Why Frist and all won't go 24/7 (Vanity)

vanity | 8/4/03 | votelife

[votelife]

Freepers, First I apologize in advance for the vanity. I have been very active in the last several months trying to push Estrada's nomination. Pryor recently as he's from my state. On thread after thread I see people complaining at the fact that Frist/Bush won't make the Senate go 24/7. Let me explain this is probably not the best course of action to take right now.

1. The mainstream media- remember how Clinton was able to frame the govt shutdown as the Repubs fault? How easy do you think ABCBSCNNMSNBC will be able to say, right wing republicans block prescription drugs to put an arch-conservative on a court of appeals. I know this is unfair, but who said the NY Times is fair.

2. To go 24/7 from what I've read is MUCH harder on the Repubs than the Dems. Basically, only one Dem would have to be there (they could rotate) while all the Repubs or 50 I guess would have to be there. I'm not exactly sure on the particulars of this, perhaps other Freepers could back me up, but generally, this is tougher on the Repubs than the Dems.

3. It's August, nobody is paying attention. Going 24/7 now might get us judges, it might not. Tough to say how it would play out. Do it August of next year, or OCTOBER of next year, and Bush can tie it into his obstruction case very well.

4. While Bush has been getting beat (FOR NOW) in the Senate, he keeps the pressure on the Dems. After the Estrada filibuster was going, Bush nominated Pryor, an obvious deference to the conservative movement. Bush also nominated Pickering again, and Owen again. These are not the moves of someone who is rethinking the conservative judge strategy. Also, he just nominated Janice Brown, a black conservative who is a California Supreme Court Justice.

5. So basically based on number 4, I think Bush and Rove, are just letting the Dems destroy their party. The Dems will be on record filibustering a qualified Hispanic, a woman, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Black Woman, an Arab. Who knows who else, but this will be a VERY valuable campaign issue.

6. How do you think this obstruction plays in SC, NC, FL, GA, Pennslyvania (key primary between liberal Specter and conservative Toomey), ND, SD, etc? I can tell you that Tom Daschle won't like these obstruction ads running in his state! And how do you think the obstruction of Estrada will play among Hispanics right before the '04 election?

I know in advance some Freepers may accuse me of being a Bush-bot. I could care less. Bush has an excellent job on the pro-life cause. Ramming through some appeals court judges and somewhat removing the issue in '04 may actually HINDER Bush being able to get a conservative confirmed to the Court in the future. Pro life is starting to become more and more of a winning issue for the Repubs. As Bush likes to say, hearts are being changed. Freepers, be patient! I want these judges confirmed as much as the next Freeper, but I think we need to take a longer view of this problem. The Dems are getting more and more extreme, and out of touch with America. '04 is looking good (Hollings announced retirement today, also helping a future GOP Senate).

Now, if a Supreme Court justice retires, than this analysis goes out the window, and it would be time to go nuclear.

So for the Freepers who are upset at Frist, the best way to get these judges confirmed is to help defeat Democrat Senators (and defeat Arlen Specter)!

Comments appreciated, though I won't pay attention to them if they are not well reasoned.

[votelife]

2nd shameless vanity plug:

FREEPers, I have created the ultimate Estrada activism thread. On it you will find ways to contact Senators, newsspapers, radio/tv people, organizations etc. Go there and help support Estrada. Keep the thread bumped until we get him confirmed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847037/posts

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't think any of this will matter until Bush uses the bully pulpit to make his case, personally.

If he's trying to set up the campaign issue for 2004, then he better be prepared to use it. He will have to go around the country demanding that the people send him Republicans to the Senate so that he can break the filibuster.

He can use the wacky rulings of the 9th Circuit, the election tampering of Florida State Supreme Court, New Jersey State Supreme Court, and possibly California State Supreme Court (depending on which way the recall goes) as his examples of why he needs Republicans in the Senate.

Otherwise, it is all just running in place.

-PJ

[votelife]

Bush used the issue in key states last year. I remember seeing him stump about judges. Ask Cleland, Carnahan, and Mondale about democrat obstruction and if they think it contributed to their defeat. I expect he will do the same. For instance, FL has TONS of Hispanics. I'd expect to see Estrada get used as a big issue there. It might get so bad, that Dems might confirm Estrada just to help out in Florida.

[votelife]

the reason why it matters now has to do with Senate recruitment. If the GOP sees the base is inflamed over this issue, then they will use that issue more in the next election. If they see we don't care, then...

But, you are right in that it all comes down to Bush.

[woodyinscc]

President Bush will not lose this high stakes battle.(there are no Souters in his playbook)

The dims have drawn their line in the sand because of NOW, People for the American Way(Ralph Neas) and NARAL.

When Bush gets his Judges, it will be a dagger to the heart of the Democrats, and a great victory for the Nation and the values that make it strong.

[Political Junkie Too]

But, you are right in that it all comes down to Bush.

Exactly. He's the one with the appointment power. He's the one appointing the judges. He's the one the Democrats are targeting with their demands to be consulted, to provide lists prior to appointing, etc.

