Thanks for the info. That's just what I needed. I'm all over 'em.

Why not hold Sentors Collins, Snowe, Fitzgerald, Chaffey and Coleman to the fire from the opposite direction?

They wouldn't actually support a filibuster, but they could help out by not signing on to a cloture vote effort...

I must say that I am sort of excited about this filibuster. Now, when we have a Democratic President, we can filibuster all of them too. We will never have another nominee confirmed again. That is fine with me because I am for smaller government and think the courts do to much as it is. If there are fewer, or eventually, no judges, the courts can't do a thing when I lead a public school in prayer.

This is hardly the first filibuster ever, so it doesn't set much of a precedent. The GOP will filibuster whenever it is convenient for them, regardless of what the Dems do now.

It is the first filibuster on a circuit court nominee.

Some of those guys the GOP are pressuring make no sense. Biden? Landireu? Byrd? Hell, most of these guys just got reelected and are in no pressure under this. The GOP is wasting their time.

And if GOPers expect Estrada to bring Hispanics flocking to their banner, I have two words for you: Clarence Thomas.
You didn't exactly get a flood of African-American support because of him, did you?

Poor Orrie"crybaby"Hatch is whining. After all the crap that this jerk put Clinton nominees through he has the umitigated gall to complain about Eatrada?????? Get a life Orrie.

Are you a teacher AC? I had an economics teacher who was the moralizing type and didn't like him much.

"It is the first filibuster on a circuit court nominee."

Big deal. My point still stands: the GOP will do whatever is advantageous for them. After what they did to Clinton's nominees, all is permitted.

Hatch is being the ultimate crybaby right now. That is, until Little Ricky Santorum starts doing his Baby Huey impersonation again.

The WH is on drugs if they think Mary Landrieu will support Estrada.

The WH is on drugs if they think Landrieu will support ANYTHING they support. Their failed attempt to defeat her despite her support for Bush on several key issues made her an implacable enemy of Shrub.

I don't understand this list -

Carper of Delaware? Is this guy from a liberal state supposed to be a middle of the roader scared of the WH? Jim

Jeffords after the way the Repubs have treated him and he's from almost 0 percent minority state and a liberal state to boot?

Robert Byrd? The way that this WH has trashed him and then the way the Repubs have used him for an excuse for their racists. And, oh yeah, he's a Senate institution.

Daniel Inouye - from liberal Hawaii?

Joe Biden - he's thinking of running for prez and he's gonna fold on Estrada and still expect support from the Dem. base?

Mary Landrieu - uh - she just got elected and they think Louisiana folks are even going to remember the name Estrada in 2008?

Ditto Mark Pryor.

Is Bush doing coke again?

The GOP is totally clueless when it comes to Latino voters..just like they are with getting African American voters. Do they really think Estrada, a Honduran-American, will rally Latino voters (mostly who are of Mexican and Puerto Rican decent) are going to rally to the banner of the GOP cos of Estrada? I think Bush's taco parties on the front lawn of the White House were more effective.

The Landrieu campaign ran spaish radio ads saying that she supported Estrada. Her current position is a little embarrasing. A further flip-flop would be even worse though.

Frankly, Landrieu is safe for another 6 years. She has no fears in coming out against Estrada. I doubt this will be a very strong issue in her state. Plus if she votes for Estrada, it hurts her chances of being picked as VP in 2004. I think she would be a great candidate. She has a great profile.

After leaving law school, Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, clerked for a federal appeals court judge. He then clerked for Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court. He was then a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in New York, and was appointed to serve the solicitor general of the U.S. in the Department of Justice - under both Bush 41 and Clinton. He was an assistant solicitor general under Clinton. Miguel Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court - and won two-thirds of them.
Now let's look at Bill Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees, both of whom were confirmed to that court - one above the one Estrada would sit on - with GOP support. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: After law school she clerked for a district court judge, which is below an appeals court judge. She then became a professor at Rutgers law school and began litigating for the ACLU. She then joined Columbia law school's staff, continued to litigate for the ACLU and argued six Supreme Court cases. She was then appointed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit by Carter in 1980.

Clinton nominee Stephen Breyer: after law school he clerked for Supreme Court justice Arthur Goldberg; he then worked in the DOJ's anti-trust division, taught at Harvard Law, and spent a few months working for Archibald Cox on the Watergate investigation in 1974. In '74 and '75, and '79-'80, he was counsel to Ted Kennedy on the Senate judiciary committee. In 1980, Jimmy Carter appointed Breyer to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Boston). Breyer didn't argue a single case before the U.S. Supreme Court before making the huge career leap to the Big Bench.
"Judicial Experience" Has Never Been a Condition for Appointment to the Court

Fact: Ginsburg and Breyer had far less experience and fewer credentials than Miguel Estrada. Throw out the Hispanic "group" garbage; just in terms of judicial experience, Estrada wins. Plus, he doesn't have an ACLU- or Kennedy-type connection; he never worked for anyone as far out of the "mainstream" on the right as they are on the left. Ginsburg did not have near the breadth of experience, nor did she have any "judicial experience," a charge the Democrats level at Estrada!

Thurgood Marshall didn't have any such experience when LBJ appointed him to the federal appeals court. Of course, the Democrats aren't really opposing Estrada based on his record. They're opposing him because they don't want someone who'll just interpret the law - a judge's job - on the bench; they want someone who will write law from the bench - which is the job of the legislature. Remember: Democrats can't get (and have not gotten) their agenda into law by the votes of the people. It can only get there when judges rule their agenda into being in violation of the popular will.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has 12 seats - four are vacant. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has 16 seats - six are vacant, due to liberal Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) who won't agree to confirm any Republican nominee. This is unique, folks, so don't buy this, "Republicans did the same thing" junk. Look into the facts; educate yourself. Realize that no nominee for this court has ever been filibustered as Democrats say they'll filibuster Miguel Estrada.

JoeJoe - lets get one thing straight - the reason that the DC Court and the 6th Court have so many vacancies is because of Hatch and his whacko conservative compadres on the Judiciary Committee not the "liberal" senator from Michigan.

Republican assertions that Democrats are being anti-Hispanic in opposing judicial nominee Miguel Estrada don't ring true with Corpus Christi lawyer Jorge Rangel.

That's because Republicans made sure that Rangel, a Clinton administration nominee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and two other Hispanic nominees by Clinton never got a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

"I think the question should be turned around to them," Rangel said Wednesday.

"Why did the Republicans keep Hispanic nominees by President Clinton off the bench?"
In Rangel's case, he never got a hearing because neither former Sen. Phil Gramm, nor Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, would release a letter backing their fellow Texan to the Senate - something that's required before a hearing.