DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTION: Estrada And Owen Blocked By Shameless Partisan Minority

Republican National Committee ^ | 1 May 2003 | RNC Research

[PhiKapMom]

RNCResearch

DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTION

Estrada And Owen Blocked By Shameless Partisan Minority

_______________________________________________________________________

“Owen, Like Estrada, Apparently Will Need 60 Votes For Confirmation Instead Of A Simple Majority. It’s A Shame And It’s Wrong - Essentially Turning Over The Senate’s Power Of Confirmation To Any Minority That Can Scrape Together 40 Votes. Can’t Find It In Our Copy Of The Constitution.” (Editorial, “The Filibuster Docket,” The Daily Oklahoman, 4/11/03)

The Filibusters Against Estrada And Owen Are “A Shameful Exhibition Of Partisan Politics.” (Editorial, “Not Enough Hours,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/15/03)

“The Arguments Against Mr. Estrada’s Confirmation Range From The Unpersuasive To The Offensive. . . . It’s Long Past Time To Stop These Games And Vote.” (Editorial, “Just Vote,” The Washington Post, 2/18/03)

Democrats block Every effort to End Estrada Debate

Democrats Voted Against All Four Motions To Invoke Cloture On Miguel Estrada’s Nomination To D.C. Court Of Appeals. (CQ Vote #40, Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03; CQ Vote #53, Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03; CQ Vote #56, Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03; CQ Vote #114, Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03)

If floor vote were permitted, Estrada would be confirmed

At Least 53 Senators Would Vote To Approve Estrada. Florida Senator Bill “Nelson became the fourth Senate Democrat to say he would not support a filibuster to prevent a vote. The other three are John Breaux of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia. Breaux and Ben Nelson also plan to vote for Estrada’s confirmation.” (Frank Davies, “Nelson To Vote For Bush Nominee,” The Miami Herald, 2/26/03)

Now, Democrats are filibustering Priscilla Owen

Democrats Plan To Give Owen The Estrada Treatment. “Democrats . . . say they have more than enough votes to keep Owen bottlenecked in the Senate the way they’ve kept Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada from becoming a federal appellate judge for the last three months.” (Jesse J. Holland, “White House Rebukes Senate Democrats On Planned Filibuster Of Another Bush Judicial Nominee,” The Associated Press, 4/30/03)

Democrats’ Rejection Of ABA “Well Qualified” Owen For 5th Circuit Judge Was Unprecedented. Last autumn, Owen became the first nominee given a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association (ABA) to be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was rejected on a straight party-line vote. (Editorial, “Not Enough Hours,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/15/03; Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/13/03)

* According to the ABA, its “well qualified” rating means that a nominee is “at the top of the legal profession” and has “outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience,” and “the highest reputation for integrity.”This ABA rating has been called the “gold standard” by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. (Editorial, “Past Time,” Richmond Times Dispatch, 9/18/02)

* Miguel Estrada was also rated unanimously “well qualified.” (Jonathan Ringel, “ABA Approves More Bush Nominees,” Legal Times, 7/16/01)

A Publication of the RNC Research Department

[PhiKapMom]

Frist needs to start playing hardball!

You have that right!

[scooby321]

I am Sick of this We can beat Saddam in weeks and can't beat Shumer

No Vactions for Sen Dems this Summer it gets hot in DC in the Summer

[728b]

Didn’t Hillary Clinton (WMMO) just get through saying, in her shrill speech, that Republicans were afraid of debate? Hypocrisy # 1,345,687

[The Wizard]

proof that the only good democrat is a..........

[DED]

I dunno if the recess appointment is such a great idea. Check out this excerpt from a news article ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17266 ) from Clinton's presidency:

"Sen. James Inhofe, R.-Okla., who seems to be succeeding Sen. Jesse Helms, R.-N.C., as the conservative hero of the U.S. Senate, has informed President Clinton that if he goes ahead and makes any one of five proposed recess appointments over the Christmas recess, Inhofe will retaliate by putting a permanent hold on every single judicial appointment Clinton makes for the rest of his presidency.

