Posted on 02/26/2003 7:34:47 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
It's time Republicans learned to play hardball. Democrats don't really want to filibuster Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
They aren't anxious to stay up all night and give marathon speeches on the dangers Estrada purportedly poses to the Republic. Tom Daschle needs his beauty rest, after all.
But the Republicans haven't been willing to call the Dems' bluff. Normally, a filibuster requires a senator to take the floor and keep it, an arcane privilege that prevents the Senate from voting on the issue at hand, unless 60 senators vote to cut off debate.
Former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond (then a Democrat) filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight in an attempt to kill the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Former senator William Proxmire (D-WI) talked for 16 hours and 12 minutes on a debt-ceiling bill in 1981, and then-senator Alphonse D'Amato (R-NY) filibustered a tax bill for 15 hours and 14 minutes in 1992.
No one seems to have the stomach for a real filibuster today, Democrats or Republicans. Instead of holding the Democrats' feet to the fire to force them to keep talking, the GOP leadership allowed senators to go home for the Presidents' Day recess without voting on Estrada.
Now, Republicans are letting the Democrats drag out the debate day after day, without forcing obstinate senators to stay on the floor round the clock and on weekends.
It's understandable that Democrats wouldn't want to talk about Miguel Estrada hour after hour. They have nothing to say. Estrada is obviously well qualified for the position, having received the highest judicial recommendation from the American Bar Association.
His stellar qualifications have earned Estrada a left-handed compliment from Democrat Sen. Harry Reid (NV), who said, "We don't know anything about Estrada, other than he's smart."
The Democrats' real complaint is that Estrada hasn't commented publicly on controversial issues such as abortion and affirmative action. But is it fair to oppose a nominee on those grounds alone?
Ironically, the Democrats and liberal interest groups launched a similar attack on a previous Republican judicial nominee, calling him a "stealth" candidate for his refusal to say how he might vote on abortion cases. When a Republican-controlled senate confirmed that nominee, National Abortion Rights Action League executive director Kate Michelman accused senators of "a dangerous leap of faith (which) placed in jeopardy American women's fundamental right to choose."
The nominee -- Justice David Souter -- went on to become a stalwart pro-abortion vote on the Supreme Court.
Estrada isn't likely to become another Souter. Conservatives certainly don't believe he will. But the point is, his failure to inform the Senate about his private views on abortion shouldn't be held against Estrada, even by the pro-abortion ideologues that constitute the Democrats' senate ranks.
Nonetheless, by not exposing the Democrats for the obstructionists they are, Republicans have opened themselves up to the charge by Democrats that it is Republicans who are to blame for bringing Senate work to a standstill with the Estrada nomination.
Worse, Republicans have confused the issue by insisting on talking during this phony Democrat filibuster in a misguided attempt to make sure the pro-Estrada side gets equal time in the debate. Anyone tuning in to the debate on C-SPAN wouldn't have any idea from watching this charade that the Democrats are the real holdup on Senate action.
I've seen it time and again in my 30 years in Washington. Republicans play by gentlemen's rules. Democrats play to win. Republican sportsmanlike conduct has cost them dearly over the years. Republican diffidence helped doom Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, almost derailed Clarence Thomas' confirmation to the high court, and is likely to defeat Miguel Estrada's appellate court bid as well.
It is probably too late now to force the Democrats' hand. Republicans moreover may believe that if Democrats succeed in blocking Estrada's confirmation, Hispanic voters will punish Democrats at the polls. Don't bet on it.
More likely, Hispanics will see that for all their good intentions, Republicans can't deliver when it counts.
Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Senate Democrats Can't Get Their Facts Straight
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: February 14, 2003; Author: John NowackiLeahys Surprise Attack
Source: National Review Online; Published: October 9, 2002; Author: Byron YorkShedded by Judiciary: Senate Democrats cast off another appointee
Source: Wall St Journal; Published: October 9, 2002Miguel Estrada May be Next Victim Of Judiciary's 'Gang Of Ten'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: September 09, 2002; Author: Paul M. WeyrichToward Priscilla Owen, Not Even The Pretense Of Fairness
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: August 01, 2002; Author: John NowackiThe Owen Nomination: Liberals Don't Let Truth Stand In Their Way
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: July 18, 2002; Author: John NowackiDemocrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Christine HallJudge The Senate Judiciary Committee Not By What It Says, But What It Has Done
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: | June 06, 2002; Author: John NowackiThe Left Keeps Trying -- And Failing -- To Smear Brooks Smith
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: John NowackiPickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002; Author: Jeff JohnsonMake them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002; Author: David LimbaughThe GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002; Author: Byron YorkPickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002; Author: Mort KondrackeStill Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002; Author: John NowackiDismantling Democracy through Judicial Activism
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 12, 2002; Author:Tom Jipping'A Troubling Pattern': Ideology Over Truth In Judicial Confirmations
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: February 10, 2002; Author: Paul E. ScatesDemocrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002; Susan JonesThe Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002; Author:Byron YorkSYMPOSIUM Q: Should the Senate Take Ideology into Account in Judicial Confirmations
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 4, 2002;
Authors:
Ralph G. Neas -- YES: The ideology of nominees for the federal judiciary matters more now than ever
Roger Pilon -- NO: Since judges apply law, not make it, the Senate's concern should be with judicial temperamentWhat is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002; Author: Thomas L. JippingBlasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002; Matt PyeattJudicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001; Author: Thomas L. JippingSenator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001; Author: By John NowackiSenator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001; Author: Rev. Louis P. SheldonA Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published December 3, 2001Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001; Author:EditorialSen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Paul E. ScatesJudicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001; Author: Audrey HudsonPatrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001; Author: William A. MayerJudicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001; Author: Thomas L. JippingPartisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001; Author: John NowackiLeahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Obedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001; Author: Thomas L. JippingWhy is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: October 26, 2001; Author: Mary MostertPat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: John NowackiOperation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: T.L.JippingDaschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001; Author: Dave BoyerLeahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001; Author: Tom JippingDems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001;
Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Estrada WILL be confirmed without being "conformed." 100% certain.
Michael
The nominee -- Justice David Souter -- went on to become a stalwart pro-abortion vote on the Supreme Court.
I never heard this before. Good stuff!
You're a Pollyanna. The Dems aren't digging themselves a hole. This issue isn't even making the network news (and is barely covered even on cable news). Chavez is right: the GOP just looks weak. Hatch's threats that Dem nominees will be filibustered in the future as payback, don't scare the Dems, because they know that the Republicans could never must 40 of their number to do such a hardball thing.
You would think that Linda Chavez would understand how a filibuster works, but apparently she doesn't. So let's go through this one more time.
When you're on the receiving end of a filbuster and you don't have the votes to stop it, you're the one who has to keep talking or you have to fold your tent. Unless senators make a time agreement, a vote cannot occur until there is unanimous consent to proceed to the vote. (The time agreement requires unanimous consent, too.)
What you're seeing now is what happens when you can't shut off debate. The burden is on Frist to round up the 60 votes to invoke cloture. All Dems have to do is keep their 41 votes lined up against cloture. The only option for the Repubs is to have live quorum calls or call a vote to compel the attendance of absent members. They had a couple of the latter the other night and two dozen Dems didn't even bother to vote. (Somewhat interesting, though, that on the second of those votes Senator Breaux was the only senator to vote no.)
Some people who should know better don't seem to understand the way the Senate actually operates. This ain't Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
There are no "old" filibuster rules. There is only the requirement that you need 60 votes to shut one down. When you don't have the votes to shut it down, you can't force the filibusterers to do anything because they're the ones in the driver's seat.
Frist could, of course, send Capitol Hill police out to roust fat Teddy et al out of bid to answer the quorum calls.
Republicans are not going to win this nomination. It's clear that the Democrats know exactly what they're doing, and Frist is powerless to stop it.
As for the Dems being hurt at the polls, forget it.
Nobody even knows this filibuster is happening.
And Bush comes out for 20 minutes, once a week, to scream at the Democrats. Other than that, nothing.
Weak, weak, weak.
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.