# Should Democratic Senators Filibuster the Estrada Nomination? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084 "2003-02-06T00:44:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/181 "2003-02-12T23:37:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > > > [@](#): > > > > I agree, if the source is known to be a reputable one. > > This seems to set a very high bar, if not outright create a catch-22. I’d never heard of the LatinoLA site before this week(thus I have no info on their reputation). Does this mean I can’t trust facts they reference in an op-ed piece? Certainly they’re open to examination and if someone can prove the facts are not what the op-ed presents them as then we’ll discredit them. Do you have a fact-based criticism of my cite? Actually, that particular comment was not about your cite. That happens to be my position on quoting Op-Eds. I’ve expressed this previously. However, I do think that your cite skewed the facts – see below. > [@](#): > > “letting some staffers view some of the relevant documents”(your claim) versus “released attorney memos in the past to ease nominations”(my cite’s claim) seems pretty much like splitting hairs of the most anal variety. In both cases the fundamental issue, access to the information in the documents being made available to senators for confirmation debates, is the same. Disagree. The difference is quite substantial, in the amount of confidentiality that is lost. If the Democrats offer to take the same deal and the administration refuses, the admin would have some explaining to do. Until then, no. > [@](#): > > Perhaps. I’ve acknowledged this is a game, I don’t think very many people are saying otherwise. Still that doesn’t mean one side is playing dirty by requesting access(be it through staffer summaries or the actual paper) to these documents. To the extent that they are willing to sacrifice the SG office to further their ends one might view it disfavorably. The political angle is in this high-minded posturing about lack of evidence. The real deal is that they think he is conservative. This stuff about how they don’t have enough evidence is nonsense. If Clinton sent them such a guy with identical evidence, they would support him. (Of course, then the Republicans would oppose him). > [@](#): > > Your arguement seems to hinge on your assumption that these documents will be used to smear Estrada in the public eye. I’ve seen nothing in my readings of articles/transcripts that indicates the senators want to make these documents, or any part of them, public. What evidence do you have that they’re looking to use them for “PR” value? I’m not sure what “argument” you refer to. I was merely speculating as to whether the Senate Democrats would be happy with limited access. No argument, and hence no evidence. > [@](#): > > Oh my! Seppuku is clearly my only option! It is well known that **december** NEVER spins his sources. He is a paragon of truth and fair reporting! Oh the shame of having besmirched such a noble character! I can’t bear it! Oh, the old “he had it coming anyway” defense. I get it. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/182 "2003-02-13T00:07:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **Disagree. The difference is quite substantial, in the amount of confidentiality that is lost. If the Democrats offer to take the same deal and the administration refuses, the admin would have some explaining to do. Until then, no.** 😕 How do you know they DIDN’T offer to take the same deal?(limited access, promise of confidentiality) It seems you’re basing your criticism of my cite on your assumption that they’re asking for more than precedent has allowed. Still seems like hair splitting, the fact I was establishing is that it(senate access to JD memos during the nomination hearings) HAS happened, not the qualifiers of how often or how the access is restricted.\*\* > [@](#): > > Oh, the old “he had it coming anyway” defense. I get it. \*\* Yep, born and raised Republican. ☹ Sometimes I just can’t fight it down. Oh! Gotta run, I feel a “nuke Iraq” chant coming on. No one should have to carry such a burden [sub]_sob_[/sub] Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/183 "2003-02-13T01:33:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > 😕 How do you know they DIDN’T offer to take the same deal?(limited access, promise of confidentiality) It seems you’re basing your criticism of my cite on your assumption that they’re asking for more than precedent has allowed. Still seems like hair splitting, the fact I was establishing is that it(senate access to JD memos during the nomination hearings) HAS happened, not the qualifiers of how often or how the access is restricted. I don’t know if they’ve been offered the same deal (though I’ve not seen anything about it). What I do know is that the two are not comparable. The cite that I gave presents the limited access deal as being a compromise. IOW, the justice department refused to do one but did do the other. So the difference is significant, and to present them as the same thing is misleading. Unless you say that when your cite says “released attorney memos” he _means_ allowing staffers to review them (& he is relying on information which we’ve not seen and which he does not specify that in this case as well such an offer is on the table). Believe what you want – I think he is conflating one with the other. > [@](#): > > Yep, born and raised Republican. ☹ Sometimes I just can’t fight it down. Oh! Gotta run, I feel a “nuke Iraq” chant coming on. No one should have to carry such a burden [sub]_sob_[/sub] Interesting. december was a long-time liberal democrat. I guess you guys were meant for each other. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/184 "2003-02-13T02:05:14Z")
Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President has written a [formal response](http://pda-appellateblog.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_pda-appellateblog_archive.html#90315485) to two Senators’ request for the internal memos. The response is long and thorough, as might be expected from a former Texas Supreme Court justice. Some highlights: > [@](#): > > Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy: > > …your requests have no persuasive support in the history and precedent of judicial appointments. Indeed, the relevant history and precedent convincingly demonstrate that a new and shifting standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada… > > …all living former Solicitors General (four Democrats and three Republicans) have strongly opposed your request for Solicitor General memoranda and stated that it would sacrifice and compromise the ability of the Justice Department to effectively represent the United States in court. Even more telling, we are informed that the Senate has not requested memos such as these for any of the 67 appeals court nominees since 1977 who had previously worked in the Justice Department (including the seven nominees who had previously worked in the Solicitor General’s office). The few isolated examples you have cited – in which targeted requests for particular documents about specific issues were accommodated for nominees to positions other than the U.S. Courts of Appeals – similarly do not support your request here… > > …Some who are misinformed have seized on Mr. Estrada’s lack of prior judicial experience, but five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit had no prior judicial experience, including two appointees of President Clinton and one appointee of President Carter…And few lawyers, whatever their ideology or philosophy, have volunteered to represent a death row inmate pro bono before the Supreme Court as did Miguel Estrada. > > …with respect to your request that Mr. Estrada answer additional questions, the only specific question identified in your letter refers to his judicial role models. You claim that Mr. Estrada refused to answer a question on this topic. In fact, in his written responses to Senator Durbin’s question on this precise subject that Mr. Estrada submitted three months ago, he cited Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Lewis Powell, and Judge Amalya Kearse as judges he admires… Your letter to the President ignores Mr. Estrada’s answer to this question. In any event, beyond this one query, your letter does not pose any additional questions to him. Additionally, neither of you has posed any written questions to Mr. Estrada in the more than three months since his all-day Committee hearing. > > …those who have worked with Miguel – including prominent Democrat lawyers whom you know well – strongly support his confirmation. For example, Ron Klain, who served as a high-ranking adviser to former Vice President Gore and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote: “Miguel is a person of outstanding character, tremendous intellect, and with a deep commitment to the faithful application of precedent. . . . [T]he challenges that he has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely devoted to helping those in need.” > > President Clinton’s Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, wrote: "During the time Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was a model of professionalism and competence. . . . In no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views – or indeed that they reflected any consideration other than the long-term interests of the United States… > > … bipartisan group of 14 former colleagues in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice wrote: “We hold varying ideological views and affiliations that range across the political spectrum, but we are unanimous in our conviction that Miguel would be a fair and honest judge who would decide cases in accordance with the applicable legal principles and precedents, not on the basis of personal preferences or political viewpoints.” One former colleague, Richard Seamon, wrote that he is a pro-choice, lifelong Democrat with self-described “liberal views on most issues” who said he would “consider it a disgrace” if Mr. Estrada is not confirmed… Gonzales’s letter goes on and on. It totally answers every argument that’s been raised here. In particular, the recommendations from Democrats Seamon, Waxman, Klain and other former colleagues confirm that his work in the SG’s office was not colored by partisanship. Therefore the requrest for his SG memos is just an excuse to delay or a scavenger hunt to find anything that can be use or misused against Estrada. It is not a good faith request IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/185 "2003-02-13T02:27:32Z")
What would a “good faith request” be, in your humble estimation? One from the Republicans, I am tempted to conclude. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/186 "2003-02-13T02:45:48Z")