The conflict between Inhofe and Clinton stems from the appointment of James Hormel, a self-professed homosexual, as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. The Senate had stalled Hormel's confirmation when Clinton, last May, gave Hormel a recess appointment -- meaning he can serve as ambassador until the next Congress is seated in 2001.

In response to that move, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R.-Miss., spurred by Inhofe, sent Clinton a letter insisting the President abide by a protocol governing recess appointments that had been made in an agreement between then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D.-W.V., and President Ronald Reagan in 1985. That protocol calls on the President to notify the Senate in advance of any recess appointments he intends to make, so that the Senate can act on them before recessing, if it wishes."

[Skeet]

When is Senator Frist going to stop playing with these hypocrites? It is time to make the Demoncrats do a full-fledged filibuster.

[demosthenes the elder]

BTTT - the post and entire thread.
useful ammo, it seems.

[VRWCmember]

I dunno if the recess appointment is such a great idea. Check out this excerpt from a news article ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17266 ) from Clinton's presidency: Fine, honor the agreement by notifying the Senate that he intends to recess appoint each of the nominees that is being held up in the advise and consent process.

[MoscowMike]

This is criminal activity, pure and simple.

If the Bush administration fails to confront a public conspiracy to destroy fundamental Constitutional law from a law enforcement perspective, posterity will be ill served in this instance by a President we trust and respect.

When the High and Mighty can publicly do violence to the integrity of the US Constitution, blatantly abrogating their sworn oaths to protect and defend that most fundamental of our laws, without any response from the Justice Department, no Constitutionally protected right is worth the paper it is written on.

President Bush, you are the highest law enforcement official in this great nation, UPHOLD THE LAW! Have a federal grand jury empaneled to hear charges of criminal conspiracy to violate Constitutional law in the judicial confirmation process on the parts of senators kennedy, schumer, leahy, and feinstein.

UPHOLD THE LAW!

[Defiant]

No more "filibuster lite" - make 'em shut the Senate down!

I'm reminded of Seinfeld when George finds out that Jerry slept with George's new girlfriend. George says he gets to punish Jerry by sleeping with Elaine. Jerry says that that would not punish Jerry, but would punish Elaine, and "quite cruelly, I might add."

Shutting down the Senate, making the GOP stay in their mattresses 24 hours a day to ensure a quorum is present, while the Rats go home to their warm beds and home cooked meals, won't punish the Rats, but will bring a halt to the President's agenda and won't ever be broken.

There are only 2 ways to break this deadlock in the short term (in the long term, you have to get 60 GOP Senators):

1. Submit a rule change proposal to limit filibusters for judicial nominees. As I understand it, this type of proposal can be passed by a supermajority of those present, which means that the RATS will be the ones who have to stay close by, or else they will lose the vote. The rats will not be able to sustain this very long, as we head into campaign season and summer vacations. This filibuster would be a hardship on the Dems.

2. Use the cramdown approach. With Cheney presiding, someone moves to bring the nomination to a vote. Rats object. Cheney declares that the Senate rules violate the US Constitution, and declares the motion in order. The vote is taken, which makes Tommy Boy "deeply saddened". Repeat as necessary.

You can preceed the cramdown with a few weeks of warning to let the Rats know that we are prepared to do what it takes. Hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee about the conflict between Senate Rules and the Constitution, and have experts opine on which should govern. Hold a party line vote at the end of the hearing that says that the committee has found that the US Constitution governs. Let the Rats oppose that! Then, if they don't allow the nomination to go to a vote, only then does Cheney send it to the floor anyway.

'Twill be a massive coronary in the editorial pages of the NYT, but the average American will little care, and those that do will be the committed on the left or right. Those on the middle will be able to see that the obstructionism forced the GOP to take this hard line.

