Estrada Withdraws as Bush Judicial Nominee-Source

[BOBDN]

Another Bush nominee bites the dust. Another victory for the US justice system.

Estrada Withdraws as Bush Judicial Nominee-Source

 

[Corn]

Yes, horray for the Demoncrats keeping a highly regarded and very qualified judge from the bench. Horray for the Demoncrats for being the first to use the filibuster to keep judicial appointments from reaching the bench.

Horray for the Republicans when they do it to the Demoncrats. Oh, and I don't want to hear you doing any whining when that happens BOBDN.

 

[Zebo]

i love fillibusters. Wish every law and appointee required 2/3 or even 3/4 ths to pass. If only a little over 50% feel something is a good idea it's probably not all that popular nor is it a good idea.

He does'nt seem fully qualified though:

Introduction. The nomination of Miguel Estrada to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit presents a unique challenge to the Senate. His academic and professional credentials place him among elite lawyers in this country, but do not by themselves qualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. He lacks the kind of written record the Senate typically has before it, and his views on many controversial issues have not been revealed. The Senate must nonetheless give full consideration to the record that is available in assessing whether Mr. Estrada meets his burden of establishing that he merits confirmation to what has been called the second most important court in the country.

Text

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Corn
Yes, horray for the Demoncrats keeping a highly regarded and very qualified judge from the bench. Horray for the Demoncrats for being the first to use the filibuster to keep judicial appointments from reaching the bench.

Horray for the Republicans when they do it to the Demoncrats. Oh, and I don't want to hear you doing any whining when that happens BOBDN.

If you'll just go back to the Republican's record during the Clinton administration you would see they already did it. And on a much larger scale than the Democrats are now. And for no reason.

The Democrats didn't keep a highly regarded qualified judge from the bench. They kept a right wing radical ideologue OFF the bench.

Great job to all my Democratic friends in the Senate. KUDOS chaps! Well done. Keep up the good work!

PS

The Democrats approved more Bush judicial nominees in the first year of Bush's "reign" than the Republicans approved during the ENTIRE EIGHT YEARS of the Clinton Presidency.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Zebo
i love fillibusters. Wish every law and appointee required 2/3 or even 3/4 ths to pass. If only a little over 50% feel something is a good idea it's probably not all that popular nor is it a good idea.

He does'nt seem fully qualified though:

Introduction. The nomination of Miguel Estrada to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit presents a unique challenge to the Senate. His academic and professional credentials place him among elite lawyers in this country, but do not by themselves qualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.[/b] He lacks the kind of written record the Senate typically has before it, and his views on many controversial issues have not been revealed. The Senate must nonetheless give full consideration to the record that is available in assessing whether Mr. Estrada meets his burden of establishing that he merits confirmation to what has been called the second most important court in the country.

Text

Your by-line in your sig says it best; garbage in, garbage out. Most every opposition group to his nomination is a bleeding heart liberal. Nothing but political BS here. Dems have stooped to an all-new low. What comes around, goes around though. And don't try to say that 95% of those groups are not libs; that would be a joke and an insult to intelligence. This is not a "proud" day; it is indeed an all-new low point in an already troubled judiciary system.
I usually don't get into this type of thread because it is nothing but a vicious circle of BS. In fact, I'll bow out here. I've said what needed to be said.

 

[Corn]

If you'll just go back to the Republican's record during the Clinton administration you would see they already did it.

Dude, why do you find it necessary to continually tell lie after lie? The Republicans have absolutely positevely never filibustered a judicial nominee. You'll say just about anything, no matter how far fetched, won't you? Disgusting!

The Democrats didn't keep a highly regarded qualified judge from the bench. They kept a right wing radical ideologue OFF the bench.

Estrada worked at the Justice Dept during the Clinton administration, here's a couple quotes that don't necessarily jive with your not so honest portrayal of Estrada:

Seth P. Waxman, Solicitor General under President Clinton, said Estrada is, "exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocates."

Randolph Moss, President Clinton's former Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote, "Although I am [sic] Democrat and Miguel and I do not see eye-to-eye on every issue, I hold Miguel in the highest regard and I urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to his nomination . . . . Miguel is a brilliant, dedicated, and principled lawyer."

Vice President Gore's former Chief of Staff, Ronald Klain, in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote the "challenges [Estrada] has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely devoted to helping those in need . . . ."

Robert S. Litt, Clinton Justice Department Associate Deputy Attorney General, said, "Miguel has an absolutely brilliant mind. He is a superb analytical lawyer and he's an outstanding oral advocate."

This filibuster has nothing to do with Estrada being a "right wing radical ideologue", it was simply political payback and partisan whimpering by toothless Demoncrats desperate to exercise some power. DISGUSTING!!!

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Corn

If you'll just go back to the Republican's record during the Clinton administration you would see they already did it.

Dude, why do you find it necessary to continually tell lie after lie? The Republicans have absolutely positevely never filibustered a judicial nominee. You'll say just about anything, no matter how far fetched, won't you? Disgusting!

The Democrats didn't keep a highly regarded qualified judge from the bench. They kept a right wing radical ideologue OFF the bench.