Two points, **december**. 1. I can completely grasp the idea that the qualifications you’ve outlined convince you that Estrada would be a good judge. Several times I have identified the three elements that are customarily used to evaluate the capacity for effectively doing constitutional law and the philosophy under which a judge so doing operates, and pointed out that they are not available in this case (with the possible exception of law journal articles on constitutional law that he may have written, which it seems evident no one has turned up, so my _presumption_ is that he has not written any). Since he has not to date been a judge, he has rendered no decisions and written no opinions in that role. His writings, presumably analyzing the possible cases for and against litigation in which the SG’s office is involved, would furnish such evidence, and have not been produced, as has been discussed at length. I invited you to attempt to persuade me, by creative argument, why the evidence you have (quite courteously and repeatedly) proferred as grounds for his competence should convince **me** that he’s an excellent candidate – you merely referred back to the evidence you’ve given me. I trust you’re aware that I’m not convinced by it. The offer, however, remains open if you wish to undertake it. 🙂 2. > [@](#): > > That knowledge would make little difference in how he does his job. A judge is there to interpret the law, not to make law. Federalist Society members presumably avoid legislating from the bench to a greater-than-average degree. Forgive me for hostility here, but that is a classic red herring which has been dragged around so often for so long that it should really be given an honored display site in the National Museum of Natural History as a classic American fossil. To say this implies that you have no idea of what “law” as understood by judges and lawyers means. To explain what I mean here, let me give you an example. Let us say that a committee of those Dopers you have infuriated with your, uh, “unique” posting style and anti-Democrat argumentation decides to get together, extract quotes from your posts out of context to “prove” your incompetence as a statistician, and mails copies of the resulting document to all your clients with a cover letter suggesting that they really should reconsider retaining you for actuarial services. Infuriated by this, you file suit, identify which people have done this, and hale them into court. After reviewing your counsel’s masterly presentation of the evidence and how it was twisted in an effort to discredit you, and a feeble attempt by the respondents to justify their actions, the judge says, “Well, this has been interesting. No decision. Court adjourned.” I trust you would be upset by the results. But if the judge makes a ruling for you on that case, he is extending the precedents ably cited by your lawyer to cover the case before him. He is writing an opinion justifying, against possible appeal by the respondents (who did have the common sense to take exceptions here and there), why he found in your favor. His decision will be reported in the appropriate reports of court decisions. In short, he has **made law – case law**. I can grasp that you may feel, and have tried to express by that old canard, _that an opinion should be founded on (1) the language of the law in question or (2) the intent of the legislators, not on (3) the views of the judge as to what constitutes “justice” in some abstract sense in this particular case_. But if you do feel so, then why are you so loath to accept the fact that many of us do not feel that a nominee for U.S. Circuit Court Judge who refuses to take a stand on whether or not he agrees with the first, second, or third option in the italicized material earlier in this paragraph should not be confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/187 "2003-02-13T04:08:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*What would a “good faith request” be, in your humble estimation? \*\* IMHO a request for additional information would be in good faith if – the requester truly was uncertain of the individual’s suitability for the job \*and \* – the requester believed that the additional information would resolve the uncertainty. In this case, Ted Kennedy’s comments gave the show away. Democrats are not concerned about Estrada’s not being a good appellate judge. They’re concerned that he might be a strong SC candidate. Kennedy said they should stop him before he’s nominated for the SC. Also, there’s no reason to believe that any particular Estrada work papers would give insight on how he would rule on specific cases of interest, such as Roe v. Wade. If the Democrats had a specific concern and knew that a particular work paper would answer it, they might be able to negotiate a review of that paper, in exchange for a positive vote if it came up negative. But, this request is just a fishing expedition. The Democrats are looking for dirt, or something that can be represented as dirt. . Democrats have already taken several bad faith steps. They made an issue of his lack of judicial experience, although that’s common. They attacked him for failing to answer questions that they didn’t ask. They attacked him for failing to answer a question that he had answered in writing three months earlier. Mary Landrieu went back on her recent campaign promise to support Estrada. Most of all, the Democrats have done everything possible to not let him and other qualified Republicans be confirmed, right from the get-go. **Polycarp** , would you not agree that there’s as much ro more reason to believe that Estrada would make a good judge as there was for the other judges on the D.C. circuit court when they were nominated? Or, at least, for the majority who had no prior judicial experience. Another question: What could a Republican nominee ever do to convince you to support him? Bear in mind that it would be improper for the candidate to testify in advance how he would rule. What evidence would be adequate to prove that he would be a good judge? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/188 "2003-02-13T04:12:20Z")
