# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/41 "2003-02-07T02:20:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*Oh, wait, or is the OP claiming that IF the Democrats go ahead with their plan to filibuster, the Republicans can milk (malicious) political mileage out of it? \*\* Yes. IMHO the Dems will pay dearly if they use something as drastic as a filibuster with no clear justification; if they attack a Hispanic immigrant who overcame both the need to learn a new language and a speech disability; if they tie up the Senate during war time; if they go out of their way to be obstreperous and non-cooperative during war time. My mouth waters at the political attacks that the Democrats would be inviting. Yum. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/42 "2003-02-07T02:35:47Z")
> [@](#): > > IMHO the Dems will pay dearly if they use something as drastic as a filibuster with no clear justification; if they attack a Hispanic immigrant who overcame both the need to learn a new language and a speech disability; if they tie up the Senate during war time; if they go out of their way to be obstreperous and non-cooperative during war time. My mouth waters at the political attacks that the Democrats would be inviting. Yum. Huh. **if they use something as drastic as a filibuster with no clear justification…** As opposed to an impeachment for political purposes? **…if they attack a Hispanic immigrant who overcame both the need to learn a new language and a speech disability…** My, I hadn’t realized that your competence in your own native language was so poor that you could not distinguish between the questioning of competence and personal attack. By this standard, anyone who felt that denying, say, Stevie Wonder a license to pilot a commercial jet would be acting out of prejudice towards blacks and the handicapped? **…if they tie up the Senate during war time…** First off, unless you ignore the fact that there were no true peace treaties ending WWII, **we are not at war**. Congress has not declared war on anyone since 12/8/1941 (with the possible exception of declarations against a couple of Hitler’s puppet governments in places like Croatia and Romania, the existence and dates of which I am unsure), and I assume you recognize that it has the Constitutional prerogative to declare war. That GWB and his advisors are avid for an invasion of Iraq and have some Congressional support is by the side – in making claims like this, you make GWB sound like the man who killed both his parents and then threw himself on the court’s mercy because he was an orphan! **…if they go out of their way to be obstreperous and non-cooperative during war time** As opposed to the total cooperation that Gingrich, Lott, DeLay, et al. gave to the Clinton Administration in the 1994-2000 period? All I can say is to paraphrase what Tory Leo Amery shouted out to Labourite Arthur Greenwood when Amery feared that Greenwood would reduce an issue to partisan levels: “Speak for America, **december**!” If you are so petty as to believe that damage to the Democratic party through sincere opposition to a Republican president’s questionable nominee is a good thing for this country, then there is no hope for you. I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong on this. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/43 "2003-02-07T03:09:53Z")
**mtgman** , I’m not sure what your quote shows - I previously observed that Bush’s people were probably more familiar with Estrada. I just said that - for this very reason - they probably did not have to formally ask him the sort of questions that the Senate is asking. I’m not saying that the Senate does not have the prerogative to block the nomination. Only that it does not follow from the fact that they don’t have as much info as he prez that they must do so. And you surely must agree that there is a significant difference between merely opposing a nomination and fillibustering it. Were this not the case, the entire concept of majority vote in the Senate would disappear - anyone who opposed anything would feel - for the same reason - that they had to block it by fillibuster, and you would need a 60% majority to pass anything. I think you have to accept that you can oppose something without feeling compelled to fillibuster it. Again, a fillibuster is an extreme measure. But, as mentioned before, it’s all politics. The Democrats are not opposing it because they “don’t know” what his judicial philosophy is - they are opposing it because they think they have a pretty good idea of what it is. (Similarly, the Republicans are supporting it for the same reason). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > If you are so petty as to believe that damage to the Democratic party through sincere opposition to a Republican president’s questionable nominee is a good thing for this country, then there is no hope for you. I sincerely hope you will prove me wrong on this. I can’t speak for **december** , but I am fully as petty as that. Personally, I don’t think the democrats will suffer politically from opposing the nomination, but if they do that’s fine by me. ---
**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 7, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/44 "2003-02-07T03:10:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > IMHO the Dems will pay dearly if they use something as drastic as a filibuster with no clear justification; if they attack a Hispanic immigrant who overcame both the need to learn a new language and a speech disability; if they tie up the Senate during war time; if they go out of their way to be obstreperous and non-cooperative during war time. I’m willing to take that chance. Bust away, Dems. Do us proud. