This is an emotional issue to me, because I come from an immigrant family. We saw education as the key to success and acceptance. We were all Democrats. The Democrats were our party, not those country club, WASP Republicans. Estrada followed our formula to a Tee – an immigrant who graduated from Columbia U. and Harvard Law School. He earned his success. His career is a great example to encourage other Hispanic Americans to pursue their education. Yet, just because he was in the other party, the Democrats stabbed him in the back. The Democrats of Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson and Harry Truman would not have done this.
I will respond to your comments (other than the gratuitous insults):
Jackmannii – I would not use the word “evil,” but I do think the Democrats behaved badly in this instance. There have been other instances where Republicans behaved badly, e.g., with Judge Ronnie White from Missouri.
CRorex, I appreciate your rational response, but do not agree with your conclusion. You pointed out correctly that:
*1) He has no experience being a judge
2) He doesn’t have an significant history of publications on legal topics
3) He’s VERY young only 41 for such a senior position
4) He REFUSED to give his stance on almost ALL major issues
In my opinion number 1,3 and 4 are DAMNED important.*
Regarding #1, I don’t think it’s that all rare for an appellate judge not to have judicial experience. Hell, Earl Warren went to Chief Justice without judicial experience. I’m not sure Abe Fortas had much judicial experience before going to the Supreme Court.
Regarding #2, a judge isn’t a legislator. A judge is supposed to interpret the law and the Constitution, according to legal principles. Competence, legal expertise, intelligence, judicial temperament, honesty, commitment to following the law…these are the sorts of things one wants in a judge.
Regarding #3, I don’t think 41 is so young that age was a factor.
Regarding #4, this is like #2. Should a nominee commit in advance to uphold Roe v. Wade? How can he? In fact, based on a recent thread, that could be unethical. Antonin Scalia was criticized on this Board for doing something like that.
I was amazed at your point that
I agree that this would have been a better Pit thread. However, if I had made this assertion, nobody would have believed me.
pravnik, I agree that “DC Circuit is pretty closely watched because it’s considered something of a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.” That’s one reason why the Democrats opposed him. He is so outstanding that they worried that he might rise to the Supreme Court. They’d have political difficulty Borking a Hispanic nominee. In other words, for their own political purposes, they tried to deprive the public of an outstanding appellate court judge.
jackmanni, I’m OK with your jibe: “In your youth, Republicans were voting for Herbert Hoover out of fear that Al Smith would have the Pope illegitimize their babies.” I don’t have any age sensitivity at all. The sad part, though, is that your comment is essentially true. It shows how the two parties have changed.
Tejota, I agree with your general proposition that “a judge who can’t tell the difference between his ideology and the law is by definition incompetent.” Do you have any reason to think Estrada has this problem? Why would the ABA would have given him a top rating if he did?
Trinopus, you ask, “Why do you mention his ABA recommendation? Bush has excluded the ABA from the selection process.” The answer is that the Democrats presumably have not excluded the ABA from the selection process. Bush complained that the ABA has a liberal bias. The Democrats haven’t made any complaints about the ABA, but politics evidently trumps competence.
Captain Amazing, I agree with you that “the idea that you have to support an immigrant or a minority merely because that person is an immigrant or minority isn’t respect, but the worst kind of patronization.” But, Estrada didn’t merit support merely because he’s an immigrant. In fact, he’s a top nominee who deserved routine approval. Look at all the weanesses various nominees have been accused of: weak academic record, mediocre law school, bad employment history, dishonesty, hitting on his subordinates, goofy decisions, weird academic papers, hints of racism, smoking pot, overall mediocrity. Estrada had none of these problems. He was totally unblemished.
You say the Democrats still support immigrants and minorities. Yes, in general they do. But, not when the person is a Republican judge. They didn’t support Clarence Thomas, did they?
Incidentally, I agree that Brooke was liberal and Javits was very liberal. However, IIRC Margaret Chase Smith was conservative. Anyhow, it’s not even established that Estrada really is conservative. The worst (or best) that can be said is that there’s no record to show whether or not he’s conservative. Note that the conservative group I cited above is concerned that he might be as liberal as David Souter.
leander, as you pointed out, CRorex gave several reasons to question Estrada’s nomination. But, the Democrats didn’t just question it. They unimously voted against him.