Estrada worked at the Justice Dept during the Clinton administration, here's a couple quotes that don't necessarily jive with your not so honest portrayal of Estrada:

Seth P. Waxman, Solicitor General under President Clinton, said Estrada is, "exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocates."

Randolph Moss, President Clinton's former Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote, "Although I am [sic] Democrat and Miguel and I do not see eye-to-eye on every issue, I hold Miguel in the highest regard and I urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to his nomination . . . . Miguel is a brilliant, dedicated, and principled lawyer."

Vice President Gore's former Chief of Staff, Ronald Klain, in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote the "challenges [Estrada] has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely devoted to helping those in need . . . ."

Robert S. Litt, Clinton Justice Department Associate Deputy Attorney General, said, "Miguel has an absolutely brilliant mind. He is a superb analytical lawyer and he's an outstanding oral advocate."

This filibuster has nothing to do with Estrada being a "right wing radical ideologue", it was simply political payback and partisan whimpering by toothless Demoncrats desperate to exercise some power. DISGUSTING!!!

Estrada refused to answer questions asked by Senators because he knew his answers would show him to be exactly what he is. A right wing radical ideologue.

As for payback, as I already stated, the Democrats have approved more Bush nominees to the federal bench in Bush's FIRST YEAR than the Republicans approved in ALL EIGHT YEARS of the Clinton Presidency.

Are you disputing that? Knowing this FACT who are the real whimpering toothless partisans desperate to excercise some power?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Corn
Yes, horray for the Demoncrats keeping a highly regarded and very qualified judge from the bench. Horray for the Demoncrats for being the first to use the filibuster to keep judicial appointments from reaching the bench.

Horray for the Republicans when they do it to the Demoncrats. Oh, and I don't want to hear you doing any whining when that happens BOBDN.

KUDOS chaps!

WTF is wrong with you? "Chaps"? Are you a freakin' chimney sweep from 19th century England who stumbled into a time machine to our present date or something? Or are you just trying to sound scholarly? Doctor Watson called...he wants his vernacular back.

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you'll just go back to the Republican's record during the Clinton administration you would see they already did it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude, why do you find it necessary to continually tell lie after lie? The Republicans have absolutely positevely never filibustered a judicial nominee. You'll say just about anything, no matter how far fetched, won't you? Disgusting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was confirmed to be a first time in history of Filibusting being used in this way.

Not a good thing to put down in history as it shows continued lows the U.S. Political system falling down to.

 

[Corn]

Estrada refused to answer questions asked by Senators because he knew his answers would show him to be exactly what he is. A right wing radical ideologue.

You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the ass.

Nice spin, let's quote the pertinant parts:

However, some of these questions involved, 'How would you rule on a particular case?' and nobody on an appellate court bench should answer that question. In fact, every sitting justice on the Supreme Court has refused to answer the question of how they would rule on a particular case and that's because there's an American Bar Association guideline that says you can't do that.

Estrada provided seven hours of testimony; he answered a whole slew of questions on judicial philosophy. He refused to answer the same questions that Justice Ginsberg refused to answer during her confirmation hearings. The difference is that some Senate Democrats, (and by the way, not all, because Zell Miller, John Breaux, and Senator Nelson have all come out in favor of the nomination of Miguel Estrada), but some of the Senate leadership, the Democratic leadership clearly do not feel that way.

 

[phillyTIM]

Everything that Bush touches is tainted and should be left to die.

BTW: good morning everyone

 

[Bigdude]

Yeah, Bush try to put a Hispanic on the HighCourt, and them Dems slam him!

 

[Jmman]

This was truly a disgrace......Estrada was eminently qualified.........

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Corn

Estrada refused to answer questions asked by Senators because he knew his answers would show him to be exactly what he is. A right wing radical ideologue.

You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the ass.

Nice spin, let's quote the pertinant parts:

However, some of these questions involved, 'How would you rule on a particular case?' and nobody on an appellate court bench should answer that question. In fact, every sitting justice on the Supreme Court has refused to answer the question of how they would rule on a particular case and that's because there's an American Bar Association guideline that says you can't do that.

Estrada provided seven hours of testimony; he answered a whole slew of questions on judicial philosophy. He refused to answer the same questions that Justice Ginsberg refused to answer during her confirmation hearings. The difference is that some Senate Democrats, (and by the way, not all, because Zell Miller, John Breaux, and Senator Nelson have all come out in favor of the nomination of Miguel Estrada), but some of the Senate leadership, the Democratic leadership clearly do not feel that way.

:beer:

Not a good day for our Judicial system.

CkG

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Corn
Yes, horray for the Demoncrats keeping a highly regarded and very qualified judge from the bench. Horray for the Demoncrats for being the first to use the filibuster to keep judicial appointments from reaching the bench.

Horray for the Republicans when they do it to the Demoncrats. Oh, and I don't want to hear you doing any whining when that happens BOBDN.

..and hooray for Democrats who argue on behalf of minorities in this country and about 'equal opportunity'. Then again, this only applies when you are African American, liberal, and part of the 94% that traditionally votes (D) in Nov. Hispanics aside, the Democrats are all for equal opportunity.

