Cracks in the Estrada Filibuster?

The Hill ^ | 2/20/03 | Byron York

[votelife]

BYRON YORK This is how the filibuster will fall to pieces

Right now the Senate debate over the appeals court nomination of Miguel Estrada seems hopelessly deadlocked. When Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada says, “It doesn't matter if there is one cloture vote or 50 cloture votes, we will all be together,” and when Republican Orrin Hatch or Utah says, “I'll stay here ‘til hell freezes over” -- well, things don't look good.

But beneath all the tough rhetoric -- and the lobbying campaigns of interest groups on both sides -- there's a relatively simple solution to the standoff. And it might emerge soon after lawmakers come back from the Presidents’ Day recess.

The two main Democratic objections to Estrada are that he has not fully answered questions about his legal views and that the Bush administration has refused to release internal Justice Department memos he wrote while he served in the Solicitor General’s office -- memos that Democrats contend might contain insights into Estrada's legal thinking.

“For the Senate to make an informed decision about Mr. Estrada's nomination, it is essential that we receive the information requested and answers to these basic legal questions,” Minority Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) and ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy (Vt.) wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the president.

The White House responded the next day with a 15-page, single-spaced letter from counsel Alberto Gonzales. Most news reports characterized it as a refusal of Daschle and Leahy's request — which it was — but missed the letter's between-the-lines suggestions for compromise.

On the issue of questions for Estrada, Gonzales noted that Daschle and Leahy cited just one inquiry that Estrada did not answer -- a question about his judicial role models. Gonzales wrote that Estrada in fact discussed that very issue in response to a written question from Sen. Richard Durbin (Ill.).

“ Beyond this one query, your letter does not pose any additional questions to [Estrada],” Gonzales said. “Additionally, neither of you has posed any written questions to Mr. Estrada in the more than three months since his all-day committee hearing.”

In that sentence is what appears to be a White House message to Democrats: You can ask more questions. There’s nothing in Gonzales’s letter to suggest that Estrada would not answer them.

On the second issue, the White House is standing firm against giving the internal Justice Department papers to the Senate. But Gonzales went out of his way to point out that some high-level Democrats have already seen the documents. The papers were, after all, written by Estrada during his time in the Clinton Justice Department. “It also is important to recognize that [Clinton] political appointees have read virtually all of the memoranda in question,” Gonzales wrote, “namely, the Democrat Solicitors General Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, and Seth Waxman.”

Gonzales also points out that none of those former officials have objected to Estrada's nomination. That’s another unspoken suggestion to Democrats: If you want to know more about the memos, ask the Democrats who have seen them. Days, Dellinger, and Waxman would most likely cite the same confidentiality concerns that led them to join other former Solicitors General in declaring release of the memos to be a bad idea, but they might be able say there was nothing in the papers that they found disturbing.

Republicans know there are some moderate Democrats who do not passionately oppose Estrada but who have so far stuck with the party in upholding the filibuster. Republicans also realize that, since hard-line Democratic leaders have made specific demands and vowed Estrada would not be confirmed unless the White House met those demands, those moderate Democrats will need some sort of Republican gesture they can use as cover to change their minds and stop supporting the filibuster.

That might already be happening. It has not been widely reported, but while the filibuster has been going on, Estrada has met with several Democratic senators, among them Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Neb.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), and Thomas Carper (Del.). Presumably he has been answering some questions.

A few more such meetings, along with some reassuring words about the content of the Justice Department memos, and some moderate Democratic minds might change.

And in the end, there won't be 50 cloture votes, as Harry Reid suggested. There might not even be one. With four or five more moderate Democrats on board, Republicans will request, as they have several times already, that the Senate unanimously agree to end debate and give Estrada an up-or-down vote. So far, Democrats have refused every such request. But that might change soon.

Byron York is White House correspondent for National Review.

[votelife]

24/7

[votelife]

Check this out!

http://www.thelatinocoalition.org/news/pdf/EstradaRollCallAd.pdf

[votelife]

The above link is an ad the Latino Coalition recently ran in Roll Call.