Oh goodness, Ted Kennedy speaks for all the Democrats in the Senate? Somebody forgot to send me the memo. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/189 "2003-02-13T05:07:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Another question: What could a Republican nominee ever do to convince you to support him? Bear in mind that it would be improper for the candidate to testify in advance how he would rule. What evidence would be adequate to prove that he would be a good judge? I have been doing my absolute level best to keep political stance out of my thinking on this issue – a factor difficult to do since I am a Democrat and quite liberal, and I find the repeated Democrat-bashing to be quite irritating. I feel that statements made by Mr. Estrada at some point in his career regarding the sorts of jurisprudential questions that I have placed in this forum before would be most useful. These need not relate specifically to actual cases likely to come up. Consider, for example, _Griswold v. Connecticut_ – the circumstances leading to that case or anything resembling it coming before the court are slightly less likely than the D.C. Circuit Court courtroom being invaded by a family of polar bears while court is in session. But Mr. Estrada’s analysis of the majority decision and dissents on this case would be most informative on his preferred interpretation of the Bill of Rights. His comments on Mr. Scalia’s extended essay on constitutional interpretation would be nearly as valuable, to take us away from actual cases. If I could ask him one question and receive a frank and thorough answer, it would be this: “Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Please explain the reasoning that undergirds your answer.” This does not entail prejudgment of almost any case, presuming that he is not an absolutist on either the yea or nay side, but would be so vastly informative of how he _does_ constitutional interpretation that it would be sufficient by itself to aid me in judging for or against his candidacy. By the way, given my request for some evidence on his constitutional views that seems to be totally unforthcoming, I was pleased to see the following in the Gonzalez letter you quoted: > [@](#): > > In fact, in his written responses to Senator Durbin’s question on this precise subject that Mr. Estrada submitted three months ago, he cited Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Lewis Powell, and Judge Amalya Kearse as judges he admires… This in itself is not sufficient to convert me to pro-Estrada-ism, but it makes me feel much more comfortable about the man’s views. If the ellipsis is yours, **december** , and not Gonzalez’s or your source’s, I’d be grateful for your completing that particular quote from the letter. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/190 "2003-02-13T11:51:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > If the ellipsis is yours, **december** , and not Gonzalez’s or your source’s, I’d be grateful for your completing that particular quote from the letter. I did provide a [link](http://pda-appellateblog.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_pda-appellateblog_archive.html#90315485) to the entire letter. The more complete quote is > [@](#): > > You claim that Mr. Estrada refused to answer a question on this topic. In fact, in his written responses to Senator Durbin’s question on this precise subject that Mr. Estrada submitted three months ago, he cited Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Lewis Powell, and Judge Amalya Kearse as judges he admires (he clerked for Justice Kennedy and Judge Kearse), and he further pointed out, of course, that he would seek to resolve cases as he analyzed them “without any preconception about how some other judge might approach the question.” Your letter to the President ignores Mr. Estrada’s answer to this question. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/191 "2003-02-13T13:14:42Z")
Here’s a good one from the [urk=“[http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/senate.estrada/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/senate.estrada/index.html)”]CNN story on the start of the filibuster: > [@](#): > > “Please tell us what three cases from the last 40 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence you are most critical of … and just give me a couple of sentences as to why for each one,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, asked Estrada. > > “I’m not even sure that I could think of three that I would be … that I would have a sort of adverse reaction to,” he replied. Well jeez, I can give you three off the top of my head: _Bowers v. Hardwick_, _U.S. v. Morrison_, and _Bush v. Gore_. The nominee is simply not credible when he says he can’t even think of three cases he disagrees with. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/192 "2003-02-13T13:15:59Z")
