Latino conservatives need not apply

The Oregonian ^ | 03/08/03 | David Reinhard

[nypokerface]

I s Miguel Estrada getting a raw deal from Senate Democrats and their liberal enablers because he's Latino? Perish the thought. The Honduran-born lawyer is getting a raw deal because he's a Latino conservative.

If Estrada were a talented Latino judicial pick who towed the liberal line, 44 Senate Democrats -- Oregon's Ron Wyden sadly and disgracefully among them -- wouldn't be filibustering his nomination. He'd be approved already. But Estrada's a conservative Bush nominee, and most Democrats can't abide the fact that Bush wants to put this type of Latino on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. People might come to the conclusion that Estrada should be the first Latino on the Supreme Court.

There's no other way to explain Senate Democrats' refusal to give Estrada an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, where there are the votes -- Republican and Democrat -- to approve him. The filibusterers' reasons turn out to be utter bunkum on inspection and, indeed, belie some of their past pronouncements.

How, for starters, can Estrada's critics claim he's a "stealth right-wing" candidate? If he's so shrouded in secrecy and they need to know more about him, how do they know he's a "right-wing" nominee?

Here's a nominee who was unanimously rated "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association. That's the highest mark in the rating system that Estrada foe Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, once called the "gold standard."

Ah, but Estrada didn't answer Senate Democrats' questions about his judicial views, and the Bush administration refuses to hand over confidential memos from Estrada's days in the U.S. Solicitor General's office.

First, Estrada did answer questions on his judicial philosophy, the role of the courts and Congress, as well as his views on the environment and affirmative action. What he didn't answer were questions on specific court cases because that would be inappropriate. He'd have to recuse himself from future cases if he did. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it."

Estrada did say he would "follow binding case law in every case" -- precisely what an appeals judge at this level is bound to do. In fact, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy once advised Thurgood Marshall not to answer questions about specific cases in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Is there one standard for African American liberals and another for Latino conservatives?

Also, if Senate filibusterers merely wanted more answers from Estrada, why had they not submitted one question for him before Thursday's vote to end the filibuster.

It's true that the Bush administration has refused to turn over confidential memos from Estrada's days in the Solicitor General's office during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. But this is hardly unusual, much less a cause for filibustering. All living former solicitors general -- Democrat and Republican -- have said that doing so would undercut the office's ability to represent the U.S. government before the Supreme Court.

One of those Democrats was President Clinton's Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who supports Estrada's nomination. "In no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the views he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views," he wrote in a September 2001 letter to Leahy.

Waxman's still holds to those words today, which is more than anyone can say about the filibustering Leahy. "I have stated over and over on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported . . .," the Vermont Democrat said in 1998. "If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her up or down. But don't hold him in unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of senators really shame all senators."

Maybe not all senators, but definitely Leahy's minority of senators. David Reinhard is an associate editor.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

If Estrada were a talented Latino judicial pick who towed the liberal line, 44 Senate Democrats -- Oregon's Ron Wyden sadly and disgracefully among them -- wouldn't be filibustering his nomination.

Bump!

[TLBSHOW]

Blame it on Frist for losing this one for us.

[TLBSHOW]

In a November 10 editorial, the New York Times said that Senate Democrats "should not be afraid to mount a filibuster, which Republicans would need 60 votes to overcome" to stop judicial nominees. When the Times says jump, Democrats ask how high.

Republicans should frame their response to Democratic filibusters as a question of freedom. The issue is whether the people should be able to run their own country through the officials they elect.

America’s founders fought a revolution over this principle. Without the rule of law, we have no freedom. Leftists will not be able to defend letting judges rather than voters run the country.

Second, Bush should re-submit the nominations left unapproved during the 107th Congress. That includes the appeals court nominations of Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, who were rejected by Patrick Leahy’s Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee. The Senate should quickly process and confirm these re-submitted nominees.

Third, Republicans should begin warning Americans of the tactics, including filibusters, to come. Public exposure may cause some Democrats to think twice.

Finally, Republicans must work more closely with activists. In an ideal world, appointing judges would not require massive grassroots campaigns, but it does today because judges have become too powerful and leftists want to capture the courts to short-circuit democracy.

Liberty depends on seizing this opportunity. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819015/posts?page=

[Dog Gone]

Wow, this from a paper in Oregon.

[hoosiermama]

Thought you might want to see this and pass it on.

[aimhigh]

Wow, this from a paper in Oregon.

Yea, but it's too bad the writer didn't have the guts to lay some blame on Oregon's senator Wyden for his anti-Estrada vote.

[justshe]

Yea, but it's too bad the writer didn't have the guts to lay some blame on Oregon's senator Wyden for his anti-Estrada vote.

---

You must have missed the 1st sentence in the second paragraph.

If Estrada were a talented Latino judicial pick who towed the liberal line, 44 Senate Democrats -- Oregon's Ron Wyden sadly and disgracefully among them -- wouldn't be filibustering his nomination.

[aimhigh]

You're right, I missed it. Thanks.

[zeaal]

The democrats HATE for MIGUEL ESTRADA and REPUBLICANS EXCEEDS their care, concern and hope for America and the well-being and safety of Americans and our Court System.

[justshe]

You're welcome. I might have missed it too but Wyden is my Senator (barf) and his name stuck out like a sore thumb to me.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Good comments, TLBSHOW. The GOP Senators have been doing a fine job of detailing the case, imho, and inspiring and educating the many conservative, family (mainstream) organizations, over 50 major newspapers, an army of Americans like us to fight for Miguel in editorials, radio and e-mail campaigns, rallies, and phone calls to our Senators. AP is mostly putting DNC spin out as news. It's up to us to inform the American people, but getting them to cancel their local papers, turn off perky Katie and join FR may take another few years.