It will be a case of "Use it or lose it."

-PJ

[San Jacinto]

Your points are well made. It is a practical impossibility for the Repubs to force a 24/7 filibuster. As you point out, the dims only need to keep one or two present on the floor to keep the filibuster going. On the other hand, the Repubs have to keep 50 present, because anytime there is a lack of a quorum, it leads to an automatic adjournment until the next day if a "motion suggesting the lack of a quorum" is made.

[votelife]

I refer you back to the previously posted Estrada radio address. That address I think was a turning point in this battle. Everything going on now, is window dressing. Bush is likely asking the Dems how they like there Estrada served, over a nuclear filibuster say in October 2004, or quietly sandwiched around obscure legislation, far from the election.

[CyberAnt]

Thank you so much for this very valuable information. I think part of the frustration we feel out here in the public is that we are not privy to the "plan". But we also know you cannot reveal a lot of what's going on.

We are also aware that the President is orchestrating this plan and I think it's good that the repubs seem to be working together for a change.

Now that I understand how this is all being viewed - and even though I wish more could be done sooner - I do understand.

[The UnVeiled Lady]

Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

You forgot #4

He betrayed the gun owners of America. And if Bush 43 does the same thing HE also will be serving one term. Bush has passed many unConstitutional laws and if he doesn't fix the gun laws or extends them... he is toast!

I also agree with much he has done but like you, I have my line he can't cross.

[Doug Loss]

This just occurred to me a little while ago. What about forcing the Dems hands another way? The House could draw up articles of impeachment for large numbers of liberal federal judges on the grounds that they have violated their oaths of office by issuing tortured misinterpretations of clear laws. No filibuster in the House. The Senate would then have to vote to impeach or not to impeach those judges. I'm pretty sure there's no filibuster on impeachment votes either. Not that the Dems wouldn't try...

The impeachment articles could be withdrawn when the President's court nominees get the up or down votes they are constitutionally required to get.

[cinFLA]

Think big picture!

Bump.

[deport]

There was an article just last week talking about when Frist may begin pushing the confirmation of these judges. I think he mentioned needing to get some other legislation done now and come fall or early winter time look for more emphasis. I can't remember what the article title was.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Congress already has the authority to disband or restructure all the courts under the Supreme Court. Why not just abolish all the courts and start over?

Article III Section I

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

-PJ

[jocon307]

"I've been one of the people saying, "What's wrong with these Republican wimps?" Your post definitely offers some perspective."

Count me as a ditto-head to tax-chick.

I especially like your point about the pro-life viewpoint becoming more wide-speard. Also, the whole gay rights group got a big kick in the teeth today with the revelations about that Bishop. After the RC priest/child molester/homosexuals scandals I think and hope that guy is toast. And isn't he practically "married"?

The key, key, key thing is for Bush to win re-election. If the dems can't bring Harry Truman back from the dead they SHOULD be hopeless after their knocking of the President and the war.

[syriacus]

Great post and thread, votelife. I learned a lot from you and the other posters to this thread and I've bookmarked it.

Thank you.

[steplock]

NOT being a politician and having turned down some offers - I would "almost" opt for the NU-CU-LER solution on the dems! :>)

Hey! I is an Aggie too!

Someone in the Republican party needs to make a stand for America and Americans - not for republican or democrat. I told that to some of the "real" democrats that they need to take back their party from the socialist/communist far-left - just as the republicans need to get the party back from some less than appealing far-righters.

I don't consider religious/conciencious people to be far-right (as a rule) but I balk at a theocracy for sure. One year ago I would have described myself as a republican and thought of libertarians as KOOKS! Now I'm getting to be more of a KOOK myself.

This garbage of blocking the Estrada vote and the republican party not taking this to the full public now and showing them the left-wing radical extremists as to what they are...

On the other hand, this other garbage of insulting and shutting off Tancredo by BUSH for being an AMERICAN first has to cease immediately also.

The republican party has only one thing going for it right now --- and that is that it is the lesser problem right now. The far left is EVIL but the far right is approaching that description also.

I will defend my country as the oath I took demands - from ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC!

[steplock]

It feels good to vent occasionally! :>)

[Mudbug]

Finally, I think Freepers who are really mad at Frist should share some of that anger against the so-called moderate Dems like Breaux...

First, thanks for posting this and I agree with most of your reasoning. As for Mr. Breaux, speculation is that he will not seek reelection in 2004, so perhaps that's why he's going so far afield from his constituents. And as to this red-map state's jr. senator, Ms. Landrieu's a just-reelected Hillary wannabee and complaints fall on deaf ears.

[Ben Ficklin]

Regarding # 6, "How do you think obstruction plays in SC, NC, etc."

The dems have taken some polls and done some focus groups on this and have detected the early stages of bad PR over their refusal to give these judicial nominees an up/down vote.

This is why Hilliary, in her recent speech, identified the Federalist Society as the group behind the VRWC. This demonizing of the Federalist Society will likely be expanded to justify the filibuster of these nominees, who all are members of the Federalist Society.