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/45 "2003-02-07T04:30:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **jshore** , who is FAIR? What credibility do they have? From what POV do they see the world? Well, I told you when I posted the link that it provides “a true liberal perspective on the Washington Post”. I really don’t know how I could be any clearer than that. FAIR is the left’s version of the right’s AIM (Acuracy in Media). And, unlike people like Goldberg who seem to think it is enough just to make vague claims of “liberal” media bias, FAIR tends to back up its claim with quite specific documentary evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/46 "2003-02-07T04:53:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Yes. > > IMHO the Dems will pay dearly if they use something as drastic as a filibuster with no clear justification; if they attack a Hispanic immigrant who overcame both the need to learn a new language and a speech disability; if they tie up the Senate during war time; if they go out of their way to be obstreperous and non-cooperative during wartime.\*\* Given that I don’t know just how “drastic” the tactic really is, I have a question or two… 1. Are you actually arguing that the Democrats cannot possibly have a legitimate objection to the candidate (since they’re going “out of their way”)? Or that they should pass the candidate on pity (your mention of all the hurdles he had to overcome) and racial/immigrant status alone? Isn’t that kinda… PC? Why else bring it up? Or are you saying that personal hardship necessarily builds character and fitness for this job? 2. What on Earth does this appointment have with the war effort? What relevance does war, which we’re not in yet, have to this issue in any way whatsoever? You’re saying that opposing Bush during this period increases how bad this act would be compared to the same act in a total world peace period? How? 3. I had no idea that a filibuster would “tie up” the Senate to a point that it would make a significant impact on any war effort. Could you explain how? Hmm. Thought I had more. Oh, well, a good start… ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/47 "2003-02-07T05:03:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Yes. > > IMHO the Dems will pay dearly if they use something as drastic as a filibuster with no clear justification; if they attack a Hispanic immigrant who overcame both the need to learn a new language and a speech disability; if they tie up the Senate during war time; if they go out of their way to be obstreperous and non-cooperative during war time. My mouth waters at the political attacks that the Democrats would be inviting. Yum. 🙂 \*\* Sadly, **december** , you are inadvertently making a very strong case that Republicans are an ill-spirited, nasty bunch more intent on bringing down others than helping this country. I don’t believe this to be the case, but when there are so many ridiculous attacks on the Dems it becomes difficult not to generalize. And seriously, do you not remember what happened to Richard Paez? Could you kindly address the apparent hypocrisy in all this? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/48 "2003-02-07T05:05:30Z")
I think what you’re asking is, “Should this bill not be passed?” Am I right? -LA ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/49 "2003-02-07T13:17:17Z")
From [the Senate](http://www.senate.gov): > [@](#): > > The Senate will convene at 11:00 am Monday. > > At 11:00 am on Monday, the Senate will consider the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit. > > The Majority Leader has announced that the next vote will not occur before 5:15 pm on Monday. Just to keep our discussion on track with the Senate floor. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/50 "2003-02-07T13:49:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Leaper \* > Given that I don’t know just how “drastic” the tactic really is Filibusters are rare. Filibusters of judicial appointments are very rare. Filibusters of judicial appointments below the Supreme Court have never been done AFAIK. > [@](#): > > 1. Are you actually arguing that the Democrats cannot possibly have a legitimate objection to the candidate The Democrats have not been able to find a legitimate objection to Estrada. Even the normally-Democratic Washington Post agrees. The only objection is that they don’t know his legal position, but his legal position is no less clear than many other candidates. > [@](#): > > Or that they should pass the candidate on pity (your mention of all the hurdles he had to overcome) and racial/immigrant status alone? That comment wasn’t about _should_; it was about political fallout. My point was that a filibuster of a disabled, Hispanic immigrant could make the Dems look bad. > [@](#): > > 1. What on Earth does this appointment have with the war effort? How long will the filibuster last? In recent years, filibusters have been merely symbolic; they ended quickly. In this case, conservative pundits are encouraging the Republicans to make a stand, and not just capitulate. The filibuster could go on and on, preventing other Senate business from being conducted. During war time, the public expects politicians to reduce partisanship. Of course, they might blame the Republicans for not just giving in. We’ll see. > [@](#): > > You’re saying that opposing Bush during this period increases how bad this act would be compared to the same act in a total world peace period? How? That’s a great point. The Democrats have been attacking Bush on issue after issue. Not just Estrada, but the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and al Qaeda come to mind. In the past, there was an adage that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” In times of emergency, the public has traditionally expected to see less partisanship. At some point in time, the voters may come to believe that _Bush is working for the good of the country, while Democrats are working for the good of their own party_. That point in time is likely to be November, 2004. > [@](#): > > **leander** And seriously, do you not remember what happened to Richard Paez? Could you kindly address the apparent hypocrisy in all this? I don’t remember Richard Paez. From google, I see he’s an appellate court judge