Oh, come on, Libertarian. If you truly believe what you just posted to Polycarp, then your grasp on the real world is tenuous indeed.
Well, if you don’t want people to make that mistake in the future, don’t put things that weren’t actually said in quotation marks. Don’t put Democrats oppose Hispanic judge: “He’s too competent!” as the subject line when you know, as december later admitted,
Putting something in quotation marks suggests that they did. (I should know, I was reamed at my doctoral exam for doing just that.)
You have a point, Duke. I hope you passed your exam, despite the quote issue.
However, some observers do believe that Estrada’s intelligence was a factor in the Democratic opposition. Herman Badillo, a former Democratic Congressman (although he’s now a Republican) and a trustee of the City University of New York, was born in Puerto Rico. Badillo said
I am disappointed in you as well, December. If you were operating at your usual level of mendacity, the OP would have said Democrats say: “That beaner is too competent”
Even Homer nods.
Again, I rushed in to see the scoop, the secret recording of some Democratic Senator actually saying what you seem to be claiming with the damn quotes (quotes are the " key).
You need quote intervention. Maybe you could tear that key off your keyboard?
How about “Democrats Strike Down Qualified Hispanic Judge”? That would be a good topic. Sure, there are no quotes in it. But, I don’t think you should use quotes for a while.
Lib, I can respect December’s convictions and his desire to argue in support of them, even while disagreeing with them. However, there is a time-dishonored custom on boards such as these for making a remark in a tone calculated to raise the ire of others, and then backtracking, and December has been observed to do precisely this several times in the past. If no Democrats have said, either in the exact words used or in a reasonable paraphrase, that “Estrada is too competent to be a nominee,” then the OP might better have been phrased as something that was said or his considered and understandable objections to the rejection of a conservative-leaning nominee with reasonable qualifications.
It was to this rhetorical tendency, which IMHO seems calculated to “troll” in the strict usage of the verb – to arouse hostility and infuriation, that I objected. See Beagle’s post just above for a good debate-generating thread title and potential OP.
Turning to other matters, the Senate Judiciary Committee has, whether dominated by Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, and dating back since well before the New Deal, evaluated candidates on the basis of their political and jurisprudential philosophies as expressed in answers to questions posed by committee members. It is known and understood by all that a sitting judge is privileged to refuse to answer such questions, on the basis that structuring such answers would place him in the position of publicly prejudging cases which might come before him. From what I’ve read, Mr. Estrada evaded answering many such questions without being entitled to such privilege.
December, thanks for your second answer to my post; I hope you were amused, rather than angered, by my catalog of Messrs. Justice B— and the conclusion I drew. 
Um… to make a minor correction in my last post, the first sentence of the third paragraph should read “… evaluated candidates at least partially on the basis of answers to questions posed by committe members in an effort to ascertain more clearly the candidates’ political and jurisprudential philosophies.”
December, since you seem well-informed on the man, can you tell me his stances on:
[ul][li] States’ responsibilities under the “full faith and credit” principle?[/li][li] Degree to which governmental financial support of charitable aid conducted by a religious institution is permissible?[/li][li] To what extent a state or local government can regulate the public expression of religious beliefs?[/li][li] Degree to which “offensive” speech (e.g., hate speech, obscenity) is protected under First Amendment rights?[/li][li] The existence and extent of a “right to privacy”?[/li][li] Constitutionality of “hate crime laws”?[/li][li] Meaning of the Ninth Amendment?[/li][li] Extent to which stare decisis holds in appellate jurisprudence?[/li][li] Significance of “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?[/li][/ul]
I realize this is a rather extensive list; if I were on that Committee, those are things I’d be looking for in making up my mind on his competence.
It’s more than a privilege; it’s an ethical requirement, according to lawyers on this board. E.g., SuaSponte called it a gross breach of judicial ethics. minty green said it was “highly improper to comment on the substance of a case that is pending or is likely to appear before the court.”
Of course, they were talking about a sitting judge. However, wouldn’t the same prohibition apply to a judicial nominee? He also would be publicly prejudging a case that might come before him. In fact, that’s the point of the question.
No problem.
These are interesting questions. As you surmised, I don’t know the answer to any of them. Not for Estrada, not for Ronnie White, and not for any other appellate court judicial nominee. After all, the only possible answer for a nominee at this level is that he would follow earlier court decisions and the Constitution.