I don't like the idea of recess appointments, except perhaps as part of a 2 track approach that puts some people on the bench temporarily while you put in place the strategy that will break this filibuster.

[Andrew Hyman]

The following letter was printed in "The Hill" on March 25, 2003 (see http://www.thehill.com/letters/032503.aspx ):


NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY MAJORITY

From Andrew Hyman:

The Hill’s March 12 article about the Estrada filibuster (“GOP moves ahead with controversial nominees”) reports that Republicans see a silver lining, but that would be cynical and misguided. Even if a couple more Republicans are elected to the Senate, that would be useless if they cannot perform their constitutional duty of advice and consent. Democratic senators are wrong too, when they argue that there is a legitimate comparison between the obstruction of President Clinton’s nominees by a Senate majority, versus obstruction now by a Senate minority.

The Framers of the Constitution intended nominations to be decided by a majority. They intended opponents of a nominee to carry the burden of proof. Alexander Hamilton said it best in Federalist Number 66: “[I]t could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.” Democratic senators should now assume that the confidential records of the solicitor general that they seek would confirm their worst fears, and they ought to vote accordingly in an up or down vote on the nominee.

Senate Rule 22 says that discussion can be ended “if” there are 60 votes for cloture, but that rule does not prevent discussion from also being ended another way. In particular, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says that the vice president serves as president of the Senate, and has power to decide votes that are equally divided, without distinguishing between preliminary and final votes. At the invitation of several abstaining Republican senators, the vice president has authority to decide a tied cloture vote. The vice president has often decided votes that have been tied at less than 50 senators.

The Constitution provides for a supermajority vote in several instances, such as to override a veto, and the Constitution also excludes the vice president from Senate rulemaking and from establishing a quorum. However, a cloture vote does not fall into those categories. The vice president’s authority to decide equally divided Senate votes could not be completely eliminated by a hypothetical Senate Rule requiring 60 votes for every Senate action, and likewise that authority cannot be eliminated regarding cloture votes.

It is a cardinal principle that Senate rules should be construed so as to avoid serious constitutional problems. The Senate President and the Senate majority have broad discretion to interpret Senate Rule 22 in that manner, with respect to nominations.

Newtown, Conn

[DED]

I was primarily concerned about the ease with which the Senate Dims could retaliate. They filibuster now without a reason, so what would they do if they HAD one?

It won't really help much to have a judge in a position only until the next Congress. We need judges there for life (and for LIFE).

[floriduh voter]

We need a list of the obstructors so we can vote them out of office. If there's already a list, please direct me to it someone. Thanks in advance.

Owens was first, first and first her entire career. Bush did so great today on the ship - what have they got? Just tactics to hold up some 50 some odd judgeships.

WE MUST SUPPORT WHOMEVER RUNS AGAINST THESE ANTI-AMERICANS. Yes, they are anti-American because they've slowed the wheels of justice to a grinding halt. I am "sick and tired" of HRC and the rest.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Democrats Plan To Give Owen The Estrada Treatment. "Democrats . . . say they have more than enough votes to keep Owen bottlenecked in the Senate the way they've kept Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada from becoming a federal appellate judge for the last three months."

Unbelievable! I wish everyone would see their tax dollars at work with these obstructionists!

[PhiKapMom]

There sure is a lot of ammunition here that has been added! Senator Frist needs to tell the RATs that their game is over -- go to filibuster full time or vote! No other alternative if they want these nominations approved IMHO!

[pulaskibush]

The Estrada Nomination must be fought for, especially with Republicans gaining the majority. I'll be handing out fliers at the Cinco de Mayo event in Little Rock. May 9 will be the third year of Estrada's nomination. Put me on whatever Estrada/Owen pinglist you have.

[jetson]

new slogan for 04

< THE DEMOCRATS' DON'TPRAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

THEY PREY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

[votelife]

Free Miguel
Free Priscilla

[votelife]

bttt

[votelife]

free miguel and priscilla