Stop the Democrat Filibusters of Judicial Nominees

The Democrat members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have staged unprecedented filibusters inorder to obstruct President Bush\'s Judicial Nominees. For example, Miguel Estrada earned a \"well qualified\" rating by the American Bar Association, its highest rating, he graduated magna cum laude from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and he would be the first Hispanic to sit on this court. Democrat senators claim that Estrada refused to answer questions about his record and constitutional views, and that his attempts to evade scrutiny on these issues prevented the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to \"advise and consent\" to this judicial nomination. But, only two of 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats exercised their right to submit written questions to Estrada. Almost no questions were asked, and none were answered. In fact, the true reasons for these specious Democrat filibusters are on the grounds of ideology. The Democrats choose to filibuster President Bush\'s judicial nominees because they are conservatives, not because they are unqualified or won\'t answers questions. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76 that the Senate\'s role is to refuse nominations only for \"special and strong reasons\" having to do with \"unfit characters.\" According to George Will (\"A judge well worth the fight\", 2/27/03), if the Senate rules, exploited by an anticonstitutional minority, are allowed to trump the Constitution\'s text and two centuries of practice, the Senate\'s power to consent to judicial nominations will have become a Senate right to require a 60-vote supermajority for confirmations. By thus nullifying the president\'s power to shape the judiciary, the Democrat Party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election. Please help stop the Democrat filibusters against President Bush\'s judicial nominees, who all deserve an up-and-down vote by the full Senate. Thank you. This signed petition will be sent to all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee: Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-WI) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Please feel free to write your Senator and forward this ipetition to a friend. Thank you.


The petition sponsor is an individual who believes that the President of the United States has a constitutional right and duty to shape the judiciary as provided by The Federalist Paper No. 76, which allows the Senate to provide \"advice and consent\", but not filibuster and obstruction.


Three More Bush Appeals Court Nominees Blocked (7/22/04): President Bush Grants Recess Appointment to Pickering (1/16/04): Democrats Block a Fourth Bush Judicial Nominee (10/30/03): Judge Brown is Next (10/21/03): The Battle Over Justice Brown (10/15/03): Senate GOP Reconsiders All-Night Filibusters: Miguel Estrada Withdraws His Nomination. \"I profoundly hope that, at some time in the future, I may be called again to serve my country in some capacity.\" Dems Block Estrada Vote, Again (7/30/03): Dems Block Owen Vote, Again (7/29/03): GOP Votes To Break Nominee Filibusters (The Nuclear Option): Group Sues Democrat Senators: GOP Jab for Justice: Senate May Go Nuclear: Senate Fails for a SIXTH Time to Stop the Democrat Filibuster Against Estrada, Dems Also Block Owen, Kuhl Advances: Senate Fails for a FIFTH time to Stop the Democrat Filibuster Against Estrada (5/5/03): Dems Block Owen: Dems to Filibuster Bush Judicial Nominee Owen: Divided Senate Confirms Judicial Nominee Sutton: \'Radical liberal groups call the tune as Senate minority obstructs another ABA unanimously well-qualified nominee,\' says CFJ: Senate Fails for a FOURTH Time to Stop Democrat Filibuster Against Estrada (4/2/03): Second Chance for Owen (3/27/03): WASHINGTON (3/18/03)- Republicans failed for a THIRD time to break a Democratic filibuster of federal judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, but said they would continue to require Democrats to vote to keep the Hispanic lawyer off the federal bench: Democrats and Racial McCarthyism: The Democratic strategy to block Bush judges extends far beyond selected targets like Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Indeed, it appears that Democrats may plan to use a variety of techniques to try to block every, or nearly every, Bush nominee to the federal appeals courts. Dems: We Don


No comments yet.

join the discussion

Recent signatures

  • username

    dmnv wmqljvxd dmnv wmqljvxd, Netherlands

    7 years ago State: AL
    Country: US
    Comments: uxgir xlfut ulskq sxajfleuh fxhpbimwu saqzn lfribqvn
  • username

    ed Patterson, United States

    10 years ago State: AL
    Country: US
    Comments: A minority of this country does not have the right to violate the wishes of the majority. "Majority rules" is the foundation of our law and the consititution. ideology is not constitutional grounds to determine if judicial nominees are suitable. a super majority vote on presidentual nominees is a power grab and the filibusters are illegal in my opinion. back to the constitution and majority rule. stop all judicial appointee filibusters.
  • username

    Justin McCann, United States

    10 years ago State: CT
    Comments: If a simple majority is not the manner by which judges are to be Constitutionally appointed, wouldn't the framers have inserted "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" after the statement regarding the appointment of judges Why would they be so explicit regarding Treaties and be so otherwise sloppy, or at least not thorough, as to exclude similar language, regarding the appointment of judges, Ambassadors, etc... I think it further clarified that they did not intend the appointment of judges to be subject to a supermajority by virtue of the inclusion of "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," in both clauses. That they duplicated this statement, but did not do the same with "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur", clarifies the non-mutual intent of each clause.
See more

Petition highlights

There are no highlights yet.