TheAgitator.com
What I’ve Learned.
Thursday, February 13th, 2003So former President Clinton’s chief of staff for the solicitor general (Ron Klain, whose mug you might remember from the Florida recount), the ABA, and every living former solicitor general of the United States has signed off on the nomination of Honduran immigrant-to-Harvard Law Review Editor Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Still, the Democrats plan to fillibuster his confirmation vote — an underhanded parliamentary move unprecedented in U.S. history.
Why? They say it’s because he has “refused to answer questions.” But as Byron York reported yesterday, it’s really because he’s conservative, and it will be nearly impossible for the Democrats to block the nomination of a qualified, Hisapnic, but very conservative Supreme Court nominee once he’s already aboard an appeals court.
Senator Mary Landrieu announced her support for Estrada during the 2002 campaign in a Spanish-language commercial. She won, thanks largely to big support from Hispanics. Not three months after Election Day, she’s flipped. She’ll vote with the fillibustering Dems — and break rank with fellow Louisiana Sen. John Breaux. She says her flip was due to “a misunderstanding” between her campaign staff and the Hispanic advocacy group who ran the ad supporting. Funny how she waited until three months after the election to clear that up.
What should we learn from this?
If you’re Hispanic, and you want some political power in this country, it is simply not permissable to have political opinions of your own. Check with Tom Daschle first. He’ll tell you how you’re supposed to think.
UPDATE: Classic hypocrisy from Sen. Hillary “Billing Records” Clinton. She says she’s upholding the filibuster because Estrada “wasn’t forthcoming” in his answers to judiciary committe questions. She’s also demanding the White House release internal briefs Estrada wrote while working in the Clinton Justice Department! (Estrada, incidentally, also argued in favor of using RICO statutes to prosecute anti-abortion protesters — hardly the undertaking of a militant “anti-choicer”). And yes, this was the same Clinton administration that claimed “executive privilege” any time a congressional oversight committee asked for so much as an 8×10 glossy of Janet Reno.
Said Hillary:
When you stonewall the Judiciary Committee … when you act as if you just came out of nowhere and donât have an opinion on anything, everybody knows thatâs a charade.
You have to admire the…er…testicular fortitude of the woman.
The reason this is happening is because Democrats realize that the only way they can advance their statist agenda is through an liberal activist judiciary. Liberal ideas are defeated time and time again in the arena of public debate. It’s much easier to just legislate from the bench.
I think we should all end the real charade of referring to Mr. Estrada as hispanic.
As we all know, one isn’t actually hispanic (or black) unless one is a liberal democrat.
Please stop referring to this man,a conservative, as hispanic.
Hipp is absolutely right. If he is conservative, then he must be a white male.
Yeah, that woman’s got big hairy ones.
All of my fellow Louisianians who bought Mary Landrieu’s “I’m not really a flaming liberal” line are completely deserving of what they get from her.
Now, while she’s at it let’s see her publicly support the movement to get a pardon for our scumbag former Governer.
democrat
dimocrat
dipocrat
hipocrat
hipocrit
hypocrit
hypocrite
The evolution of Hillary.
Frank N,
Your theory of evolution is a little fuzzy. I believe that Hillary is as she always has been since the beginning of time, a hypocrite.
I realize the there is evidence for the existence of the following: dimocrat, dipocrat, additionally the heretofore unnamed hypocrat.
Unfortunately the absence of evidence for the existence of hipocrat, hipocrit, and hypocrit puts your theory of evolution in question.
1) Dude, it is a JOB INTERVIEW. You go in to a job interview with an attitude, you ain’t getting a job.
2) Short list of Repubs who’ve admitted rejecting nominations over ideology: Trent Lott, Orin Hatch, WH counsel Alberto Gonzolas…
3) Why the hell is he mentioned in the acknowledgements of ‘Slander’, written by that Nazi Ann Coulter?
Barney, you may have a good point. But it’s difficult to discern since we can’t tell what THE HELL YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
If he is so bad, then how the hell did he get out of the democrat run comittee? They could have blocked him then if he didnt answer questions. This is simply Tom Daschle and the Dems obstructing anything that isnt liberal or democrat. It is sickening.
