« civil defense poster contest | Main | huh? »

party poopers

Democrats are threatening a fillbuster to keep Miguel Estrada from being confirmed for the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Estrada, who is a minority who has worked for Clinton and went on the record saying he had no intention of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So what's the problem? Seems he's not liberal enough, not hispanic enough and is not standing up and cheering for partial birth abortions.

What happened to the Democratic party? How often do they have to shoot themselves in the foot before they become crippled?


Cheap judicial gossip: isn't he dating Ann Coulter?

Well, we all know it's all the same old same old. Can't have Republicans looking inclusive or anything, can we? They need some dirt to throw at him, and they're pissed that he won't give them any.

I say let 'em fillibuster. Let 'em talk all the way though the war. Let 'em talk all the way to the next election. Opposing Estrada is a losing cause, and if they're so committed to it, we shouldn't stand in their way.

Not to defend either side, and admittedly I haven't been following this as closely as other news, but I thought one of the concerns is that Estrada has been avoiding answering questions. I can see where that could pose a problem in deciding either way. Is it such a bad thing to have as much information as possible before making a decision?

The politics of the judiciary is getting out of control and its easy to see why, judges can do from the bench what congressmen donít have the stones to do legislatively. For the Republicans the issues are abortion, guns, and search and seizure, for the Democrats its things like Affirmative Action, church and state issues and guns too ironically. Ronnie White got the same treatment from the Republicans as Estrada is getting now. The Republicans were also dreadfully slow getting Clintons appointments confirmed so there is a lot of political tit for tat. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it is difficult for me to see Democrats not putting up a fight.

What is happening is large "P" politics and to paint Republicans as innocents in all of this is a bit on the naive side. I do think you're right about the situation from a tactical perspective, the Democrats are going to end up looking bad no question. But the only really relevant point is how bad will they look to potential swing voters and that will have a lot more to do with bedrock issues come elections day. If things go well for Bush in Iraq, and the economy doesn't get much worse, it really isn't going to make a bit of difference so the Democrats might as well play the game now, in a real practical sense they donít have much to lose.

It's also difficult to know what is going on in the cloak room. Maybe Democrats are squeezing out concessions by all the political saber rattling. The more political capitol the White House has to spend on these nominations the less they have to spend on other issues. So it might not be the dumb ass move it seems to be on the surface.

Where do I paint the Republicans as innocent?

I think its great that the Liberals stand up for minorities and want to include more minorities in our legal and political system. But only if they agree with the liberla brand of thinking. They dont seem to realize that Bush has a more 'diverse' administration that the last........But Rice and Powell 'arent really black' and Abraham 'isnt really a chaldean', Gonzales isnt really Hispanic and Linda Chavez isnt really a woman or hispanic.
Liberla hate to be outdone.

spelling errrrs. sorry.

Re: Leigh-Anne

Some of the so call evasive answering by Estrada are privilege information. Estrada worked as solicitors general of Justice Department under Clinton Administration, whose client is the United State Government before the Supreme Court. Unless Patrick Leahy wants to authorized the waving of the attorney-client privilege, there is no way in hell Estrada could answer those question.


Best comment left over at my place on this subject -

"don't try to kill a man attempting suicide"

BigFire has a good point. Knowing violation of attorney-client privilege sets up you for some very serious consequences.

My problem with the process is that the focus apparently is result-oriented: that is, they want Estrada to commit himself in advance to a particular result. I'd rather that Congress ask him about his jurisprudence, that is, how he gets to the result.

So let the filibuster happen - the other Senators can bring popcorn, a pillow, and a laptop to keep up with other business.


Fillibuster all year for all I care. I the Dems have the Senate tied up ina Filibuster, they are passing any bills, and that is a very good thing


I didn't say you did. I was simply pointing out how the process has become politicized and both sides of the isle are in on the fun game.

Don't any of you know what this is really about? The dems say it is because Estrada won't answer questions, which is true. But the question should be: why does that matter?

The answer is that for the past 20 years deceitful republicans have been appointing little known candidates to the bench who end up being uber-right wing maniacs. It is about time the democrats step up the plate and put an end to this nonsense.

If you don't believe me, all you need to do is read Martin Garbus' book "Courting Disaster" about the current Supreme Court. It will scare all democrats, and I wager even a fair amount of republicans.