Posted on 09/05/2003 11:22:13 AM PDT by Brian S
Fri September 5, 2003 02:05 PM ET By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch said on Friday he does not expect other stalled judicial nominees to follow Miguel Estrada's lead and drop their confirmation bids, but "we are always concerned."
"I've basically told them, 'Hang in there. We'll do our best to get you through,"' Hatch, a Utah Republican, told Reuters. "Let the process work."
Estrada got fed up with the process. After waiting more than two years for a Senate confirmation vote, Estrada asked President Bush on Thursday to withdraw his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Democrats, who denounced Estrada as a right-wing ideologue, had blocked the nomination with a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster. A majority of the 100-member Senate backed Estrada, but proponents were unable to get the needed 60 votes to end the filibuster.
Democrats are now filibustering two other appeals court nominees, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. And they say they have to votes to block at least two more, U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi and California jurist Carolyn Kuhl.
Unlike the other stalled nominees, Estrada has a private practice, and backers noted there are problems keeping and attracting clients while in limbo about a possible judgeship.
Hatch, asked if he expected any other stalled nominees to withdraw, told reporters, "We are always concerned about that. But I personally don't think any of them will."
Hatch said Republicans will continue to press for the case for these and other nominees and look for a way to end filibusters against them.
Some Republicans have considered filing suit challenging the constitutionality of filibusters while others have explored trying to change Senate rules to outlaw them on nominations.
But lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have warned such action would further strain relations in the Senate and make it more difficult to find common ground.
Democrats have said Bush could avoid future filibusters if he offers more mainstream judicial nominees.
Noticed that your comments (in #74) have so far not received a direct and cogent rebuttal. Yesterday this was important, today it's not?
I still haven't had any response to my opinion that a supermajority requirement for judicial appointments is bad (that the ability of a minority of Senators to block appointmenst is bad) -- to the contrary, it's been held out as a good thing, in case conservatives are ever in the minority.
At any rate, even though the judicial contention has not been settled, I think all of us can agree that is it reasonable to EXPECT success (i.e., at least approval of nominees) during the current session of the Senate, even though we aren't clear as to the exact mechanism.
I wonder, is that a reasonable expectation?
I'd like to see a vigorous debate as to the application of the unanimous consent rule to judicial nominations. THe hurdle must be made higher, for any Sanator who is objecting to taking the vote.
These guys are the pros. They have said they will deliver.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. And yes, I am deeply disappointed in GOP performance. I wish the Dept. of Edu. was gone, for example. I wish FedGov was becoming less intrusive. I wish there was less wealth transfer. But that's just me complaining, with no solution ;-)
After concluding that Snowe was a shoo-in, I simply didn't vote for Senator. She won, but the GOP notice the number of "not voting Senate" compared with number of voters. If Pingree had a snowball's chance in hell, I"d have held my nose and pulled for Snowe.
The local GOP does NOT welcome conservative volunteers for the national races. It's uphill pal, uphill.
Here's a glimpse of the next few pages of RNC strategery...
Take back the Senate!
I.
Get a majority! Confirm conservative judges!II.
Get a filibusterproof supermajority! Confirm conservative judges!III. Get a RINO-filibuster-proof super-dupermajority! Confirm conservative judges!
IV.Now shut up and send us money.
I know. Shock follows shock, huh...? :)
I've observed that as being a peculiarly omnipresent behavioral "tic" in the overbearing, volume-mistaken-for-content types around here. To wit: whenever provided with a question they cannot answer sans self-incrimination, or an argument they cannot rebut: they scatter like scalded cats. :)
I wouldn't recommend this. Lots of people in my city played the "protest vote" game last time around, and as a result we lost a GOP mayor and got a RAT who was 25 years old and had just graduated from college, who was only running for the hell of it. Needless to say, the entire city has completely fallen apart in the couple of years since he took office.
And most days, you can drive down the alley behind city hall, and see him standing out back smoking cigarettes and hanging out with his buddies, as if it were his free period in high school.
All because a few people wanted to register a "protest vote" to "put a little fear" into the GOP mayor (who they mainly didn't like because she was originally from England, and has a someone upper-crusty accent that the simpletons here interpreted as a Marie Antoinette complex). Instead, the only thing they accomplished was taking their already troubled city and flushing it straight down the toilet.
Betrayed Conservatives to Hatch: "Hang yourself you S.O.B.!"
Take back the Senate!
I. Get a majority! Confirm conservative judges!
II. Get a filibusterproof supermajority! Confirm conservative judges!
III. Get a RINO-filibuster-proof super-dupermajority! Confirm conservative judges!
IV.Now shut up and send us money.
Laugh of the day! ROTFLMAO!!!! :)
Hasn't this been the problem with getting things enacted anytime the GOP gets in power?
The Dems or special interest groups start crying that the GOP is being mean-spirited, and the GOP backs down. Every single time.
From what I have heard/read, ALL 51 Rep have to be there 24/7, while only 1 dim would have to be.
Yes, that's true. But just think how that would play in the press, even in the liberal-leftwing-scumbag press which would be absolutely unable to ignore the spectacle of total Republican unity behind the ideal of the US Constitution.
And just think how evil and disgusting that one lone Dimo-wit would look.
And just think how evil and lazy and corrupt the dimo-wit no-shows would look.
If the Republicans had any guts, you know what they'd say to the filibuster:
Bring it on!
But they lack the will. They lack the guts.
I saw Frisk on this subject and he sounded just about as whimpy as a whimp can get.
"People who ask us why we don't force a real filibuster are naive," said the Senate Majority Whimp. "They don't understand the rules."
And then he goes off in Africa and performs operations on sick people, which is wonderful, but completely not the reason he was elected. He should go back to doctoring and leave leadership to those who have the guts for it.
Democrats are leftwing scum: shame on them.
We are too lazy and cowardice to stand up to them: Shame on us.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.Res.138: <- Link
S.RES.138
Title: A resolution to amend rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate relating to the consideration of nominations requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sponsor: Sen Frist, Bill [TN] (introduced 5/9/2003) Cosponsors: 11
Latest Major Action: 6/26/2003 Senate preparation for floor. Status: Placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 180.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.