 

[Moonbeam]

As long as there are members on the Supreme Coup that feel it's their right to select the President, it way past time to vet the nominees and weed out potential traitors to American democracy. We have to stop the activist right winged court. They are supposed to interpret law not deny the counting of votes. It was a fundamental and horrendous error. It saddled us with the most destructive President in history. He's ruined our international reputation and squandered our wealth. He has divided the nation. He's completely inept and totally unsuited for the job. He is a disaster. The Republicans refine the politics of destruction. Whatever it takes to dump his worthless ass, so be it.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Whatever it takes to dump his worthless ass, so be it.

AMEN, brother!!!!!!!

 

[Corn]

As long as there are members on the Supreme Coup that feel it's their right to select the President, it way past time to vet the nominees and weed out potential traitors to American democracy. We have to stop the activist right winged court. They are supposed to interpret law not deny the counting of votes. It was a fundamental and horrendous error. It saddled us with the most destructive President in history. He's ruined our international reputation and squandered our wealth. He has divided the nation. He's completely inept and totally unsuited for the job. He is a disaster. The Republicans refine the politics of destruction. Whatever it takes to dump his worthless ass, so be it.

Blah Blah Blah.........

7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed the selective recount was unconstitutional. Only 5 had the courage to uphold the law, the other 2 didn't have the backbone to uphold the law they swore to uphold and voted along partisan lines. DISGUSTING!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

As long as there are members on the Supreme Coup that feel it's their right to select the President, it way past time to vet the nominees and weed out potential traitors to American democracy. We have to stop the activist right winged court. They are supposed to interpret law not deny the counting of votes. It was a fundamental and horrendous error. It saddled us with the most destructive President in history. He's ruined our international reputation and squandered our wealth. He has divided the nation. He's completely inept and totally unsuited for the job. He is a disaster. The Republicans refine the politics of destruction. Whatever it takes to dump his worthless ass, so be it.

Blah Blah Blah.........

7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed the selective recount was unconstitutional. Only 5 had the courage to uphold the law, the other 2 didn't have the backbone to uphold the law they swore to uphold and voted along partisan lines. DISGUSTING!!!

Selective recount ought to be unconstitutional, but the answer is to recount the entire thing, every legal vote according to Florida law. Even a moron should see that. The purpose of courts is to bring justice.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corn

As long as there are members on the Supreme Coup that feel it's their right to select the President, it way past time to vet the nominees and weed out potential traitors to American democracy. We have to stop the activist right winged court. They are supposed to interpret law not deny the counting of votes. It was a fundamental and horrendous error. It saddled us with the most destructive President in history. He's ruined our international reputation and squandered our wealth. He has divided the nation. He's completely inept and totally unsuited for the job. He is a disaster. The Republicans refine the politics of destruction. Whatever it takes to dump his worthless ass, so be it.

Blah Blah Blah.........

7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed the selective recount was unconstitutional. Only 5 had the courage to uphold the law, the other 2 didn't have the backbone to uphold the law they swore to uphold and voted along partisan lines. DISGUSTING!!!

Selective recount ought to be unconstitutional, but the answer is to recount the entire thing, every legal vote according to Florida law. Even a moron should see that. The purpose of courts is to bring justice.

The purpose of the court is to uphold the law - not make it. The USSC did it's job - the FSC did not. Now again - if you want to debate this - start a new thread or are your too insecure in your argument's position that you won't? You seem to have skipped out on our other threads specifically made for the 2000 election debate, why is that?

Still a sad day for the Judicial Branch of America's Gov't.

CkG

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

...except the military voters whose votes were in the mail system; let's not count those, okay?

 

[Moonbeam]

The Supreme Coup didn't uphold the law the twisted it along partisan lines 5 to 4. Wasn't the FSC almost completely unanimous. And don't they know better Florida law. But they too should have ordered a total recount. So should have Gore and Bush. The law is that the people elect the President, not the Supreme Coup. Read your Constitution. They should have ordered a recount or stayed out of the case and let a lower court commit the crime. They made their crime Supreme. You're complacent, Caddy, because real justice means nothing to you. There was a winner in the votes and we found out who it was. Gore won Florida. The Supreme Coup elected a disaster and turned the world on its head.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Still a sad day for the Judicial Branch of America's Gov't.
CkG

Yes, I don't know what we'll do without Estrada I mean how will we go on with life

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...except the military voters whose votes were in the mail system; let's not count those, okay?

No no, you count every legal vote and you admit every legal voter.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Supreme Coup didn't uphold the law the twisted it along partisan lines 5 to 4. Wasn't the FSC almost completely unanimous. And don't they know better Florida law. But they too should have ordered a total recount. So should have Gore and Bush. The law is that the people elect the President, not the Supreme Coup. Read your Constitution. They should have ordered a recount or stayed out of the case and let a lower court commit the crime. They made their crime Supreme. You're complacent, Caddy, because real justice means nothing to you. There was a winner in the votes and we found out who it was. Gore won Florida. The Supreme Coup elected a disaster and turned the world on its head.

Take it to a new thread if you wish. I'll be there ready to shoot the above or any other argument about the 2000 election down.

CkG