Estrada naysayers hypocritical

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Miguel Estrada isn't probably someone with an immense amount of name recognition -- yet.

President Bush appointed him to an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, District Columbia Circuit on May 9, 2001; he immigrated to the United States from Honduras when he was 15 years old, graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude in 1986, has been a clerk for a Supreme Court justice, an assistant U.S. attorney and the assistant solicitor general, among other stints in private practice. He is supported by many national organizations, including the Hispanic Business Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation and the Hispanic Business Roundtable.

Unfortunately, Estrada's confirmation has been delayed and prevented by many Democrats within the Senate, an action fueled by many leftist groups, organizations and lobbyists in America. Currently, Senate Democrats are planning to, or may actually be carrying out, an intense filibuster against Estrada's nomination; filibustering, or talking an issue to death, is definitely a method for lawmakers to prevent a policy or other initiative from ever coming to fruition -- ending a filibuster is difficult, especially in our closely divided Senate, taking a whopping 60 votes.

The most unfortunate part of the Senate Democrats' obstruction on Capitol Hill lies in the fact that many high-ranking Senate Democrats have at one time condemned nomination filibusters quite harshly, leaving their intense efforts to carry out a filibuster today very hypocritical. For example, Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said, from Congressional record in 1998, that, "I have stated over and over again . . . that I would object and fight any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported."

Sen. Ted Kennedy said, from Congressional record in 1995, that, "Senators who feel strongly about the issue of fairness should vote for cloture, even if they intend to vote against the nomination itself. It is wrong to filibuster this nomination, and Senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate."

Finally, Sen. Barbara Boxer, from California said, from Congressional record in 1995, that, "The nominee deserves his day, and filibustering this nomination is keeping him from his day."

But why are Senate Democrats and many leftist organizations so dead set against Estrada's nomination? The obvious answer lies in the fact that the court he is being nominated to is considered the second-highest court in the nation and often times thought of as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

Secondly, Senate Democrats and organizations such as the NAACP or the AFL-CIO recognize Estrada's ethnicity -- they recognize his heritage and the future he is making for himself -- but let's face it, he's just the wrong type of minority. He's Hispanic and these politicians and organizations are all for the pro-active advancement of Hispanics, just not his type of Hispanic. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is now going to read "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Who Believe in ONLY Leftist Principles and Ideology."

Miguel Estrada will not, while in whatever courtroom he may preside over, pander to the interests of those who wish to establish and ingrain a persistent racial inequality in America, those who do not now carry out the legacies of past civil rights leaders, but instead bastardize those past efforts by forcing racial tension upon Americans to keep society at their beck and call while gaining personal notoriety, prestige and wealth.

If the Senate Democrats try to filibuster Estrada's nomination, they will be holding back debate and action on the immediate national and foreign issues affecting this country, such as creating and passing the appropriate economic stimulus package, among other important topics.

If the Senate feels that Estrada has committed a criminal or moral transgression at some point in his life that would injure the integrity and standing of his service as justice of one of our nation's highest courts, they should provide sufficient evidence to that end and take whatever measures necessary to disallow a moral or actual criminal from taking the bench. But, in this case, no such criminal or moral transgression can be seen, and the argument against his nomination is purely ideological; a filibuster would represent a blatant obstruction of our political system and a disservice to the American people. So, as Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer put it so succinctly a few years ago, "Let the nominee have his day."

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.