However, to justify voting against the man, one would have to show that the Judiciary Committee normally requires this information. I don’t think they do.
A nominee has to answer the questions generally, without reference to specific cases pending. A nominee can refuse to answer questions, to a point.
Basically, it is walking a tightrope between being not forthcoming enough and too forthcoming.
Polycarp’s questions, IMO, are good ones. For a judicial candidate, not december. Personally, I would not want to answer them without a few hours in the library.
No. Those ethical rules apply to judges, not nominees.
No. Scalia commented on the merits of an actual case in the Ninth Circuit, one which is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court. Estrada and other judicial nominees are asked about their views in general. If you review that thread you cited, in fact, you will see where I stated that it was perfectly proper for a judge to comment generally about the law.
If Estrada was asked about his view on Roe and Casey, he should have answered. If he were asked about a particular abortion case pending in a D.C. trial court, he should not have answered.
At the risk of injuring a rapprochement on our respect for each other, I must say “Horsepuckey” to this. That’s not an answer, it’s a glittering generality that says nothing. Appellate courts are required to determine whether the similarities and differences between the circumstances of the case before it and previously decided cases justify the application of the principle of law established in the previous cases to its unique circumstances. That requires that they apply standards of Constitutional interpretation to the pending cases – and as such, nominees’ views on what those standards are or ought to be are legitimate questions for a body charged to “advise and consent” to the nominees’ appointment to the judgeship to ask, and to expect answers to.
To take just one of my questions, Bork’s opinion that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a nullity is one valid standard of interpretation – because it does not say what the “unenumerated rights” are, one cannot read them into it. However, that goes against the “original intent” standard of most conservative judges – whatever Madison may have intended by that amendment, it was certainly not to enact a pretty-sounding-but-useless statement of bland inconsequence into the Bill of Rigts.
Hate to burst your bubble, Poly, but Bork’s “opinion” there is the standard, uniform interpretation of the 9th Amendment. Nothing at all unusual or controversial about that one.
So nominate me for a SCOTUS seat; I’ll change it!! 
There are two issues here nominee and specific case. I want to be sure I understand. Are you saying that it’s OK for a judicial nominee to publicly state his view on a case likely to come before his court if he’s approved, as long as he’s not a sitting judge?
Polycarp, I agree that my recommended answer is “a glittering generality that says nothing.” My point is that one cannot expect more of a judicial nominee.
I am saying there is no legal prohibition on such comments, AFAIK. As a rule of thumb, however, it would seem prudent for a nominee to observe the same rule as a judge: Do not comment on the merits of actual cases that are may appear before your court. You may, however, comment on the state of the law in general. It would seem particularly appropriate to do so in response to direct questions in a confirmation hearing, but of course, that would have revealed Estrada to be far, far right wing in his philosophy, jurisprudence, and politics.
Discretion is the better part of confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate.
Q: Did the 'Pubbies get rid of the old rules with the blue cards and such that could hold up nominees indefinitely?
Good question. I don’t know.
Blue cards: Working on it. Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) held up a few Bush nominees that were extreme right wing, partially in retaliation for Sen. Jesse Helms (R, NC) having held up an inordinate number of Clinton nominees.
He and Dole are now working with the White House to get a few nominees acceptable to both parties through the system.
I guess Estrada doesn’t qualify for a blue card because there are no senators from D.C., right?
Is there some kind of problem finding centrist judges to bring to the table? Is everybody in black robes either a Trotskyist or a Dittohead. Where’s the difficulty here?
The difficulty lies with the Bushistas. Once again, the far right has saved the Republicans bacon. In a nation as evenly divided as our own, even the most extreme edge can tip the balance, as witness the Jews for Buchanan. 10,000 people who meant to vote for Gore but effectively voted for Buchanan decided the election!
They have presented thier bill, and they ain’t gonna get everything they want, you cannot legislate away 20 years of social change. But the political strategists of the Pubbies are anxious to insinuate that thier hearts are with the extreme right, they really want to do all this stuff, but the Dems wont let them.
I think this is the source of thier determination to place very right wing jurists in power, they seek a permanent impact. Of course they could find centrist candidates, they refuse to do so, prefering men who claim that they can peer into the minds of Madison and Jefferson and read what is therein written.
If they are more committed to filling the benches than they are to ensuring the political views of the men who fill those benches, they should have little enough difficulty.