Hatch to Stalled Judicial Nominees: 'Hang In'

Reuters ^ | 09-05-03

[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.

[Ann Archy]

Here's a solution....Change the damn rules back to the old filibuster rules.

I am SICK of Republicans being weak and I LOATHE the evil Democrats. This could be the first time I DON'T VOTE.

[Miss Marple]

he rules were changed by the democrats (need you ask?). I believe there is some rule that you can't change the rules except at the beginning of a session, and you have to have a larger majority or something.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

There has to be a way to turn this glee that the Rats are currently enjoying into another Wellstone moment.

Better, smarter long-term policy: no longer blithely allowing the 'Rats so many freebie "Wellstone moments," from this point forward...

... and, if that means knife-fighting down in the gutters, where they (demonstrably) prefer... then: So Be It.

[Ann Archy]

Could you please tell us how YOU would have taken care of this filibuster problem....or don't you have a solution either??

[deport]

Did you see the following?

It's an excellent article and analysis of the Judicial appointment process involved in the Estrada nomination.........

Lessons of the Estrada Defeat
Legal Theory Blog ^ | September 4, 2003 | Prof. Lawrence Solum


Posted on 09/04/2003 5:47 PM CDT by pogo101


Withdrawal: What Does Estrada's Decision Mean?

[Ann Archy]

Sadly, good decent Republicans don't want to run///they dont want to be DESTROYED by the Evil Dems. I about can't blame them.

[Ann Archy]

But WHEN were the rules changed and why didn't the Republican Senate change them when they first had the majority??

Are you not sick of their cowardice??? I am.

[Tarl]

Concern is expressed over further straining of Senate relations...the Dems are acting like children pressing the "house rules" testing their boundaries while the Republicans are acting like appeasing parents whose rules shift like the sand. Forget the strain, they crossed the "line" drawn in the sand and are calling our bluff. We either put up or shut up, otherwise having the "majority" will mean nothing and voters will start doubting the value of their votes.

[deport]

But WHEN were the rules changed and why didn't the Republican Senate change them when they first had the majority??

---

Not sure which rule(s) you are talking about but to amend a rule only requires a majority vote but the motion to amend can also be filibustered in which case requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senators present and voting to bring cloture on the rule change amendment filibuster..... So you still have to contend with a filibuster if the democrats aren't in favor of a rule change.

[Cboldt]

Then come up with a solution.

Good point.

But I see nothing wrong with people who can't devise a solution (so far, in addition to the disappointed posters here, the GOP Senate fits that description) being disappointed, and venting.

I suppose, with the lock that the DEM persuasion has on the media, we can't know whether the masses were deprived of seeing the GOP actions (or even ongoing expression of outrage), or whether there was no such action or expression.

I was excited when Hatch and Bush talked-up the prospect of changing the Senate voting rules as applied to judicial nominees, but that topic got overshadowed by unquestionably more important world developments.

Judicial appointments are a key part of our form of government, and I DO trust the GOP to make the most of the situation. I also believe GWB fully intends to take advantage of the situation, with the goal of reducing judicial activism for us, and our posterity.

[freeangel]

"let the process work"

Did I miss something? Isn't there supposed to be some plan in order for a process to work?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Yeah, that’s when I first started to call him “Escape Hatch.”

ROTFLOL! That's the best moniker yet (no pun intended)!

[afraidfortherepublic]

just heard on the radio that the RATS are really celebrating this victory....wonder if hatch is joining them?

Prolly. He doesn't want his bosom buddy Kennedy to stop inviting him over.

[mathluv]

From what I have heard/read, ALL 51 Rep have to be there 24/7, while only 1 dim would have to be.

[Political Junkie Too]

I also think we should start talking about the rules of the Senate, which most Americans don't know about.

I know I keep harping on the 17th Amendment and how it changed the Senate and the entire Federal government. With the latest attempt by the renegade Texas State Senators to turn their dereliction of duty into a national attack on President Bush, it shows just how much the Democrats are organizing everything into a national political bloc. I believe that this is directly attributable to the 17th Amendment.

The Senate is the heart of both national parties. If the Senate were appointed by state legislatures instead of popularly elected, it would be much harder for a national party bloc to form since there would be too many House members to make it cost-effective to manage nationally, and state houses and governorships are too independent to make individual sacrifices for some artificial national political entity. The states would regain control over the Federal government and the Senate, and party bloc voting in the Senate over the ideology of a judge would be much harder to come by.

-PJ

[afraidfortherepublic]

Do you have that Congression phone number that will get you into any office? If so, please post it on this thread. I'm steaming over this.

[Cboldt]

You underestimate the borg/herd mentality of the DEM party.

I'd love to see the 17th repealed, it's a step in the right direction (reduced FEDGOV influence).

[afraidfortherepublic]

Congression = Congressional! Told y'all that I was steamin'!

[Political Junkie Too]

You underestimate the borg/herd mentality of the DEM party.

Maybe I do, but if the majority of governorships and statehouses are GOP-controlled, then Senators who don't align themselves with the state will be summarily replaced unless the people of the state change the alignment of the statehouse and/or governorship over time.

Otherwise, voting against the grain of the state and for the ideology of the minority party will get a Senator replaced.

-PJ

[fishbabe]

if this was nazi germany,the republicans would be wringing their hands over the mass murders of jews saying,hang in there we'll protect you......and of course the nazis would be gleefully hauling them to the concentration camps while the republicans tried to make sure the nazis weren't mad at them for even talking to the jews......