SENATE ESTRADA FILIBUSTER (Live Thread)

[RobFromGa]

Senate Takes Up Estrada again-- 930am EST

Up Now...

C-SPAN2 Internet Link

[Political Junkie Too]

He [Lott] was used to being Dashle's Falstaff.

More like his Renfro.

-PJ

[glocker23]

That's what I was hoping was happening, but since Frist adjourned for the night doesn't that mean no new business can be done...i.e. bringing up a vote? Anybody else have any insight on this?

[RJayneJ]

What this is about is, whether he is pro-life. The Democrats challenge all Republican nominees for that and that alone if the truth be told.

[PhiKapMom]

That was our guess last night that this is all about what Estrada may have seen on the Clinton Crime Family and she is taking the RATs down in order to make sure these documents never see the light of day and wants to destroy Estrada in the process. She knows the SG cannot release them.

[RobFromGa]

From the Washington Times this morning:

---

February 27, 2003

Filibuster benchmarks

by Terry Eastland

Whatever you may think of the filibuster, Senate rules provide for it. Rule XXII permits senators to block a vote on a given measure, unless no fewer than 60 senators invoke cloture. The filibuster thus requires a supermajority to get something done. That isn't what the Constitution envisions, nor the way business is done in the House. But the rule is there, and there have been and will be filibusters.

Of course, there is one right now, by Senate Democrats, against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Now in the minority and aware that at least 54 senators — the 51 Republicans plus at least three of their number — would vote for Mr. Estrada, Senate Democrats are clutching for such power as they might find in Rule XXII.

The question their filibuster raises is its justification, especially since, in the long history of the republic, the tactic never has been used against a circuit-court nominee. Indeed, not that long ago, leading Democrats explicitly opposed judicial filibusters. Here are some famous last words, uttered by Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, in 1998: "I would object and fight against any filibuster of a judge, whether somebody I opposed or supported. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down."

The Democrats' stated reason for their filibuster is that Mr. Estrada, whose legal brilliance they don't dispute, has failed to provide enough information about his legal views. "If we get that information," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said earlier this month, "we will let every senator make his or her decision."

To "get that information," Mr. Daschle wants (1) President Bush to release memos written by Mr. Estrada when he served in the 1990s as a career attorney in the solicitor general's office and (2) Mr. Estrada to "answer questions he refused to answer during his [confirmation] hearing."

Mr. Daschle won't be given those memos. And for a reason that transcends partisanship: The confidentiality and integrity of internal deliberations by government litigators must be ensured. Every living former solicitor general — including four Democrats — signed a joint letter to the Senate making that compelling point.

Nor can it be seriously maintained that the memos would reveal Mr. Estrada as some right-wing ideologue out to twist the law. Consider the testimony of Seth Waxman, who served as solicitor general under Bill Clinton. In a letter supporting the nominee, Mr. Waxman says Mr. Estrada was "a model of professionalism and competence" during the time the two men worked together. And: "In no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views."

As for the request that Mr. Estrada answer questions he "refused to answer," the Democrats especially want Mr. Estrada to tell them his views of specific Supreme Court cases, such as Roe vs. Wade. While emphasizing that, as a circuit-court judge, he would be obligated to apply the Supreme Court's rulings, regardless of his views of them, Mr. Estrada declined to opine on whether a given decision like Roe was correctly decided or not. He explained it wouldn't be appropriate for him to offer a view on a case "without doing the intensive work that a judge hearing that case would have to undertake."

Mr. Estrada's position here hardly is exceptional and enjoys support in the rules of judicial ethics. Circuit-court nominees before him — including those chosen by Democratic presidents, including Mr. Clinton — took the same position.

The weakness of the Democrats' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason. There can be little doubt that the filibuster is a tactic designed to influence the president's power to nominate circuit-court judges and especially any Supreme Court justices. The Democrats want nominees they would describe as "moderate."

