I suspect you'll have to wait until
Posted on 02/27/2003 10:14:14 PM PST by TLBSHOW
It's time Republicans learned to play hardball
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.
Well, someone on the GOP side better grow some cojones and real quick too. Calling Bill Frist! Have you got what it takes, to stand up to the leftwing scum in the Senate?
Show us some cojones, Mister Leader!
SCREW THAT... show us the severed heads!!!
I am so tired of the panty waist crap. With the kind of power available to us right now, CLINTON would have already fired up the ovens for us conservatives...
all I want is one battle to be jammed down their bleeding throats successfully. whats the problem with that?
"almost derailed Clarence Thomas' confirmation to the high court"
Yeah baby, almost, however Judge Thomas is now a supreme court justice, and Chavez......well, she's snipin' from the right, like other Suslov conservatives.
Turkey is now the reason why the war has been held up as a recent change in the political makeup of their parliament has made it difficult to get them to agree on allowing the second front for the war to amass on their territory.
Democracy is a b*tch.
What he meant was "force them to keep talking or have the vote. Under the rules as understood up until now, they have to keep talking, or at least "holding the floor" or the filibuster is over and the question can be called. Didn't you ever watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart? There have been some really funny incidents during filibusters. Such as putting screen up so the member can relieve himself (or herself in at least one State Legislature). But important point is that the filibustering Senator must keep talking to hold the floor, he must already have that recognition, else a vote on issue in question can take place. He must also stay on the floor of the Senate. Time outs for a 3 day weekend are normally not allowed.
If you want to end a filibuster, you must get a supermajority of votes to do it. The Republicans don't have the necessary 60 (IIRC) votes, so the filibuster continues. If the shoe were on the other foot, the lamestream media would be whinning about shutting Congress down, not doing the important work of government, etc, etc.
I believe the incident to which you are referring happened in a Board of Alderman's meeting in the City of St. Louis! Which can hardly be compared to the US Senate, one hopes......
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.