Susan b., at Lilac Rose, laments general malaise and frustration. I've felt it too Susan.
I've got a handle on what's causing it for me, and the slowness and delaying tactics by the pro-Saddam governments in the world have something to do with it. (The arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a very good thing as far as I can tell, as long as it doesn't encourage us to overconfidence). There is something else bugging me however, and I want to get it off my chest before I introduce my subject for Lent.
I am thoroughly disgusted with Senator Frank Lautenberg, my senator from New Jersey. Why? Here's why. This statement deserves a vigorous fisking.
From the opening paragraphs:
"Mr. President, today is the twelfth day that the Senate is debating this nomination instead of the important business of the American people. I think it is quite clear that the other side will not get cloture on this nomination. So let's either bring the cloture petition or let's move on to other business.Mr. President, the nation's governors are here in Washington, meeting with President Bush and Members of Congress, to discuss critically important issues such as homeland security, rising unemployment and increasing state deficits. These are serious issues we must work on.
But we are delaying the work of the American people with endless debate on a judicial nominee who is refusing to tell the Senate almost anything about his judicial philosophy or decision-making process. This "hide-the-ball" strategy being used by Mr. Estrada is an affront to the Senate and American people. We have a right to get complete and thoughtful answers to legitimate concerns about his approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and the laws of this nation.
Let me get this straight. President Bush nominates a well-qualified man to the Court of Appeals, the Democrats filibuster, and then blame the Republicans for "delaying the work of the American people"? This move-on rhetoric was way overused in the Clinton administration, and it sounds like a joke coming from Senator Lautenberg.
Next paragraphs:
Mr. President, as a former businessman, I'm astonished by the fact that my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle would have the United States Senate—the most deliberative body in world history—vote to confirm a nominee to a lifetime appointment without disclosure of appropriate information. In the business world, this practice would have been unheard of. And, the American people deserve better.Responsible business-owners do not hire senior managers without first conducting a complete and thorough review of the candidate's job application. The candidate would answer questions that give interviewers an opportunity to measure the candidate's decision-making process and views on work-related issues. A candidate cannot simply refuse to answer important questions of fitness, philosophy and temperament.
No business-owner would hire a candidate who refuses to answer basic inquires. That would put their business at risk and leaving themselves susceptible to future lawsuits based on negligent hiring.
Who is he trying to kid here? This statement is dishonest, a flat-out distortion of the truth. Appropriate information has been disclosed. Mr. Estrada has received high praise from his past employers, and a well-qualified rating from the ABA. President Bush invited Senators last week to submit questions, none were offered. In the business world, this would be the equivalent of an interviewer not showing up for an interview, and refusing to hire a job applicant because he didn't answer the interviewer's questions. Speaking of disclosure of appropriate information, I'm surprised that the people of New Jersey would elect a man who refused to debate his opponent.
From the end:
Mr. President, the role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advice and consent, not to rubber-stamp all presidential nominations. The Senate should not abdicate its responsibility to thoroughly review judicial nominations. Rather, the Senate is duty-bound to ensure that each nominee maintains the utmost commitment to upholding the U.S. Constitution, following precedent, listening to arguments without fear or favor and rendering judgment without personal bias.
Senator Lautenberg, the role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advice and consent, not to filibuster Presidential nominations for the sake of a political-correctness litmus test. Your job is to render judgment on the nomination of Mr. Estrada, and in order to do that he deserves a straight-up 'yes' or 'no' vote based on his personal integrity and qualifications for the job.
UPDATE: I've removed the phrase "and was put on the ballot under questionable circumstances" That sounded too much like post-2000 election rhetoric. I regret I said it, and I've removed it from the post. However, Senator Lautenberg is a hypocrite for judging Mr. Estrada for "not answering questions". Shame on him!
Posted by joelfuhrmann at March 4, 2003 08:30 PM