Exploiting Estrada

IT IS HARD to imagine a worse parody of a judicial confirmation process than the unfolding drama of Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Opponents of Mr. Estrada, a well-regarded appellate lawyer who served a stint in the solicitor general's office, are convinced that the young, conservative Hispanic represents a grave threat to the republic. Yet Mr. Estrada has not done his foes the courtesy of leaving a lengthy paper trail of contentious statements. And this creates something of a problem for those bent on keeping him off the bench: There is no sound basis on which to oppose him. Mr. Estrada's other problem is that the White House does not merely want credit for appointing a first-rate lawyer to an important court but wants to use Mr. Estrada, who had a hearing last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to curry favor with Hispanic voters. As a result, Mr. Estrada's nomination has been turned into a political slugfest and discussed in the crudest of ethnic terms.

Democrats have a legitimate grievance concerning the D.C. Circuit: Two excellent nominees of the previous administration were never acted upon by Senate Republicans. The White House is wrong to ignore this issue and does so at its peril. But the answer is not attacks on high-quality Bush administration nominees such as Mr. Estrada. At the end of the day, Mr. Estrada must be considered on his merits. His confirmation is an easy call.

His confirmation is an easy call alright. So were Pickering and Owen but the democrats didn't let that stand in the way of "politicizing" the process. Since 1943, Only 6 nominations, including Priscilla Owen and Charles Pickering, have been defeated by the Judiciary Committee and not brought to the floor for a vote. Only 6 in 60 years.

Mr Estrada is the American success story, he epitomizes the American Dream. Born in Honduras, he emigrated to the United States at 17. He taught himself English, and did such a good job that he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the law review. Mr. Estrada then served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

He is a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, the 40-year-old has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court - and won 10. That seems an impressive record to me

If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would the first Hispanic ever appointed to the D.C. circuit court. That, in turn, would leave him well-positioned to become the first Hispanic appointed to the Supreme Court. Three current Supreme Court justices served on the DC Court of Appeals there before being elevated to the high court.

I wonder if the real problem might not be that Mr. Estrada, a Washington lawyer who was on President Bush's legal team in the Florida recount battle two years ago.

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.