On the recordNovember 12, 2003
No, it has not, because a filibuster is inappropriate when it comes to judicial or even executive nominees, especially judicial nominees. Our ability to give advice and consent means if you don't like the nominee, vote against him or her. If you do, vote for them. But, above all, don't obstruct, which is exactly what they are doing here, obstruction, from the Spanish word, ``filibustero,'' meaning a pirating or hijacking. Just one more objection. Now we have six more objections, as of tomorrow--actually they require cloture votes to be filed on Janice Brown, and of course Carolyn Kuhl, so we now have six. I could name up to 17 they have threatened to filibuster and probably will. To keep bringing that phony chart up here is an insult to everybody on this floor. It is an insult to everybody watching. It just shows they are void of any real arguments. To now try to change the nature of the debate to jobs, when they have obstructed all year long, is an insult.
Source
govinfo.gov




