# Should Democratic Senators Filibuster the Estrada Nomination?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084>\
**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:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 14, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/241 "2003-02-14T15:55:54Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> \*\*Note that a similar argument could justify literacy tests for voting. _“A high degree of literacy is important for a voter. Even though white voters aren’t required to take these tests, it would be a mistake to let this black person vote unless he passes this challenging literacy test.”_ Ugh! \*\*

Just when I think you can’t get any more ridiculous, you surprise me yet again.

This is an invalid comparison. The senators opposing Estrada are saying they need X amount of information about ALL candidates, and that they have \< X information on Estrada. The argument put forth by **Enderw24** is thus: “even if in the past we’ve settled for Y quantity of information, we should on a going-forward basis require X quantity of information.”

Your literacy example, on the other hand, goes like this: “we will require X of black voters and Y of white voters _in the same election_.”

For your example to track the point made, it would have to be thus: “Even though we’ve not required literacy in past elections, we will require literacy tests of ALL voters in current and future elections.”

N.B.: Even that sort of literacy test would be problematic constitutionally for essentially historical reasons, but it’s a far cry from the way you phrased your analogy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/242 "2003-02-14T15:59:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \*  
> The senators opposing Estrada are saying they need X amount of information about ALL candidates, and that they have \< X information on Estrada.

Yeah, they’re _saying_ it. That don’t make it true.

The analogy is valid.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/243 "2003-02-14T16:06:25Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \*  
> \*\*Just when I think you can’t get any more ridiculous, you surprise me yet again.
> 
> This is an invalid comparison. The senators opposing Estrada are saying they need X amount of information about ALL candidates, and that they have \< X information on Estrada. The argument put forth by **Enderw24** is thus: “even if in the past we’ve settled for Y quantity of information, we should on a going-forward basis require X quantity of information.”
> 
> Your literacy example, on the other hand, goes like this: “we will require X of black voters and Y of white voters _in the same election_.” \*\*

Judges are appointed sequentially, so a perfect analogy is not possible. Nevertheless, I assert that the Democrats have erected a new hurdle that applies to Republicans only. Recall that Bush re-nominated as judges two Clinton nominees who had been pending. They were promptly confirmed. The Democratic Senators did not require any similar amount of information about these nominees.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/244 "2003-02-14T16:08:22Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \*  
> \*\*Just when I think you can’t get any more ridiculous, you surprise me yet again.
> 
> This is an invalid comparison. The senators opposing Estrada are saying they need X amount of information about ALL candidates, and that they have \< X information on Estrada. The argument put forth by **Enderw24** is thus: “even if in the past we’ve settled for Y quantity of information, we should on a going-forward basis require X quantity of information.”
> 
> Your literacy example, on the other hand, goes like this: “we will require X of black voters and Y of white voters _in the same election_.” \*\*

Judges are appointed sequentially, so a perfect analogy is not possible. Nevertheless, I assert that the Democrats have erected a new hurdle that applies to Republicans only. Recall that Bush re-nominated two Clinton judicial nominees who had been pending. They were promptly confirmed. The Democratic Senators did not require any similar amount of information about these nominees.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/245 "2003-02-14T16:15:08Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> You’re exaggerating the lack of difference. Did you watch the Clarence Thomas hearings? Thomas testified for five days, and other witnesses were questioned for three days. Some of the sessions ran far into the night. By comparison, Estrada was questioned for one day, which is unusually long by historical standards for appellate judges.

I think the problem here is that we’re using different definitions of “standards.” I took standards to mean the qualifications they look for in an appointment. You seem to be using standards as in the way they conduct the process.  
In that case, I will agree with you. There do seem to be different standards. It doesn’t make it right, but there are differences.

> [@](#):
>
> Note that a similar argument could justify literacy tests for voting. _“A high degree of literacy is important for a voter. Even though white voters aren’t required to take these tests, it would be a mistake to let this black person vote unless he passes this challenging literacy test.”_ Ugh!

I’ve read this three times and the only thing I can gleem from it is that it is indeed written in English.  
I’m truly at a loss in determining what, if anything, this has to do with the argument I’ve presented.

