Democrats Have No Good Reason for Blocking Estrada’s Confirmation

For the fourth time, Democrats in the U.S. Senate this month blocked a vote on the president’s nomination of Miguel Estrada for a federal appeals court.

Estrada is the 42-year-old whom President Bush has selected for a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The nominee was scrutinized by the American Bar Association and came out with the ABA’s highest possible grade—a unanimous rating of “well qualified.” He is a former federal government attorney whose colleagues from that office have testified to Congress that Estrada would be an honest and fair judge.

On the personal side, Estrada has demonstrated a stunning ability to work hard and succeed. He came to the United States from Honduras at the age of 17, and later graduated with honors from Harvard Law School. He clerked with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, then served as a federal prosecutor and eventually as an assistant to the solicitor general under Presidents Clinton and Bush.

So why are Democrats—including California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein—filibustering to block a full Senate vote on Estrada’s nomination?

According to the official party line, the Democrats “need more information” about Estrada’s judicial philosophy.

One Senate Democrat complained that Estrada won’t answer questions about what Supreme Court decisions he supports or is critical of. The senator even criticized Estrada for saying he would not give such opinions without first reading all the briefs filed in a given case.

Of course, the canons of ethics which judges are sworn to uphold require them to be silent about issues that may later come before them in court. We don’t want judges who have made up their minds before hearing the evidence. We want them to read all the briefs before issuing an opinion. Another Democratic complaint is that Estrada won’t reveal internal Judicial Department documents he prepared during his tenure as a government lawyer. Several Democrats have cited this protection of confidential documents as a major problem, but legal scholars view it as a necessity.

In fact, all seven former solicitors general of the United States, representing the Kennedy, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations, have signed a letter saying revealing internal documents “would come at the cost of the Solicitor General’s ability to defend vigorously the United States‚ litigation interests—a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself.”

Most incredibly, some Democrats have even complained about Estrada’s comment that his ethnicity would be “irrelevant” to his performance on the bench. Apparently, they want a judge who will tear up the Constitution and favor certain litigants based on skin tone.

While the Senate controls Estrada’s fate, even the members of the House of Representatives are getting in on the action.

Rep. Joe Baca, a former member of the California Legislature who didn’t exactly distinguish himself as a learned man, complained that Estrada doesn’t possess “the commitment to diversity necessary for service on the second most influential court in our nation.” Later in the same House floor speech, Baca said:

“Miguel Estrada has no connection to the Latino community. He has no particular affinity for the role of the courts in lifting up the Latino community. He has never contributed pro bono legal services to Latino organizations, and has no interest in righting the wrongs of the past. In short, he has no business representing our community on a bench that is just a stone’s throw from the highest court in the land.”

Memo to Mr. Baca: The blindfolds on the courtroom statues should be a hint that judges aren’t supposed to represent certain communities.

They say the Dems are trying to make sure Bush and the Republicans won’t get credit for putting a Hispanic in one of the most powerful judicial positions in the nation. The Democrats want to be known as the party that empowers the growing Hispanic community, and they will do just about anything—including blocking a Hispanic’s path to power—to try to maintain that public misperception.

This does indeed seem to be the Democrats’ strategy. It is illogic at its finest, but there is precedent. Remember that the black community’s self-proclaimed friends in Congress tried to keep a black justice off the highest court in the land. But Justice Clarence Thomas overcame that opposition and now sits on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Americans should hope that the Estrada nomination process ends with the same outcome—a well-qualified judge serving with distinction and proving that hard-working people of all ethnicities can be successful even without the Democratic Party’s support.

Democrats' dilemma

"There's a heated debate going on among Senate Democrats over whether to broaden the party's strategy of filibustering the Bush administration's judicial nominees," Byron York writes at the National Review Web site (www.nationalreview.com).

"So far, Democrats have filibustered only the nomination of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals candidate Miguel Estrada, although they are blocking several other Bush nominees by the use of senatorial holds and other parliamentary measures. The issue has taken on new urgency because Republicans are pushing ahead with efforts to bring the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Senate floor for a final confirmation vote. Owen, a Texas state Supreme Court justice who is being considered for a place on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month on a straight party-line vote," Mr. York noted.

"So far, Democrats have dragged their feet on debating Owen, but there appears to be a deep division in the party over whether to resort to a filibuster. The debate is focused on the question of how Democrats might frame the issue. Should they filibuster Owen based on objections to her views on questions like abortion? Or should they filibuster Owen based on objections to the way the White House and Senate Republicans have handled the nominations process? Or, lacking any agreement on strategy, should they forgo a filibuster altogether?

"The short version of the debate is this: Would it be more effective for Democrats to launch a filibuster about something, or about nothing?

"So far, the 'nothing' answer seems to be winning, mostly because the 'something' approach involves serious political risks. The substance of Democratic opposition to Owen in the Judiciary Committee centered around her decisions involving a Texas law that requires underage girls who want to have an abortion to first notify one parent (the law requires simple notification, not consent). The law gives some girls the option of going to court to request permission to have an abortion without parental notification, and Owen's sin, as some Democrats saw it, was to read the court-bypass clause more narrowly than some of her colleagues on the Texas high court.

"That was enough to cause every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to vote against her. But the problem for some less-zealous Democrats is that parental notification laws are quite popular nationwide, and it would seem suicidal to launch a filibuster based on a position that so clearly flies in the face of public opinion."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030415-5521660.htm

Freepers, rather than waiting to see what happens with Estrada and Owen, we need to take the lead. That means presuring Senators, special interest groups, media organizations, etc. This thread is meant to be an ongoing effort to get this man confirmed. For too many years liberals have had their way on the courts. Now, President Bush is in a position to move the courts to the right. The election of '02 showed that the country is with the President. I think it's time to let Daschle, Hillary, and Pelosi know this is Bush country. Are you with me! Let's FREEP these people.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847037/posts

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.