Replies

Related Articles: and past Senate Democrats’ obstructionism

Democrats plan filibuster against Texan Owen's nomination - GOP criticizes 'obstructionist' tactic
Source: The Dallas Morning News; Published: April 30, 2003; Author: Todd J. Gillman
Senate Hardliners Trashing Two Centuries Of Precedent [re: judiciary]
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 30, 2003; Author: John Nowacki
Two Judges Face the Heat [Estrada - Owen]
Source: Roll Call via National Republican Senatorial Committee; Published: April 28, 2003; Author: Mark Preston and Paul Kane
A Legacy Worth Fighting For [re: judiciary]
Source: CNSNews.com Published: April 28, 2003; Author: Paul M. Weyrich
The Constitution Be Damned - Democrats try to impose a religious test on judges
Source: WSJ OpinionJournal.com; Published: April 22, 2003; Author: Brendan Miniter
The Democrats’ Big Plan
Source: National Review; Published: April 3, 2003; Author: Byron York
Filibuster Si, Estrada No!
Source: Weekly Standard; Published: March 17, 2003; Author: Major Garrett
Talking Nonsense - The Senate Filibuster
Source: BreakPoint with Charles Colson; Published: March 13, 2003; Author: Mark Earley
Estrada & the Dream
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 12, 2003; Author: René Fonseca
President Calls for Action on Judicial Nominations
Source: White House Office of the Press Secretary Published: , March 11, 2003.
Miguel Estrada: The President Must Take His Case To The People
Source: CNSNews; Published: March 11, 2003; Author: Paul M. Weyrich
Left-Wing Democrat U.S. Senators Thwarting The Will Of 'We The People'
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: March 10, 2003; author: Wallace Honley
Estrada and the future of the judiciary
Source: Washington Times; Published: March 10, 2003; Author: Nat Hentoff
Supermajority Rules?: Why the Estrada filibuster is unconstitutional
Source: Wall Street Journal; Published: , March 8, 2003; Author: Douglas W. Kmiec
Barbara Stanley: Hillary Barks Her Marching Orders To Democrats: Bork Miguel Estrada!
Source: Toogood Published: March 7, 2003: Author: Barbara Stanley
Dems: We Don’t Really Want Answers from Estrada.
Source: National Review; Published: March 4, 2003; Author: Byron York
The Minority Democrats' War In The Senate For Control Of America
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: Febraury 28, 2003; Author: Mary Mostert
Senate Democrats: Filibusters Are No Longer Just For The Floor
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 28, 2003; Author: John Nowacki
Senator Leahy's Comments on Senate Floor against Estrada (26 Feb 2003) (Revised)
Source: The Congressional Record (New Search required each time); Published: 27 Feb 2003; Author: | Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Ted Kennedy's Grand Design
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 27, 2003; Author: Robert D. Novak
Linda Chavez: Republicans Need To Call Dems' Bluff On Estrada Nomination
Source: CNSNES.com; Published: February 26, 2003; Author Linda Chavez
Senate Democrats Can't Get Their Facts Straight
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: February 14, 2003; Author: John Nowacki
Estrada: Now It’s War
Source: National Review Online; Published: February 12, 2003; Author: Byron York
Dems to Miguel Estrada: You’re Not Hispanic Enough
Source: National Review; Published; February 6, 2003, Author: Byron York
Leahy’s Surprise Attack
Source: National Review Online; Published: October 9, 2002; Author: Byron York
Shedded by Judiciary: Senate Democrats cast off another appointee
Source: Wall St Journal; Published: October 9, 2002
Miguel Estrada May be Next Victim Of Judiciary's 'Gang Of Ten'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: September 09, 2002; Author: Paul M. Weyrich
Toward Priscilla Owen, Not Even The Pretense Of Fairness
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: August 01, 2002; Author: John Nowacki
The Owen Nomination: Liberals Don't Let Truth Stand In Their Way
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: July 18, 2002; Author: John Nowacki
Democrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Christine Hall
Judge The Senate Judiciary Committee Not By What It Says, But What It Has Done
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: | June 06, 2002; Author: John Nowacki
The Left Keeps Trying -- And Failing -- To Smear Brooks Smith
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: John Nowacki
Pickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002; Author: Jeff Johnson
Make them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002; Author: David Limbaugh
The GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002; Author: Byron York
Pickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002; Author: Mort Kondracke
Still Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002; Author: John Nowacki
Dismantling 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. Scates
Democrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002; Susan Jones
The Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002; Author:Byron York
SYMPOSIUM 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 temperament
What is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002; Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Blasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002; Author: Matt Pyeatt
Judicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Senator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001; Author: By John Nowacki
Senator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001; Author: Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
A Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published: December 3, 2001
Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001; Author: Editorial
Sen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Paul E. Scates
Judicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001; Author: Audrey Hudson
Patrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001; Author: William A. Mayer
Judicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001
Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001
Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Partisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001; Author: John Nowacki
Leahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Obedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping
Why is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: October 26, 2001; Author: Mary Mostert
Pat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: John Nowacki
Operation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: T.L.Jipping
Daschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001; Author: Dave Boyer
Leahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001
Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001; Author: Tom Jipping
Dems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

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