> [@](#):
>
> Nor have you addressed the point that there’s been no showing on this thread that Estrada was unusually reticient about his legal views. The Washington Post and I believe that the entire “stealth candidate” accusation is bogus. I’m still waiting for you or some other poster to take up this challenge.

The two arguments might be similar, but they aren’t congruent.  
You made a claim, **Polycarp** and now I have both called you on your claim. Your response cannot be “but you didn’t answer this argument.” That argument is a seperate issue and doesn’t need to be decided before we determine what the role of a judge is.

> [@](#):
>
> If you re-state this point in a straight-forward way, I will respond.

Funny, it seemed quite straight forward to me. What does it matter what political party your representative comes from if his job is to serve the will of the people?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 14, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/246 "2003-02-14T16:17:25Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IzzyR \*  
> **Yeah, they’re _saying_ it. That don’t make it true.**

If you’re saying that they have in fact recieved X quantity of data, but are falsely claiming \< X, fine. That’s a factual question in issue that can be raised in good faith. On the other hand…\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> The analogy is valid. \*\*

…is not, because it isn’t. The argument “we have been slipshod in examining past nominees, and thus are going to require more disclosure from here on” is very different from the argument “we should require different quantities of disclosure from different candidates on the basis of skin color (or whatever).”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/247 "2003-02-14T16:19:40Z")

</div>

**December** , I think we’ve been arguing at cross purposes since day one of this thread. As simply stated as possible, my contention is: Candidates for a federal judgeship, at any level but with ascending degree of inquiry between District, Circuit, and Supreme Court levels, should be expected to demonstrate their capacity for serving as a judge in some way, shape or form. As a part of this, they should provide responsive, affirmative statements of their jurisprudential philosophy, as distinguished from its application to specific cases. Whether a candidate is a member of a minority does not and should not make any difference. Within the bounds of reason, what his philosophy might be is not grounds for rejecting him, save as a matter of conscience for individual Senators – _but refusal to state it is_. If any of these criteria have not been followed through on in the past, that is unfortunate, but should not affect present or future nominations. And the Senate has the affirmative duty to advise and consent – or refuse consent – to nominations; just because a given President thinks that a candidate is a good nominee is not cause to rubberstamp the nominations. That bit of checks and balances is in the Constitution for a reason, and IMHO an excellent reason.

I personally would like to see an absolutist like Hugo Black nominated. I am fairly confident that GWB will not make such a nomination. If I were to find that Mr. Estrada’s philosophy resembles that of Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Stevens, or Ms. O’Connor, I would be fairly happy to vote in confirmation if I were a Senator. If it were that of Mr. Scalia or Mr. Rehnquist, I would vote against him. If all we know or can know about it is that he respects three particular judges for two of whom he clerked, then I know less about how he thinks than I do of how **dewey** and **minty** think, as regards constitutional interpretation – and that IMHO constitutes buying a pig in a poke, no matter how good a lawyer he is. I have not bestowed my conscience nor my right to form opinions on either Mr. Gonzalez nor the letter writers who think he’s a great lawyer who might make a good judge. I’m not opposed to him or in support of him because he’s a Republican, a Hispanic, an immigrant, a person who has overcome a speech defect, or anything else; I’m opposed to him because he is not and has not been forthcoming on something I think is an important criterion for selecting a Federal judge. If and when I see something of how he thinks in terms of constitutional interpretation, I may or may not change my stance, depending on what he has to say – but I would definitely rethink it in light of what he has said.

And IMHO for you to insist that he be confirmed on the basis of the evidence provided to date is tantamount to insisting that he be confirmed because he is a Republican lawyer of some skill who has been nominated by a Republican president. I have no problem with moderate Republicans; I even like **John Corrado**. (“Some of my best friends are Republicans…” ;)) But IMHO **he should not be confirmed because there is not sufficient evidence to justify naming him to an effectively lifelong judgeship, and because he has refused to provide such evidence.** I don’t care if senators should have asked him more and did not – if I want a job, it’s my responsibility to convince the hiring authority that I’d be good for that job; It’s not their responsibility to take two letters of recommendation and watch me evade their questions, and hire me anyway because they failed to ask the questions that might have shown me as good for the job or not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 14, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/248 "2003-02-14T16:24:35Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> \*\*Judges are appointed sequentially, so a perfect analogy is not possible. Nevertheless, I assert that the Democrats have erected a new hurdle that applies to Republicans only. Recall that Bush re-nominated two Clinton judicial nominees who had been pending. They were promptly confirmed. The Democratic Senators did not require any similar amount of information about these nominees. \*\*