[Tacis]

Never noticed before, but why do the democrats hate Hispanics so bad?

[PhiKapMom]

Bryon York needs to get is facts straight. It is Ben Nelson of Nebraska and he is fully on board and will be voting for Estrada.

Bill Nelson of FL has said that he will most likely support a vote to invoke cloture.

[Bahbah]

Very nice. The Democrats should check it out to see just how popular they are making themselves with hispanics. Hehehe

[GiveEmDubya]

Let the Dems read the phone book in a filibuster. There will be hell to pay in the Hispanic community. I remember hearing on Rush, the day after the debate went into the early morning hours, a slew of Hispanics called in and vowed never to vote Democrat again. They will be bringing political misfortune upon themselves.

[scooby321]

Bill Nelson has alot of Cuban Voters in Florida

[sr4402]

The Democrats are trying to break Attorney-Client privilege by requeseting Solicitor General materials. The client here is the Justice Department and if democrats were to succeed it would politicize the Justice department and they know it. Their purpose, therefore, is to destroy the government of the United States.

[AndyTheBear]

In my view, asking Mr Estrada about how he is likely to rule on issues, is essentialy trying to extend the power of the Legislator over the Judiciary. I find Mr Daschelle's insastance on such answers "deeply disturbing". Approriate questions are limited to his qualifications and gasp moral character.

[Enterprise]

I think the hispanic voters went into meltdown when they said Estrada wasn't a "good hispanic." The man is educated, he is a good role model, and he has morals. No doubt to the RATS, that qualifies him as "not good."

[D. Miles]

Could it be that Latino's are family orinated, hard working, and about to replace Blacks as the majority minority?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Just sent a letter (a real letter not an email) to Russ Feingold telling him of my great disappointment that a man whom I believed to have some integrity and desire for fair play would go along with such and extra-constitutional action as the Senate RATS have done.

Next Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Biden. If we can peal off 5 "moderates" we will seal the deal. Bob Graham and Nelson of Florida are also possibles.

[deport]

A slant we haven't heard the smear machine discussing as of yet......

• “ Beyond this one query, your letter does not pose any additional questions to [Estrada],” Gonzales said. “Additionally, neither of you has posed any written questions to Mr. Estrada in the more than three months since his all-day committee hearing.”
  
• But Gonzales went out of his way to point out that some high-level Democrats have already seen the documents. The papers were, after all, written by Estrada during his time in the Clinton Justice Department. “It also is important to recognize that [Clinton] political appointees have read virtually all of the memoranda in question,” Gonzales wrote, “namely, the Democrat Solicitors General Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, and Seth Waxman.”
  
• That’s another unspoken suggestion to Democrats: If you want to know more about the memos, ask the Democrats who have seen them. Days, Dellinger, and Waxman
• ...a section of the ABA's rules on judicial conduct that states:
  "A candidate for judicial office shall not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office [or] make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court."

[cricket]

Would Estrada win a straight 'up/down' vote?

[cricket]

"A few more such meetings, along with some reassuring words about the content of the Justice Department memos, and some moderate Democratic minds might change."

. . .Repubs need to fight harder! . . .and Gw as well.

[Howlin]

Everybody keeps getting the wrong "Ben" in these stories!

[GiveEmDubya]

Nelson and Graham (if he runs for another term after all) would be hurting themselves badly by going against this Hispanic nominee, which is why they may end up voting for cloture.

[OldFriend]

The elitist dems expect the minorities to stay in their place at ALL times. No thinking for yourself and NO NO NO ever being an honorable person with integrity and determination.

[AndyTheBear]

Never noticed before, but why do the democrats hate Hispanics so bad?

They don't hate them--they just use them like they do everybody else. They view this paticular Hispanic of not knowing his place, just as they view any minority that does not pay devout lip service to the social programs they graciosly bestowed upon what they view as lesser mortals.