything as far as I know, I'm just trying to figure this out. For the record, I'm not used to being on the same side as TLBSHOW but I do have to say that I am not happy with Frist's backpedaling.
I've read this entire thread, and I think many here are missing a very important issue: the Dems are trying to turn the filibuster into a weapon with which to change the Senate's traditional process of confirming judicial nominees. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Did not Orrin Hatch state that there has never _been_ a filibuster of a judicial nominee in the history of the Senate? I seem to recall reading that in another thread.
Currently, it takes a majority vote of 51 Senators (or, in the case of a 50/50 tie, the vote of 50 Senators plus the Vice President) to confirm a judicial nominee.
However, if the procedural precedent is established that it is acceptable Senate policy to filibuster a judicial nominee, that 51-vote majority is replaced by a 61-vote SUPERmajority - the number of votes needed to force cloture and to _end_ the filibuster.
This will guarantee that -- at any time in the future -- the opposition party will be able to override the principal of "majority vote" regarding judicial appointments by going to filibuster. Whenever there is doubt that votes for a controversial nominee might not reach the "magic number" of 61, the opposition will have in hand the tool with which to defeat it, or at least to seriously endanger it by tossing the filibusterial monkey-wrench.
In view of this, the Democrats' attempt to Shanghai the confirmation process must be met with a strong, decisive, precedent-setting counterpunch by the Bush administration in cooperation with the Senate Republican leadership.
But -- how to respond? How to deflate the Democrats' balloon, not only this time, but once and for all? How to stop "judicial filibustering" dead in its tracks?
The counter-weapon exists: it's called "recess appointment".
True, a recess appointment is "temporary" by design and intent. But, once so "appointed", what followup action must the Senate take? A simple "yea" or "nea" vote to confirm at the end of the recess appointment? If so, that will be by a 51-vote "majority", is that correct?
If that is the case, then _any_ attempt to block a judicial confirmation through a filibuster will be rendered pointless. And the Democrat's new weapon will have been de-fanged at the outset, transformed into a paper tiger without teeth. So you want to filibuster our next nominee? Do that, and we'll still force a simple majority vote, bypassing your threatened filibuster with a recess appointment at the earliest opportunity.
Granted, this is uncharted territory, not without some peril. But it is imperative that measures be taken _now_ to thwart the Dems' attempt to establish this new Senatorial precedent. Once established, it _will_ be used against us, again, and again, and again.
For this reason, I think the Bush administration's best move at this point would be to appoint Mr. Estrada to his new position during the current recess. Yes, there will be a [short-lived] "firestorm" of protest from the Democrats and the left-leaning press (bring it on, Mr. Dershowitz!). But the Republicans will have properly "returned fire" across the Democrats' bow: that desperate measures to subvert Constitutional process will be met with strong countermeasures to _preserve_ that process.
If I recall, Clarence Thomas won confirmation with a majority of 53 or 54 votes. Regardless of the high-tech lynching attempt the Democrats made of his confirmation, I doubt any Senators entertained the notion of simply filibustering his confirmation. How times have changed! Today, tactics that only 10 years ago seemed unthinkable or unacceptable are now fair game.
If they'd had the gaul to filibuster the Thomas confirmation, the Dems would have won, and we wouldn't have Justice Thomas on our side today. If we don't stop the Dems this time, we are putting into their hands the gun they will use to shoot down future Clarence Thomases, as well as Miguel Estrada and the like-minded conservative nominees that will come after him.
President Bush must appoint Miguel Estrada "in recess", at once aborting the current fillibuster, and ensuring that there will never be a Senatorial fillibuster of a judicial nominee again.
Cheers!
- John
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.