President's Statement on Miguel Estrada

The WHITE HOUSE ^ | September 4, 2003 | PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

[PhiKapMom]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 4, 2003

President's Statement on Miguel Estrada

Statement by the President

It is with regret that, at the request of Miguel Estrada, I have today withdrawn his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I understand and respect his decision, and wish Mr. Estrada and his family the best.

Mr. Estrada received disgraceful treatment at the hands of 45 United States Senators during the more than two years his nomination was pending. Despite his superb qualifications and the wide bipartisan support for his nomination, these Democrat Senators repeatedly blocked an up-or-down vote that would have led to Mr. Estrada's confirmation. The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate's history.

[MeekOneGOP]

The Dirty 'RATS !

[quark]

Much more the GOP could have done:
1. Senate Majority Leader Frist should have required a real fillibuster on each nominee -- force the 'Rats to their knees.
2. Pres. Bush could have done what Clowntoon did, make recess appointments. Then he could have left the judges in place and challenge the 'Rats to try and remove them.

[Cboldt]

Notice how the the malcontennts on this thread think that the demos throwing out 200 years of Senate precedant is meaningless.

My take is that 100% of the posters on this thread are pissed at the DEMs for perpetrating the travesty, and are frustrated that the DEMs got away with it. Some expressed that the GOP didn't seem to put up much of a fight, considering they were faced with "...throwing out 200 years of Senate precedant."

As I noted above, either the (cloture) rule is broken, or using it is fair play. If one considers that using the cloture rule in a judical appointment context is within the rules, one shouldn't complain just because this is (supposedly) the first time the rule was used this way. BTW, I think the GOP used cloture vs. Abe Fortas.

[Rome2000]

Recess appointments are only valid during the current session of Congress and thus are only temporary.

Why is the GOP bound by rules and the evil perverted socialist SOB democrats not.

If the definition and procedure for filibusters can change, so can the definition and procedures for recess appointments.

[onedoug]

"...why don't you focus your anger at them for throwing out 200 years Senate precedant.
They are the cause for this travesty, not the Pubbies...."

I know this must be difficult for you, but again....Democrats are racist, atheistic communists, and we have to live with it and like it because only the media or the Republicans in that cesspool know that they are the only ones who can do anything about it, which makes them either communists themselves, or they just don't eff'n care.

[ImphClinton]

But why should they when they are getting so much Pork through Congress? That is the real problem. The Republican members of both houses are more liberal than JFK was. They could care less how much they spend. A 4.1% raise is ridiculous for the Civilian Government employees when most Americans are having their wages cut. Then the 21 Billion gift to Boing. And the list goes on.

That is the real reason they don't try harder the Democrats might then stop some of the Pork Spending.

[zeugma]

Yeah! WooHoo! Bush-Cheney in '04!

That way, we can have them not be able to nominate federal judges for 4 more years!!! WooHoo!!!!

</sarcasm>

[Cboldt]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/976173/posts <-- Good article relating to the politicization of the judicial branch.

[Dane]

As I noted above, either the (cloture) rule is broken, or using it is fair play. If one considers that using the cloture rule in a judical appointment context is within the rules, one shouldn't complain just because this is (supposedly) the first time the rule was used this way. BTW, I think the GOP used cloture vs. Abe Fortas

A well reasoned response, which deserves an answer. I beleive that Abe Fortas's nomination actually came up for a vote in the Senate, something the demos denied to Miguel Estrada.

[RightOnline]

Pork.......................maybe. Big Government Social Programs that would make FDR proud??? Yes. That's my biggest beef.

BTW, it's Boeing........and it was no "gift". Take it from one who has beaucoup hours in Boeing aircraft: they make the finest heavies, and by FAR the finest tankers on the face of the earth. It's also high time we leased such aircraft rather than buy them. I know. I was flying aircraft that were only a couple years younger than me........and I was born in the mid 50's. Lease 'em, and you turn them as technology dictates far more readily. Been done for years in other industries.

[VRWC_minion]

It's hard for me to accept that the GOP senators did all they could.

Bush didn't need to nominate him and the GOP didn't need to let him out of committee. Life would have been simpler.

[Dane]

Huh, according to the below linked website, Abe Fortas actually was seated on the Supreme Court(i.e confirmed by the Senate) and resigned.

oyez.org

Hmm seems that you were wrong about your Fortas/Estrada comparison. Fortas got his vote on the Senate floor.

But what the hey when democrats are in trouble, they have no trouble in rewriting history.