[CNN story](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/senate.estrada/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/193 "2003-02-13T13:44:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Well jeez, I can give you three [cases from the last 40 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence you are most critical of] off the top of my head: _Bowers v. Hardwick_, _U.S. v. Morrison_, and _Bush v. Gore_. \*\* You may be critical of Bush v. Gore, **minty** , but I would imagine Estrada has no problem with it. After all, [he participated in the preparation of a brief in the Bush v. Gore election recount litigation](http://www.prldef.org/lib/Estrada.pdf). In fact, I wonder whether his opponents are motivated by revenge, at least to a degree. IMHO both Republican and Democratic Senators have often behaved in disgustingly petty fashion when dealing with individual nominees. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/194 "2003-02-13T14:10:48Z")
The point, since you’ve apparently failed to grasp it, is that _any_ litigator can think of three bad Supreme Court cases at a moment’s notice. The nominee had zero credibility when he claimed he couldn’t think of any. Lying under oath! Perjury! Impeachment! Feh. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/195 "2003-02-13T14:20:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*The nominee is simply not credible when he says he can’t even think of three cases he disagrees with. \*\* Chucky’s clearly looking for red meat here. But you’re right, there are credible ways to answer the question without giving him that red meat. An interesting way to answer this question would have been to find three cases turning on some arcane point of law – cases so boring it makes your eyes bleed just reading them – and make some technical objection to the opinion. Most of SCOTUS’s cases aren’t earth-shattering civil rights decisions, after all. I bet ol’ Chucky’s head would have exploded. 🙂 Another way might have been to criticize cases that have since been overturned or are, for all practical purposes, a dead letter. Like the busing decisions from the early 70s, or the decision banning the death penalty which was reversed a couple of years later. Forty years gives you a lot of room to work. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/196 "2003-02-13T14:43:48Z")
**december** , I think **minty** ’s point is that it’s possible to disagree with a case. It’s certainly possible to find three cases whose outcomes you disagree with in the last four decades. Up to four Supreme Court Justices do it on every single case. In the matter of Bowers v Hardwick, one Justice even came out two years later and said he made a mistake in voting the way he did. Can _you_ not think of three cases you disagree with in, heck let’s narrow the gap, the last ten years? Do you honestly believe that Estrada can’t? Or, worse, _doesn’t_ believe there are any cases improperly decided? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/197 "2003-02-13T14:45:16Z")
Quite right, Dewey. You’d think he would at least criticize the pro bono death penalty case he lost. One is also reminded of Ginsburg’s criticism of the reasoning in _Roe v. Wade_ (which, if you were paying attention to anything other than the abortion angle, showed that she believes in an Equal Protection clause with teeth–as subsequently demonstrated in the _VMI_ case and several others). ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/198 "2003-02-13T14:52:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > Or, worse, _doesn’t_ believe there are any cases improperly decided? Note too that saying a case was wrongly decided is _not_ the same thing as saying you’d overturn it. Respect for precedent is something every judge should come equipped with. If I were appointed to the Supreme Court tomorrow and the issues of all three cases I identified above made return appearances on my docket, I would not vote to overturn any of them. (I would, however, be quite open to limiting or sidestepping them, as the Court appears set to do with the current sodomy case, which this time presents equal protection issues instead of just due process. Look for Ginsburg to write the majority opinion. 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/199 "2003-02-13T18:14:42Z")
From **minty** ’s CNN article: > [@](#): > > \*\*Democrats insisted their opposition had nothing to do with Estrada’s judicial philosophy, but rather their inability to judge his fitness for the judicial seat. > > “If this Senate decides that we cannot ask a nominee to the federal court a question as basic as his views on our Constitution, then we have been transformed into a rubber stamp,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois.\*\* I’m going to try to make this simple. **december** , do you truly think that the Senate Democrats (or any members of the Senate) have enough information to fulfill their obligation to advise and consent in this case? Please answer fully, keeping the quote above in mind, and the role the Senate is there to fulfill. Do you think that Estrada’s refusal to answer even the most basic questions about the Constitution is justified? Should the Senate rubber-stamp the nomination just because the President (_any_ President) says the candidate is worthy? Do you think the Democrats are lying about their reasons for blocking Estrada’s appointment? And to follow up on that, if the Democrats are telling the truth about their reasons for the filibuster, what other means would you recommend for them to protest? Short of simply acquiescing to something they obviously disagree strongly with, what else could they do that would make their voices heard? ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2003, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/200 "2003-02-13T18:49:31Z")
[Michael Kinsley has a good article about this in today’s Slate.](http://slate.msn.com/id/2078513/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084.md?page=11)