Can you explain to me why Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering never got Senate consent?
Miguel Angel Estrada CastaƱeda (born September 25, 1961) is an attorney who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Unable to block Estrada's nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the Senate in 2003, Senate Democrats used a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate on the Senate floor.

And...

Fifth Circuit nomination under Bush

On May 25, 2001, during the 107th Congress, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Pickering for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated by Judge Henry Anthony Politz who had taken senior status in 1999, but Judge Pickering's nomination was not acted upon favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee then under the control of Democratic senator, Patrick Leahy D-VT. Nevertheless, on January 7, 2003, President Bush renominated Pickering to the same position. With the Republicans now in charge of the committee during the 108th Congress, Pickering's nomination was voted out to the full Senate. With no way to stop his confirmation, the Senate Democrats chose to filibuster Pickering in order to prevent him from receiving a straight up-or-down confirmation vote.

Democratic opposition to Judge Pickering was based mainly upon two factors. First, during two hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he maintained a position opposing abortion. Second, he was accused of "glaring racial insensitivity" because of a 1994 hate-crimes case in which he decided that 25-year-old Daniel Swan, who had participated with two others in a cross-burning, should receive a reduced sentence. The other participants in the cross-burning had escaped jail sentences for the crime because of plea bargains. During the course of testimony, Judge Pickering came to suspect the Civil Rights Division had made a plea bargain with the wrong defendant. He felt that one of the other defendants, a 17-year-old, was more likely the ringleader of the group. When it came time to sentence Swan, Pickering questioned whether it made sense that the most-guilty defendant got off with a misdemeanor and no jail time, while a less-guilty defendant would be sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. "The recommendation of the government in this instance is clearly the most egregious instance of disproportionate sentencing recommended by the government in any case pending before this court," Pickering wrote. "The defendant [Swan] clearly had less racial animosity than the juvenile." Pickering sentenced Swan to two years in prison rather than to the seven and a half years originally requested by the Justice Department. The Clinton Department of Justice later agreed with Pickering and requested a two-year sentence instead.[4].



Since you asked so nice, and all...

And yeah.  Both sides love the filibuster, when THEY need it, and hate the filibuster when the OTHER SIDE needs it.  Imagine that.




image image image
SGT. JIRI TREBISSKY H&D SAS

"When the winds of change blow, some people
build walls and others build windmills."
~ Chinese proverb
Edited 1 time by Trebissky 08/03/10 18:37.