Posted on 03/01/2003 4:24:27 AM PST by calvin sun
If Hollywood ever makes a movie about the Senate melodrama over federal court nominee Miguel Estrada, the filmmakers can call it Mr. Seinfeld Goes to Washington. The sitcom star who's all about nothing is well suited to portray a Senate minority leader who's leading a filibuster about... nothing? Tom Daschle and the Democrats say that Estrada, nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is a "stealth candidate," an under-the-radar conservative whom President Bush is trying to sneak through the confirmation process without the normal vetting. If Estrada had been nominated after the GOP took control of the Senate this year, maybe Daschle would have a case. But Estrada was nominated in May 2001, when the Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee. Sixteen months went by before they bothered to hold a hearing on him. Senate Democrats assume Estrada is far too conservative for their tastes, but they can't prove it. Their problem is that, unlike many judicial candidates of all stripes who've been subjected to bruising confirmation battles in the Senate, Estrada has never been a judge. There is no rich loam of Estrada rulings, opinions and verdicts into which advocates can dig their selective shovels. Senate Democrats also say they can't proceed with a vote until documents from Estrada's work with the Justice Department are released. Yet former solicitor generals - both Republicans and Democrats - say the request is out of bounds. Estrada's former boss in the Clinton administration has praised the nominee's "professionalism and competence." The American Bar Association has given Estrada its highest rating. Democrats know Estrada, once confirmed, would become a potential candidate to become the first-ever Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme Court. And that would boost GOP efforts to court the Hispanic vote. That's the political subtext to this stalemate. But in 16 months, the Democrats have not found legitimate grounds to object to this nominee. They should stop stalling and allow a vote. The underlying issue here is what constitutes "legitimate" grounds. The Senate seems to be unable to admit what's really going on with judicial nominations - a long-running war over what ideology should rule the federal judiciary. Partisans in each party seek to pack the courts only with people who see the world the way they do. So, the party not in control of the White House fights, through stalling and activist attack, to frustrate the President's right to name judges. Each party does it, while claiming only the other side does. The wounds from this partisan warfare are deep and still bleeding. When names do come up for a vote, nominees often suffer fierce, hyperbolic attacks on any flaw that can be found in their character, credentials or record. This has always gone on to some degree, but the tactics and vitriol have gotten out of hand in recent years. This is monumentally unfair to many nominees, and erodes public confidence in the federal courts. The tit-for-tat confirmation wars need to end, to be replaced by an approach that seeks a spectrum of backgrounds and views - conservative, centrist and liberal - on each bench. But Miguel Estrada should not have to wait for that distant day to get the vote he deserves on his nomination to the federal bench.
Clinton's candidate for the 9th Circuit of appeals, Marsha Berzon, was confirmed (64-34) by the Senate in 2000.
The Democrats don't only have a double standard. Democrats have a "whopper" of a double standard.
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.