Those nominees had existing judicial records from which their judicial philosophy could be gleaned. The senate could get X from alternative sources in those cases.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the Dems are acting in bad faith and would not require this level of disclosure from future Democratic nominees. The problem is, that’s all conjecture. It ain’t objectively provable unless you’ve got a crystal ball tucked away somewhere.

Let me reiterate: I support Estrada’s nomination, for reasons listed earlier in this thread. I just hate the sloppy reasoning I’m seeing from **december**. If you want to vent and accuse the Dems of abject bad faith, take it to the Pit; if you want to address the substance of the arguments the Dems are putting forth, I think you should address them on their merits.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/249 "2003-02-14T16:33:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \*  
> I think the problem here is that we’re using different definitions of “standards.” I took standards to mean the qualifications they look for in an appointment. … but there are differences.

You wrote, “they don’t take quite as long to confirm an appelate court judge as they do to confirm a supreme court justice,” I presume you agree that _not quite as long_ understates the difference in time taken. Anyhow, thanks for acknowledging that there are differences.

> [@](#):
>
> The two arguments might be similar, but they aren’t congruent. You made a claim, **Polycarp** and now I have both called you on your claim. Your response cannot be “but you didn’t answer this argument.” That argument is a seperate issue and doesn’t need to be decided before we determine what the role of a judge is.

I agree that the claims are not congruent. Your claim is interesting, but my claim is central. It shows the bad faith of Estrada’s opponents. Democrats claim this unique filibuster is warranted because they have inadequate information. If that charge is false, then they are mistaken or they are lying about their true reason for opposing Estrada. You can guess which from the fact that they are demanding SG internal memos which they know ought not be provided, and they are criticizing Estrada for failing to provide information that he has provided.

> [@](#):
>
> Funny, it seemed quite straight forward to me.

Can you re-state your point without ignoring the difference between the role of judges and legislators?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/250 "2003-02-14T16:36:38Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \*  
> If you’re saying that they have in fact recieved X quantity of data, but are falsely claiming \< X, fine. That’s a factual question in issue that can be raised in good faith. On the other hand…[the analogy is valid]…is not, because it isn’t. The argument “we have been slipshod in examining past nominees, and thus are going to require more disclosure from here on” is very different from the argument “we should require different quantities of disclosure from different candidates on the basis of skin color (or whatever).”

No, what I am saying is that the idea that the Democrats are establishing some sort of new standard that they intend to apply evenhandedly to all candidates, unrelated to their presumed ideology, is bogus. What they did is establish a standard for the purpose of opposing this particular nomination.

I’ve said this before. The Democrats are NOT opposing the nomination because they don’t have enough evidence about what his views are. Anyone who thinks so is extraordinarily naive. They are opposing it because they do have enough evidence to sense what his views are **but that evidence is telling them that he is a conservative**. If the same amount of evidence that they currently have would be indicating that he is a liberal or moderate they would confirm him.

It is not a great crime to oppose a judicial nominee based on ideology, and the Democrats have certainly done it before and will do it again. The reason they aren’t being forthright about their reasons for opposing Estrada is because they don’t have enough hard evidence to wave about and rouse the rabble with. If you want to make speeches about Miguel Estrada’s America, where women lie dying in the streets from back-alley abortions, you need to point to something specific to back it up. So the gambit has been to either lure Estrada into making some “incriminating” statements during questioning, or to find some “smoking gun” in the form of the memos. Having failed at these, they are falling back on the notion that they don’t know enough etc. This is nonsense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/251 "2003-02-14T16:57:17Z")

</div>

Some clarification about this nomination from [Michael Kinsley](http://slate.msn.com/id/2078513/):

