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.
Remember how weak he was during the Impeachment?
Yeah, thats when I first started to call him Escape Hatch.
Everyday, he was on the news floating trial balloons to try to figure out a way he could avoid making any decision whatsoever on the trial. He really just wanted it all to go away so he could get back to the business of doing absolutely nothing about anything.
I never said that. But I have said -- multiple times over the past 24 hours -- that though the Democrats did the deed, we let them do it.
The only thing I hear from you and others who have politely patted my head (you hear this PhiKapMom?) is that we need to sit back and be quiet and put the blame on the Dems.
I can't do that. We held the red scarf in front of the bull and it took the bait! What, you want me to blame the bull for seeing red?! C'mon! Be realistic!
Am I ranting!? Damn right. Does the Administration deserve my (our) ire!? Yes it does!
They made this mess. Now, we should be demanding that they clean it up, not making reservations at Tavern on the Green or Ruth's Chris.
TexasNative2000 to Hatch: 'Grow a spine'
Done and bumped!
If I recall correctly, technically, they're not filibustering the nominee, they're filibustering the nomination. They have to have a vote to consider the nominations - that is, they have to vote to vote on the nominees. Once we get to the point that a specific nominee is being considered, then a simple majority will win.
I don't know about anyone else, but if it weren't for FR I would not know about the judicial nominations being held up. Everyone is being real quiet about this, and that's not a good thing.
Good work, if you can get it...
Besides, if the Congress is bickering with itself, then it's leaving us alone...
Our is simply (apparently) to keep writing those donation checks; and keep robotically voting for whichever candidate has an "R" next to their name (regardless of actual end results); and to sit down and shut up. And take it, by God.
There's an authoritarian, "nanny-"esque streak in some, hereabouts, which is just this side of Clintonian, insofar as ability to tolerate debate and/or principled dissent is concerned.
Sad... but true.
I've noticed. Woe be unto any of us who stand up and yell, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this any more!"
Answer:
Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control
Absolutely...the Senate as currently run is broken. Lead, follow, or get the F##K out of the way!!!
I think somebody needs a nap.
You and your bushbot buddies just dont comprehend that do you?
Like I've said before, it comes down to 2 kinds of people...the ones who give a $hit, demand accountability, and expect "our" (minus the RINOS) elected republicans to do the right thing or the ones who will appease and stand idly waiting for some kind of strategery play out, sit and play nice with Dems as they castrate us and kindly show us our ba--s with a big smirk on their face.
Obviously we know where you stand.
No thanks...playing nice and appeasing has gotten us nowhere. Au contraire...its time for alot folks to awake from their nap (a self-induced dreamworld) and realize the reality that the GOP is selling out, ignoring conservatives, and appeasing/playing softball w/ the Dems. You go take a nap and think about that, and think about it before you write your check to the RNC as well.
And don't bother responding to me with some "we have to have unity in the party" bull$hit, cause thats just a copout too that doesnt make anything any better.
Hence my question, why can't, since Republicans are the majority, just do an up or down vote regardless of what the Democrats think they're doing. If they have the vote, the judge should be seated, correct?
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.