A New Move on Estrada ('Tain't over yet!)

National Review Online ^ | 2/28/2003 | Byron York

[ArcLight]

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.

[chnsmok]

[Howlin]

You can think whatever you want to about me, but one thing you can't say is that I'm a dishonest poster. I'll take that any day of the week.

[RandyRep]

Thanks again for your patience and answers to my questions.

The Senate system sure is confusing to me. I usually can get it, but I was 0 for 4 in my comments before. My confusion was mainly about cloture - when it can happen - you said only to curtail debate, right?

I assume the nomination is already on the floor, since they have been debating. Each senator can speak twice in one day for no more than an hour, right? Is a "day" 24 hours, or can it last more than 24 hours?

So the challenge to Frist et al seems to be to try to end debate ASAP by keeping the Senate in session and exhausting the Dems. Maybe after Mardi Gras, I guess.

[cyncooper]

I think I will have to say this country is being sold out from within and from who is what really saddens me tonight. 23 posted on 02/17/2003 11:27 PM PST by TLBSHOW"

Yeah, you were so invested in Grover Norquist that you would be saddened over a revelation of treason.

("selling out his country" being alleged by you, that is)

Give us a break. You were talking about President Bush and that is the ONLY interpretation of your comment.

[chnsmok]

sigh

[Political Junkie Too]

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.

And also remember, the 9th Circuit had recently (in June 2002) ruled on the Pledge being unconstitutional, which caused outrage on the Right over the ruling, and outrage on the Left that the ruling was so close to the campaign season.

-PJ

[Howlin]

I know exactly how you feel. :-)

[cyncooper]

Do I want to know what your tag line means?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I assume the nomination is already on the floor, since they have been debating. Each senator can speak twice in one day for no more than an hour, right? Is a "day" 24 hours, or can it last more than 24 hours?

So the challenge to Frist et al seems to be to try to end debate ASAP by keeping the Senate in session and exhausting the Dems. Maybe after Mardi Gras, I guess.

Actually, we are seeing some pre-Filibuster manueverings in when and how the nomination will get to the floor. When it gets to the floor, each Senator can speak up to twice with no time limit without consent of the Senate. The "day" lasts until adjournment, so when Thurmond Filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957, it was within one "day" even though it stretched into 3 calender days.

The strategy for the Democrats will be the interesting one. They will not want to go on for too long or the Republicans will just plow through a lot of votes after the Filibuster because so many Democrats will be too tired to debate. But if they give up too quick, it gives the Republicans a taste of blood and they will be able to bully the Democrats around.

The Republican strategy, at this point it seems, is to let the Democrats start the self-hanging process without interference. In fact, the White House sent over a fresh bunch of rope today.

[Howlin]

Thanks for the reminder!

I was commenting on another thread that Robert Klein was on a show with Pat Sajak and he said HE supports the war.

You have to be old like me to know who he is, I think.

[deport]

I think I will have to say this country is being sold out from within and from who is what really saddens me tonight.

---

'Gifter' I have a question regarding the above statement which you claim was referring to Norquist as the "who". .... What is it about Norquist that would cause you to make that statement about him? Did you follow his articles and worship at his temple of writings? Just why would a writer of an article make you say such a thing as you did......

Now for what it's worth I don't think you meant Norquist but rather President Bush, but as I said that's my opinion and the opinion of others that were following that thread that night.

[2nd Amendment]

I will be furious if Bush and the Republicans cave on this brilliant nominee. If Frist and the rest of the rhinos kowtow to the demonrats and allow the new 60 vote majority to become precedent, I will vote for the most outlandish leftwing wacko humanshield liberal democrat I can find. I'd rather vote for someone that is sure to lie, cheat, and steal than some two-faced hypocrital, candxxxxed republican that doesn't have the backbone of a squid! Other than this I don't have an opinion.

[Trombone]

My thoughts exactly. Someone reposted my take on it here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/853670/posts?page=44#44

[Political Junkie Too]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that.

