Well, it's taken more than two and a half years, but the Republicans in the Senate are FINALLY going to force the Democrats to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.  Since Judge Miguel Estrada was nominated by President Bush to the US Court of appeals in May 2001, the Democrats have been opposing the President and subverting the Constitution by filibustering Estrada and many other nominations... blocking them from even coming to a vote by continuously holding the Senate floor and speaking. Speaking?  They haven't even done THAT!  They merely stated their intention to filibuster, and then went on to other business... which supposedly can not be conducted while a filibuster is in effect!  Miguel Estrada finally withdrew his name from consideration, but the others -- Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl and William Pryor -- are grimly sticking it out. Today, the Republicans are going to make the Democrats filibuster for real if they want to continue to block votes on these nominees.

Filibustering is not mentioned in the Constitution -- it's merely a rule of the Senate that no votes can be taken while a member is holding the floor, and it takes 60 votes for "cloture"... to silence him or her.  However, the very idea of filibustering a President's judicial nominee is a violation of the Constitution, which states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
- Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2

Where not otherwise specified, "advice and consent" of the Senate means a simple majority vote, 51 to 49.  When the Republicans merely threatened to filibuster some of Clinton's judicial nominees, the outrage was palpable.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' An up or down vote, that is all we ask.
- Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), Congressional Record, 10/5/1999

I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination...
- Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), Congressional Record, 10/5/1999

I have stated over and over again... that I would object to and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported.
- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 6/18/98

Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee... But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.
- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 10/22/1997

What's tragic is that these two staunch opponents of judicial filibusters are now leading the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees because they feel the judges might interfere with Roe v. Wade... the 1973 Supreme Court case that decided that somewhere hidden in the Constitution is the right for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. The Left is SO AFRAID that Roe v. Wade could be overturned that they've made it the ultimate litmus test for pretty much any political office for the last 30 years, even when the holder of the office in question couldn't possibly affect the federal law.

Last month, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa) wrote me in response to my email on this very subject to say, "You may be interested to know that on May 9, 2003, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee introduced S.Res. 138, a resolution that would amend Senate Rule XXII relating to the consideration of presidential nominees. Under this resolution, cloture on nominations could not be filed until a nomination has been pending on the Senate floor for 12 hours. The first cloture vote would require 60 votes to break a filibuster. Then, for each subsequent cloture motion filed, the number of votes required to end the filibuster would gradually decrease until only a simple majority would be required. This new rule would only apply to nominations."  The problem with this resolution is that if filibustered (as it's SURE to be), it will require 67 instead of 60 votes for cloture (since it changes the rules of the Senate).

Well, perhaps after the 2004 elections it might be possible to get enough votes to prevent this partisan hijacking of the Constitution from happening again.  Very few Democrats will cross the aisle to side with the Republicans on ANY issue while a Presidential race is underway.  Please write your Senators and urge them to support Senate Resolution 138, so we can avoid this kind of mess in the future.