> [@](#):
>
> When Bill Clinton was appointing judges, the senior Judiciary Committee Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch, called for “more diligent and extensive … questioning of nominees’ jurisprudential views.” Now Hatch says Democrats have no right to demand any such thing. President Bush fired the American Bar Association as official auditor of judicial nominations because the ABA gave some Republican nominees a lousy grade. Now Hatch cites the ABA’s judgment as “the gold standard” because it unofficially gave Estrada a high grade.
> 
> The seat Republicans want to give Estrada is only open because Republicans successfully blocked a Clinton nominee. Two Clinton nominations to the D.C. Circuit were blocked because Republicans said the circuit had too many judges already. Now Bush has sent nominations for both those seats. Hatch and others accuse Democrats of being anti-Hispanic for opposing Estrada. With 42 circuit court vacancies to fill, Estrada is the only Hispanic Bush has nominated. Clinton nominated 11, three of whom the Republicans blocked.

The crocodile tears from those of you complaining about not getting everything you want rubber-stamped are convincing no one.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/252 "2003-02-14T17:31:44Z")

</div>

Democrats’ motivation, according to [the Volokh Conspiracy.](http://volokh.blogspot.com/)

> [@](#):
>
> If the Democrats knew Estrada would stay on the DC Circuit forever they wouldn’t mind so much. It’s about the Supreme Court. Everyone knows Bush wants to appoint a Hispanic. Everyone knows Estrada would be on his short list for any opening that arises this year or later in his presidency. The Democrats understandably have no interest in seeing Estrada on the Court; he’s too conservative, too smart, and too young. Of course they could wait and filibuster if and when he gets the nomination, but then it would be more costly. Today most people in the country have no idea who Miguel Estrada is or that a filibuster is occurring, but the attention and pressure focused on it would be immense if it occurred in the context of a Supreme Court nomination. Filibustering today makes it less likely that a more high-profile filibuster will be needed this summer or next year. In addition to probably taking Estrada out of the running for the Court anytime soon (and this even if the current filibuster fails), it also serves as a show of strength warning Bush not to try to put anyone comparable on the Court. How Bush (or Rove) will respond remains to be seen, but a certain point has been made. The Democrats have the will to make a filibuster work. Bush can decide to try to outlast them, but he may have better things to do this summer than start a cage match over a Supreme Court nomination. We shall see.
> 
> ```
> Incidentally, of course, don’t be distracted by the Democrats’ ruse of asking for Estrada’s memoranda from the Solicitor General’s office. It’s a frivolous request that has no chance of being granted, and both sides know it. If it were granted, it would give the lawyers in that office a bad incentive to write their recommendations and analyses with an eye toward how it might play in front of the judiciary committee. For some, of course, this would make no difference; for others it might cause some edginess at the margin. The SG’s office has produced some first-rate judicial talent over the years, and we shouldn’t want its lawyers who hope to follow that path to be looking over their shoulders when they should be giving disinterested advice. But the ruse has served its purpose. The Democrats wanted something legitimate-sounding to use as a basis for the filibuster – something better than complaining about things Estrada said when he was interviewing clerkship candidates for Justice Kennedy (which was the best the Democrats could do against him last fall). Complaining about the need to see Estrada’s memos works better, especially now that it’s clear that the Republicans rightly will refuse to comply.
> 
> ```

If it makes **Pencil Pusher** feel any better, [s/he’s not the only lawyer who may be deprived of a job because he’s too smart](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=162788).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/253 "2003-02-14T17:48:23Z")

</div>

Well, as a Democrat, I’m sure as Hell glad to know exactly how I think, as promulgated by one of the pundits on whom **december** seems to depend for his view of the world.

If I wanted this crap, I could sign off SDMB and subscribe to WorldNetDaily. It is quite possible that some Democrats have political motivations that transcend the good of the country, just as some Republicans IMHO clearly do – at least one of present company emphatically included.

I want a judge whom I know to be competent to do the job of a Circuit Court Judge and whose judicial philosophy I know and can accept as one acceptable to most Americans, even if it’s not necessarily one I agree with myself. I don’t care if the candidate is male, female, Hispanic, white, black, young, old, or covered with green polka dots. I want somebody I can trust to do the job.

If the Senate has lain down on the job and rubber-stamped nominees in the past, pre-Bork, that is no justification for them continuing to do so today.