The problem is two-fold. One, the nattering nabobs of negativity, but more importantly two, I believe that there are sleeper IDs floating around that people on the Other Side use to intentionally cast doubt and naysaying as a form of psyops to discourage people here.

You can tell the difference after a while. The first group supports their positions in protracted discussions, rightly or wrongly. The second group doesn't try to engage in the debate, they just lob doomsday bombs into every thread. You can see them literally posting one-liner after one-liner all the way down a thread as they try to undermine the opinions of people here.

-PJ

[Kath]

"Did you EVER think you'd see the day you'd come on FR and watch people claim Bush is in bed with terrorist?"

Laura's a terrorist???? Wow!!!! Seriously, some of these people don't care what they say and have nothing to back up their outragous claims.

[RandyRep]

I'm getting there, I think. One last question:

Can the Pubs set this up so that each Dem senator speaks twice in one "day", even though that "day" may last for several days or weeks or months? Then at the end of the "day" when all Dems have spoken (up to 45, I guess) twice, they can call for the vote without invoking cloture?

I say let the hanging begin...

[GOPrincess]

Yep, I sure do live in So. CA (Orange County). The way Prop. 187 was used against Republicans was so aggravating...it's about time the Democrats got a dose of that!! :)

Seriously, some analysts have discussed how some Hispanic Democrats are shifting Republican or are a great target to shift because their traditional values are much more in sync with Republicans; we need to court them and help them feel welcome in the party. George W. and Jeb have done great with that. Estrada could be a key issue to help those voters swing. Let's face it, the Democrats *are* playing a race card, demanding answers of Estrada that no white conservative jurist had to answer. We just need to get the word out to that segment of the voting public (perhaps over the heads of the media -- I'm absolutely convinced the LA TIMES is trying to hide the ball from the Hispanic population of So. CA by not reporting this story) -- in the short run for Estrada and (consequently) all Bush's nominees to follow, and in the long run for the good of the party and the CA electoral votes.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Can the Pubs set this up so that each Dem senator speaks twice in one "day", even though that "day" may last for several days or weeks or months? Then at the end of the "day" when all Dems have spoken (up to 45, I guess) twice, they can call for the vote without invoking cloture?

Real, real close. The "day" is a consecutive period of time. So if a morning session starts at 8am on Tuesday and a Filibuster starts during some time during the day, the "day" lasts as long as there is not an adjournment. If there is an adjournment, the "day" is over and the "2 times" rule resets. So while a Filibuster might last several calender days, it will likely never see a calender week as the ability to keep enough Senators awake/alive/talking is not inexhastible.

The speaker during a Filibuster cannot leave the floor while speaking or they surrender the floor at that point. During Thurmond's Filibuster, he had an aid bring a bucket to a cloak room so he could keep one foot in the chamber and relieve himself even as he talked. And he had to continue to talk. Thurmond didn't just stay awake and on his feet during his Filibuster, he also had to continue talking for the entire 24 hours, 18 minutes.

Then, whenever the number of Senators drops below 51, a quorum vote can be called and all Senators summoned to the chambers. Call a quorum vote every 45 minutes and you have 100 cranky, exhausted Senators on your hands after a 24 period. Drive it a day or two longer and you could have Senators collapsing in the chamber.

In other words, once a Filibuster starts, there will either be a vote at the end, and adjournment for the day, or a withdrawl of the proposal from the floor. The last two are unanimous actions and are "victories" for the Filibustering party. A vote is a defeat for the Filibustering party.

[Robert_Paulson2]

hope you are right. fear you are wrong... ping me if we get "some new and potentially agressive" action out of the silk pantie crowd running the senate.

I mean that with all sincerity...
What they are doing so far aint' exactly inspiring me.

[aristeides]

For you, hyperbole and momentary venting of discouragement are thoughtcrimes that serve to discredit a poster forever. Thoughtcrimes brand a person in your eyes as an enemy of the party and the people, do they not? Vrag partii i naroda. Feind des Volkes. I think you should ask yourself what people have thought in that sort of way in the past.