[Cboldt]

Thanks for closing the loop on that. The GOP used filibuster vs. Fortas to delay a vote (for what, days? weeks?), but eventually broke ranks and permitted an up or down vote.

That would make the present situation un-precedented, where a political party that comprises a minority in the Senate uses the filibuster (doesn't break ranks) to prevent an up or down vote.

But, PKM argues that the rule permitting this should not be changed. If it's a good rule, then one shouldn't complain because the "other side" used it.

I'm not sure what your position is with resepct to "the cloture rule" (or "the rule to break the requirement for unanimous consent to have an up-or-down vote"), but you seem to say that this unprecedented move by the DEM party should not be permitted to stand. The solution you propose is to install a GOP supermajority. I'd like to see a conservative supermajority in the Senate too. But I hope that is not the only solution. That is, I'd like to see the rule changed -- or at least discussed further. Maybe Estrada bowing out is the spark that will ignite a serious discussion for rule change.

[Dane]

Whoops sorry reply #52 is directed towards Cboldt's reply #43 of this thread.

[kayak]

Why is the GOP bound by rules and the evil perverted socialist SOB democrats not.

First, let me emphasize that I share your frustration and anger.

However, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. We have choices .... we can take the high road and follow the rule of law. Or we can let the 'rats drag us down to their level, in which case we have no right to gripe about their behavior because we're guilty of it also. I don't like wallowing in the muck and mire as they seem to enjoy.

I'd love to run every one of them out of town on a rail ... after they were tarred and feathered ... but I don't think it fixes anything if the GOP acts the same way.

Educating the public so that there is widespread outrage among the populace akin to what we feel is one answer ....... and that is hard to do when the media are complicit in the skullduggery.

So we must do all that we can to elect more Republicans to the Senate so that the 'rats are so totally outnumbered that they become impotent as far as pulling such subversive tactics.

[Dane]

Thanks for closing the loop on that. The GOP used filibuster vs. Fortas to delay a vote (for what, days? weeks?), but eventually broke ranks and permitted an up or down vote

Jah dude, back then(1966) the GOP had what 33 or 34 members in the Senate, the demos have 49 now and they threw out 200 years of Senate precedant, for their own petulant reasons.

[Cboldt]

In 1968, President Johnson nominated Fortas as chief justice of the United States; Republicans and Southern Democrats held a Senate filibuster against the nomination, causing President Johnson to withdraw Fortas's nomination. The following year, Fortas resigned from the court after it was revealed that he had, while on the bench, accepted $20,000 from a private foundation; the money was part of a life stipend to Fortas by the foundation. Although he returned the money, Fortas resigned from the court under public pressure, the first justice to do so.

Fortas, Abe, Supreme Court, Biographies <-- Link

Looks as though Fortas was already on the SCOTUS, and the (withdrawn) nomination was for elevation to CJ. In this case, a minority of Senators (I assume a minority, if they had to resort to filibuster) forced the executive to withdraw. The dispute was between the Senate and the President. That is quite different from the current state of affairs, where the Senate is failing to deliver on its Constitutional "advise and consnet (or not)" duty.

[Clintonfatigued]

The Senate 'Rats have hijacked the judicial nomination process and taken it hostage. Conservatives must do everything in their power to get those scum out of office.

[Dane]

In 1968, President Johnson nominated Fortas as chief justice of the United States; Republicans and Southern Democrats held a Senate filibuster against the nomination, causing President Johnson to withdraw Fortas's nomination. The following year, Fortas resigned from the court after it was revealed that he had, while on the bench, accepted $20,000 from a private foundation;

Uh dude, you are being misleading. Fortas was already on SCOTUS, he got his vote on the Senate floor, which Estrada did not(Estarda for the DC circuit) .

Oh BTW, do have a link to where Estrada committed the same unethical behavior that Fortas performed.

You democrats are so funny in how you try to change history.

[Cboldt]

I am not a Democrat, and YOU are out of line by alluding that I am one (Your "You democrats ... " comment was directed AT ME.)

I did point out that Fortas was already on the SCOTUS, and provided a link.

I never asserted that there is a parallel between Fortas unethical behvior and Estrada.

I am not trying to change any history, and I challenge you to point out anyplace I did -- I do make mistakes, and will correct my mistatements of fact.

As for Fortas, you are partly right, but incomplete. He was placed on SCOTUS by an up-down vote, and was denied elevation to CJ due to a Senate filibuster -- President Johnson capitulated. And as I said before, the present situation is completely different in that President Bush did not capitulate when faced with a Senate filibuster. And here we are.

Please be more careful with your accusations.