[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8785-8786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, 4 years ago today President Bush nominated 
Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. 
His nomination should have gone smoothly. The American Bar Association 
pronounced him highly qualified, a rating my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle once called the gold standard. He clerked for a 
Supreme Court Justice and worked in both the Bush and Clinton 
administrations.
  The Honduran immigrant then won top honors at Columbia University and 
Harvard Law School. Miguel Estrada epitomized the American dream. But 
Miguel Estrada's nomination never received an up-or-down vote. A 
minority of Senators used the filibuster to stop the Senate from 
exercising its constitutional duty to advise and consent.
  Senators supporting his nomination made seven attempts to bring his 
nomination to a vote. Each time the effort failed. Finally, after 
enduring 2 years of obstruction, Miguel Estrada withdrew his name from 
consideration.

[[Page 8786]]

  Unfortunately, today marks the fourth anniversary of another 
candidate whose nomination is, likewise, being blocked. Priscilla Owen, 
who has served on the Texas Supreme Court for 10 years, has earned the 
praise of both Republicans and Democrats. Judge Owen won reelection to 
the Texas bench with 84 percent of the vote and the endorsement of 
every major newspaper in the State.
  Former justice Raul Gonzalez, a Democrat, says:

       I found her to be apolitical, extremely bright, diligent in 
     her work, and of the highest integrity. I recommend her for 
     confirmation without reservation.

  Still, a minority of Senators is using the filibuster to stop this 
Senate from exercising its constitutional duty to advise and consent, 
to vote up or down, to vote yes or no, to vote, confirm or reject.
  This campaign of obstruction is unprecedented. Before Miguel Estrada, 
the Senate had never denied a judicial nominee with majority support an 
up-or-down vote. In the last Congress, the President submitted 34 
appeals court nominees to the Senate. Ten of those nominees continue to 
be blocked. Each has been rated ``qualified'' or ``well-qualified'' by 
the American Bar Association, each has the majority support of the 
Senate, and each would be confirmed if brought to the Senate floor to a 
vote.
  Meanwhile, the other side threatens to shut down the Senate and 
obstruct government itself if it does not get its way. Instead of 
thoughtful deliberation and debate, a small minority is attempting to 
change 225 years of constitutional history. Former Senate majority 
leader Bob Dole is correct when he says:

       By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of 
     judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the 
     tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the 
     Senate to function.

  Precedent has been replaced with partisanship, and respect for the 
separation of powers tossed aside.
  Now, 12 of the 16 court of appeals vacancies have been officially 
declared judicial emergencies. The Department of Justice tells us that 
the delay caused by these vacancies is complicating their ability to 
prosecute criminals. The Department also reports that due to the delay 
in deciding immigration appeals, it cannot quickly deport illegal 
aliens who are convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters. 
Additionally, there are notoriously long delays in deciding habeas 
petitions, meaning that both victims' families and prisoners often wait 
years before getting final resolution on murder convictions.
  All of this obstruction must stop. It is hurting the nominees. It is 
hurting the Senate. It is hurting the American people.
  For most of the 20th century the same party controlled the White 
House and the Senate. Yet until the last Congress, no minority ever 
denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote. 
They treated judicial nominees fairly. They respected the Senate's role 
in the appointments process designed by the Framers.
  Before the recess, I came to the Senate to offer a compromise. That 
proposal was simple: Appeals court judicial nominees should get a fair, 
open, and exhaustive debate, and then they should get an up-or-down 
vote. Whether on the floor or in committee, it is time for judicial 
obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or 
the Senate.
  Senate tradition is comprised of shared values based on civility and 
respect for the Constitution. I sincerely hope that Senate tradition 
can be restored. It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of honor. 
It is our constitutional duty to give these nominees a vote.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________