But the problem with using the filibuster against a circuit court nominee — for whatever reason — lies in the precedent it establishes. If Mr. Estrada is denied a vote, Senate Republicans can be counted upon to remember how the feat was accomplished.

That prospect may be too distant for Democrats to worry about now. But their novel effort has raised the question of whether the filibuster should become a routine weapon in the now 20-year-old battle over the federal judiciary.

One must hope at least six more Democrats will find their way to the position Mr. Leahy once held. Judicial nominees shouldn't be subjected to filibusters. Each one deserves an up-or-down vote.

[Otta B Sleepin]

Doctor Frist is now in surgery and guess who's on the table...sorry, we're out of anesthetic..scalpel, please...

Great word picture!

[scott7278]

I personally think the "12:00pm" time was Frist dangling a carrot to the Democrats if they'll vote to take it up tomorrow, with no filibuster.

Otherwise, he seems to be saying, "The ball's in your court. Filibuster tonight, or vote up-and-down tomorrow and you can sleep in."

This is just my opinion, and I admit I could be wrong.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

He doesn't realize that Teddy is not up to coming in at Midnight! LOL!!!

He's just not used to being coherent after midnight.

[freebilly]

Sounds like Hillary might be afraid of what he knows.

Naw..., if things get too hot for Hillary, she can get Estrada to commit Arkancide....

[Trace21230]

Sessions on the filibuster: It's "bogus"

ROFLMAO

This is great, no more federal spending while the dimorats filibuster.

Fine by me!

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

PKM,

Wow, thanks for the encyclopedic reply befitting your screen name! That helps a lot.

So he is a protege of Starr and Giuliani... probably that would explain a lot right there.

And he knows all about the clinton scandals.

Maybe he did resign (or was fired) in 1997 rather than carry out some onerous evil task for the clinton DOJ.

It sure has the mark of the hitlery on it though - thanks for the fantastic info!

[MrNatural]

..More like his Renfro ..

That's what I was reaching for; I stand corrected :)

[southernnorthcarolina]

Does cloture require 60 votes, or merely 60% of those present?

If the latter, perhaps Frist has persuaded a few Dems to "take a walk." If they were so "unfortunate" as to not be able to get to the Senate floor in time for the cloture vote due to inclement weather, might the majority be able to call the question while allowing the wandering Dems to have some political cover?

[wireplay]

I believe the majority leader only sets the rules but does not actually control the vote, this is done by the presiding president. It may not be the apricots but the riped wheat speaking, but I think we may be seeing a 'reverse filibuster'. Republicans keeping the democrats coming back for quorum calls while the speakers take time out for a nap or two. Wild speculation but we'll see.

[freebilly]

He's just not used to being coherent after midnight.

You mean to tell me you've heard Teddy Chappaquidick coherent before midnight...?

[Mo1]

Sessions is talking about the document Durbin was waving around

[hoosiermama]

"LEAKED memorandum" Might nail Hillary. Maybe she just wants to know what they know.

I'm wondering if after he talks there won't be a call for quorum for some reason. Do they have to have a quorum to adjourn?

[jdontom]

I am also wondering why Session's is still talking when he could be back home in bed...He's talking about the leaked memo right now. It could be a fake by frist and again call for a vote....That would frost Hiltery.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

I understand about the time! But if there are any Street Freeps in your neck of the woods, I would strongly advise you make time for at least just one of them. You'll be glad you did! And note that lots of us take some or all of our family members with us. I'll bet your 4 and 5 year olds would LOVE to wave a flag on a street corner.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

What this is about is, whether he is pro-life. The Democrats challenge all Republican nominees for that and that alone if the truth be told.

I would have said that until tonight. It just hit me that all of a sudden this guy leaves the clinton DOJ in 1997 to go into private practice. Makes me think he may have been fired, or placed into a position where he had to resign. Might be something, might be nothing, but when you look at peoples' resumes you start looking for gaps in resumes, unexplained absences or departures. Just thinking there might be a little more than initially meets the eye.