Also. Please note that clinton got all of his nominations - simply because the republicans felt that he won the presidency and therefore should get his nominations.
Is it so hard to see that Liberals are only mild socialist?
This is getting old.
Can anyone dispute Barneys point without turning to ad hominum attacks. I personally felt more threatend by the witch hunts that went on during the Clinton administration than by any threatened fillibuster now by the democrats. Shouldn’t we spend at least as much time investigating this nominee as we did investigating Whitewater?
I will.
Barney –
I have no problem with rejecting judicial nominees for ideology. In fact, I’d encourage it. Personally, I’d like to see all nominees rejected who don’t embrace a constitutionally-limited federal government.
But that’s not what the Democrats are doing. They’re not voting against Estrada. They’re preventing a vote from happening, by using procedurial shenanigans. Why? Because they know they’ll lose in a straight up-or-down.
A president shouldn’t need 60 votes to approve his nominees. He should need 50, plus his vice president.
And that’s where I have a problem.
As far as I know, there’s no accusation of criminal behavior against Estrada (other than being conservative, which daschle would probably outlaw if he could) whereas Whitewater was about criminal activity.
So the answer is “No”, there shouldn’t be as much time spent on investigating a qualified judicial nominee who has so far been completely forthcoming, as is spent on an investigation of criminal behavior by a sitting president.
To suggest otherwise is demonstrates ignorance, and shows that you bought into the spin that Whitewater was only about politics. You probably also think that the Lewinski thing was only about sex too, don’t you.
Feel free to spout your “Witch Hunt” B.S. if you like, but nobody’s buying it.
“If you’re Hispanic, and you want some political power in this country, it is simply not permissable to have political opinions of your own. Check with Tom Daschle first. He’ll tell you how you’re supposed to think”
As if Republicans haven’t been even more fascist about enforcing group thought and punishing those who go off-message. Or the GOP telling lobbying firms that they ought to get rid of Democrat staffers. Or telling contributors that if they show up on any contribution lists for Democrats, they’re not getting any favors from the Republicans.
Jon, not to sound like I’m denying what you say, but I’d like to hear some examples.
No, anonomous, or should I call you “nobody” since you don’t seem to have signed your post, I don’t think “Lewinsky” was about sex. It was about politics and represented the ultimate example of obstructionism. These political parties (both Republican and Democrat) are nothing but parasites sucking the life out of our government.
Jon
“As if Republicans haven’t been even more fascist about enforcing group thought and punishing those who go off-message.” My answer to this would be - John McCain or maybe Jack Kemp. They hardly stay on message. You should also read the papers with all the articles from former Bush Sr. staffers that bashed G.W. for his position on Iraq.
As for the rest of your statement, that’s how politics works. Democrats do the same type of things. So do greens and libertarians and anyone else.
Kronos
Obstructionism is exactly what this country needs. The less the government is able to do, the freer we all are. But, blocking a nominee with a filibuster is just sour grapes.
Bottom line: we claim to have a democratic form of government. All the Republicans are asking for is a vote, yet the fascist Dems won’t allow that. Lovely. Can you imagine the type of spin the liberal media would’ve taken on this, had the Dem’s been the ones trying to nominate a flawless, minority candidate? The NY Times would have had a field day with it.
As a Hispanic (Cuban-American), I’m outraged by Ted Kennedy, who recently called Estrada “hot-tempered.” (What exactly Estrada has done to merit such a description is, of course, unknown). Kennedy was simply spouting out a disgusting stereotype. This is an excellent example of how liberals hypocritically claim to support minorities - yet are actually only talking-the-talk for votes and are just as racist as anyone else, if not more.
And, as for the person who posted and called Ann Coulter a Nazi - can you articulate what exactly makes you call her a Nazi? I’m curious. I believe the only Nazi associated with Coulter is that despicable, liberal-agenda-pushing Katie Couric, whom Coulter referred to, aptly, as Eva Braun.
Republicans are taking this country over again - Thank God, and steering it back in the right direction. Go hide under a rock, Dems.
Tell me Radley are you ever suprised at what will fire people up when you post your thoughts on given subject? I certainly am. Man, this was fun and funny too.