Posted on 02/28/2003 8:19:40 AM PST by ArcLight
Edited on 02/28/2003 10:00:33 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
In perhaps its most forceful effort yet to break the stalemate over the appeals-court nomination of Miguel Estrada, the White House has now invited every member of the Senate who has doubts about Estrada's legal views to submit written questions to Estrada by the close of business Friday. In a letter delivered Thursday to all 100 senators, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said Estrada will respond by next Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Yes, we all know: pointing out the "inconsistencies" in your posts.
And when I see lies, I will correct them.
I think it's a legitimate test question. It's the Democrats' preferred *answer* to that question that is so offensive.
If Estrada were pro-slavery or pro-cannibalism, I'd want to know that too.
I think it's more in the hopes of demoralizing the people here. Negativity is contagious.
-PJ
For the poeple that count to them they will be heros for blocking judges. As for their power base, without their core voters they will lose all. Without an all out defense of the judges they have no power base. They really have nothing to lose if they cannot block Bush's judges.
Bush will beat the crap out of them over it...This is wishful thinking. Too few people give a damn about judges and don't pay attention. Look at hispanics, if they don't make a big deal over this (and they sure as hell haven't) who will? There just aren't enough freepers to do anything substantial about this outrage
You must of missed the last election. It was about the judges as well as homeland defense. Bush whipped them so bad they voted on judges even before they lost power.
When Bush gets the high approval ratings coming off the war he will then be able to use it for his judges. Timing is everything and I believe what you and others think should happen regarding a 24/7 right now is the stupid way to go. I also cannot believe and freeper is surprised the rats are willing to risk everything over this.
So the only way to get the nomination to the floor for a vote is to keep debate open (with Democrats speaking) until the Democrats ask for mercy, and enough agree to vote for cloture.
No, the nomination has to be on the floor before debate in order for a Filibuster to be active. A Filibuster is the act of unlimited debate on an issue currently on the floor.
How do the Dems lose if they give up the floor? Does the nomination then go to the floor without a cloture vote?
The Dems lose because then the debate is over and the vote is taken. With 51 votes he is confirmed. A vote of cloture only closes debate early i.e. before each Senator had yielded the floor twice if they desire.
The Pubs need a quorum to keep debate going - otherwise they adjourn, right?
No, a motion for adjournment must be unanimous. The motion for a quorum vote is to keep the Democrats from going home and getting sleep.
It seems to me that this works against us - the Pubs have to be there full strength, but the Dems don't.
Incorrect, all Senators must be available during an open session unless given prior consent by the Senate to be absent. If the Democrats want to Filibuster, the Republicans can keep all the Democrats there until they give in.
But, isn't it also true that Republicans don't want to call for a cloture vote on a judicial nominee because of the precedent that would set?
Precedent is already being set by the Democrats in threatening to Filibuster a nomination for a District Court. Calling for a cloture vote will not happen until, and unless, there are 60 votes. The exception to this is if publicity gets bad, the the Republicans might call for one to have vulnerable Democrats go on record supporting the Filibuster.
Isn't that one of the "traditions" in the Senate (respecting the president's right to nominate judges) that the Senate (Democrats) would be trashing by establishing the precedent that a president needs 60 Senate votes to appoint a nominee instead of 51, thereby effectively ceding the power to appoint judges to the Senate?
Isn't that what the Democrats have already done? By threatening to Filibuster, they have already said "51 is not enough, you must have 60!"
Let them talk themselves hoarse, then we will see how many we need. If their Filibuster works, we now need 60, if it fails we still need 51.
Exactly what many of us said (using the old noggin) right at the beginning of this thread.
THANK YOU for posting this as I don't listen to Hannity's show, but I do have "Special Report" on Fox right now and will listen for any mention of this story.
Quite frankly, I'd slit my wrists if he DID agree with me.
There are plenty of people around here who disagree with a lot of things Bush does, but they don't post lie after lie after lie after lie after lie about it.
Excuse me for re-replying, but I missed this remark.
If you insinuate Bush is a traitor and that he is in bed with terrorist and that he is a commie rat liberal and he's just like Bill Clinton, you can pretty much be marked down under the "Hater" column.
Disagree with Bush all you want; I don't agree with everything he does; but it helps if you're honest in your posting.
Nice try.
If you do a search around here for some old Estrada threads, you'll find that there are many here who are also one-note nellies.
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.