**December** , the North Carolina Supreme Court, as of the 2002 elections, has a judge who believes that the law should be interpreted in “the light of the Biblical guidelines on which this country was founded.” If GWB nominated him for a Federal District Judgeship, would you favor or oppose that nomination? Why?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/254 "2003-02-14T18:00:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Polycarp \*  
> Well, as a Democrat, I’m sure as Hell glad to know exactly how I think, as promulgated by one of the pundits on whom **december** seems to depend for his view of the world.

What would make you think it’s about you? Unless you are a member of the US Senate or an influential Democratic strategist, it is not.

> [@](#):
>
> It is quite possible that some Democrats have political motivations that transcend the good of the country, just as some Republicans IMHO clearly do – at least one of present company emphatically included.

There is no defining line between “politics” from “the good of the country”. The attempts by various posters to separate the two and claim “the good of the country” as their own position is not credible, IMHO.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/255 "2003-02-14T18:25:59Z")

</div>

**December** ’s long quote from the Volokh Conspiracy says what “the Democrats” think – not specifically Democratic senators or influential strategists. I’m a registered member of the Franklin County, NC, Democratic Party – ergo, it’s talking about me. And it’s typical of right-wing broad-brush slander – if one person has said or done anything at all offensive, obviously everybody on the left side of the political fence must agree with it.

I oppose **December** ’s agenda of supporting the Republican Party in all respects and tarring everything left of William F. Buckley, but I’m not convinced that he is planning to replace the Constitution with a fundamentalist declaration of God’s authority over us, as some extreme rightists are. Nor do I believe that he wants every Democrat locked up as a traitor, as at least one right-wing nut on another board thinks ought to be done.

I resent his quoting with apparent approval someone who refuses to take the same grasp of differing stances on the other side of the fence, that’s all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/256 "2003-02-14T18:33:32Z")

</div>

I’m sorry, the quote is clearly about the motivations of those who are conducting the fillibuster, not about the rank and file Democrats out there. The guy himself notes that “most people in the country have no idea who Miguel Estrada is or that a filibuster is occurring”, and it is otherwise clear from the context.

If you have a habit of assuming every time someone says “the Democrats” he means every single guy registered in Franklin County, NC and elsewhere, it is no wonder you believe in the “typical…right-wing broad-brush slander”.

You are reading too much into these words and getting worked up over nothing, IMHO.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/257 "2003-02-14T18:40:31Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Polycarp \*  
> If I wanted this crap, I could sign off SDMB and subscribe to WorldNetDaily.

The editor of that web site is Professor Eugene Volokh.

> [@](#):
>
> Volokh teaches free speech law, copyright law, the law of government and religion, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy at UCLA Law School. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
> 
> Volokh also worked for 12 years as a computer programmer, and is still partner in a small software company which sells HP 3000 software that he wrote. He graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age 15, and has written many articles on computer software. He is a member of the The American Law Institute.

The point is, Volokh is someone worth listening to, even though he disagrees with you.

> [@](#):
>
> **December** , the North Carolina Supreme Court, as of the 2002 elections, has a judge who believes that the law should be interpreted in “the light of the Biblical guidelines on which this country was founded.” If GWB nominated him for a Federal District Judgeship, would you favor or oppose that nomination? Why?

Who is this person? I just spent 5 minutes on google and was unclear who you are referring to.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/258 "2003-02-14T20:08:22Z")

</div>

I believe the logical fallacy largely at work here is called “Appeal to Authority”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/259 "2003-02-14T20:22:09Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by litost \*  
> \*\*I believe the logical fallacy largely at work here is called “Appeal to Authority” \*\*

[“Appeal to Authority”](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

> [@](#):
>
> This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
> 
> This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
> 
> When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

A UCLA Professor of Law who clerked for a Supreme Court Justice is a legitimate authority on judicial confirmations IMHO, so my cite is not a fallacy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/260 "2003-02-14T20:34:12Z")

</div>

**december** , Volokh is not the editor of WND. And the article you are quoting seems to be written by Philippe de Croy, “a man or woman of mystery…[who] is not an alter ego of yours truly [Volokh].”

It is against the rules of the SDMB to falsely attribute a quote.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084.md?page=12)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084.md?page=14)