appointed by Clinton, whose confirmation was delayed by Republicans, but who was eventually given a hearing and confirmed. As far as the hyupocrisy – yes there could be some. The Republicans deserve criticism for holding up Clinton appointments. However, Paez was merely held up; Estrada’s would be finished by a filibuster. More impoortant, a defense of _they did it too_ is childish and unattractive. The obvious response is _two wrongs don’t make a right._ That’s a theme that all voters can understand, especially since Bush has made a big deal of seeking accord with Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/51 "2003-02-07T13:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > First off, unless you ignore the fact that there were no true peace treaties ending WWII, we are not at war. Congress has not declared war on anyone since 12/8/1941 (with the possible exception of declarations against a couple of Hitler’s puppet governments in places like Croatia and Romania, the existence and dates of which I am unsure), This is arguably not true. The Constitution does not say how Congress shall declare war. It just gives the power to the Congress. [http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000453.htm](http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00000453.htm) After the attacks on NYC and Washington DC Congress passed the resolution: > [@](#): > > to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, organized, or committed terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11 or harbor such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” It could be argued that this is a declaration of war, basically saying after being attacked, you go Pres, you are authorized to find out who did this and wage war on them. (power to wage war in the Pres’s) > [@](#): > > On January 12, 1991, three days before the U.N. deadline, Congress granted President Bush the authority he sought in the most explicit and sweeping war-making power given a president in nearly half a century. from [http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch13\_p11.htm](http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch13_p11.htm) Again it could be argued that congress declared war and threw it to Pres Bush Sr. I’m not saying this is iron clad but any stretch, just that your statement isn’t without it’s own holes. Further I would say if we are attacked, we are at war, regardless as to if Congress declares it or not. This last date you cite 12/8/1941 was war by being attacked, not by the vote of Congress. The vote to go to war was more political then anything else. If someone declares war on you and actively and effectively peruses it you are at war. 9/11 is simular to the war that happened the instant the Japinese attacked Pearl Harbor (or violated the airspace). Even if the link is not strong enough to implicate Iraq, it was to implicate and go to war against the Talaban. ---
**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 7, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/52 "2003-02-07T16:15:48Z")
**december:** > [@](#): > > The Democrats have not been able to find a legitimate objection to Estrada. Hmm, so a nominee’s judicial and political philosophies are not “legitimate objections”? Guess that means you will never again use the phrase “judicial activist.” Go forth and sin no more. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/53 "2003-02-07T16:27:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*december: > \*\*Hmm, so a nominee’s judicial and political philosophies are not “legitimate objections”? Not without evidence. I’m using the word “legitimate” in the sense of what will appear proper in the public arena. When a Democratic spokesperson on TV says the reason for the filibuster is that Estrada is a right-wing, anti-abortion, out-of-the-main-stream ideologue, s/he won’t be able to back up that claim. That won’t look good to the public. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/54 "2003-02-07T16:55:05Z")
And how are they supposed to get the evidence if documents he’s written which would demonstrate these philosophies are denied to them? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/55 "2003-02-07T16:55:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Sen. Ben Nelson, D, Nebraska, will…support the nomination of lawyer Miguel Estrada as an appellate court judge. > > After a 45-minute conversation with Estrada, Nelson said Thursday he’s convinced the Washington attorney is “not planning to bring (his own personal) agenda to the bench.” > > Estrada “won’t go there with the purpose of trying to change settled law or overturn precedent,” Nelson said in a telephone interview. > > Nelson is only the second Democrat to voice approval for Estrada’s nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana announced his support Wednesday. [http://www.journalstar.com/nebraska.php?story\_id=21354](http://www.journalstar.com/nebraska.php?story_id=21354) Incidentally, this article provides another answer to **Polycarp’s** question of how Senators can evaluate a nominee’s judicial philosophy. They can talk to him privately and discuss it with him. In effect, they can interview him for the job. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/56 "2003-02-07T16:57:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Not without evidence. > > I’m using the word “legitimate” in the sense of what will appear proper in the public arena. When a Democratic spokesperson on TV says the reason for the filibuster is that Estrada is a right-wing, anti-abortion, out-of-the-main-stream ideologue, s/he won’t be able to back up that claim. That won’t look good to the public. In case you had not gotten the message, that is precisely our point. Any person can be suggested as a candidate for an office, e.g., “What would be wrong with **Ryan\_Liam** as Secretary of the Interior?” The job of the Senate is to review and confirm candidates nominated by the President that appear to be well qualified to do the job for which they were nominated, and to reject them if they do not so appear. Without bringing into the picture who is taking what partisan or ideological stance, I challenge you to find evidence in the public media that would demonstrate that Estrada is indeed well qualified to serve as an appellate court judge. Not whether somebody else had judicial experience, not whether he graduated from college, not whether he overcame handicaps… what would make him a good Circuit Court Judge? Why should I as a Senator vote for his confirmation? I trust that I’ve made the point that I, for one, would not reject a well-qualified person whose political views didn’t precisely jibe with mine – but what makes him such a person? The more you obfuscate with political stances, the weaker your argument becomes. Show me the proof that this man has what it takes to be a good judge in a Federal appellate court, and I publicly state here that I will apologize to you for having questioned his competence. Until then, you’re faced with saying that we ought to support him out of charity and out of support for GWB – and neither of them are good reasons to name a judge. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/57 "2003-02-07T18:04:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > Without bringing into the picture who is taking what partisan or ideological stance, I challenge you to find evidence in the public media that would demonstrate that Estrada is indeed well qualified to serve as an appellate court judge. I thought I had already explained why Estada had unusually outstanding qualifications. [Please read the full discussion in the Seate Judiciary Committee starting on page 2026](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/estrada2.htm) You will see that he has [ul][li]incredible academic achievements, to be _editor of Harvard Law Review_, despite working in a second language. **(BTW does some lawyer here knows how the editor of the Law Review is selected? Is the the top student in the class?)**[_] outstanding service to local and federal govenment,[_] outstanding success at a top law firm, [_]he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court (“You could count on both hands probably the number of practicing lawyers today who have ever argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court.”), [_]clerked for a SC justice and for an outstanding apellate justice, has top recommendations from individuals and organizations.[/ul]Read the entire minutes for a more complete answer. Compare Estrada to ordinary Appellate Court nominees, and Estrada comes out as far superior. That’s why he’s seen a potential Supreme Court nominee.[/li] However, I have not quite fulfilled your request, **Polycarp** , since my source was the Committee minutes. You requested using the public media. I think most of these points have been in some media, particularly on the right. Maybe the main stream media haven’t given sufficient attention to Estrada’s high qualifications. This could be due to lazyness or bias on their part. However, if a filibuster begins, Estrada’s remarkable excellence _will_ hit the main stream media. Republcians will see to that. Then Democrats will be seen as petty and partisan. That’s why I hope they try a filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/58 "2003-02-07T18:09:20Z")
Can I ask you why anyone should be happy with a situation where a nominee for a powerful public position would describe their views in private and not in public? Right to privacy is all well and good but you’re talking about a man who will wield power over others in his official capacity and the representatives of the people(remember the whole “We the people” thing?) are not getting open and public answers to their questions. I am a citizen and these people represent me. I trust them to exercise due dilligence in their duties. If those duties are being forestalled then the system grinds to a halt and we find the roadblock, eliminate it and go forward. The senate committee TRIED to “interveiw him for the job”. He dodged their questions and the administration refused to allow access to other information. There’s an old saying “Beware he who would deny you access to information for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.” Remember, dodging ANY question is enough to throw a flag. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/59 "2003-02-07T18:39:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > Can I ask you why anyone should be happy with a situation where a nominee for a powerful public position would describe their views in private and not in public? This point was answered by Sen. Hatch in my cite. > [@](#): > > One of the more ridiculous assertions that I have heard about Miguel is that he was not especially or sufficiently responsive at his hearing and therefore we need to have a second hearing to evaluate him. Keep in mind, the Democrats were in control of the Judiciary Committee. They called the hearing, they controlled the hearing, they controlled the timing of the hearing, they controlled the time for questions by Senators. And at least one Democrat said the hearing was conducted in a fair and responsible manner, and I personally agree with that. Senator Schumer was the person who chaired that particular hearing. I give him a lot of credit because it was a fair hearing and they asked every question they wanted to ask. > > Secondly, after the hearing, on the Judiciary Committee we have a right to ask questions in writing. Only two Democrats asked questions in writing. Miguel Estrada had waited 631 days before he was given the privilege of having a hearing. Then the hearing was held. > > Now we are hearing the same old wornout complaints that he wasn’t sufficiently responsive and that, therefore, we need a second hearing to evaluate him. > > Since Mr. Estrada didn’t say anything at the hearing that could be used to besmirch him–that is the real problem; they could not find anything wrong with him; there is not one thing that anybody has said, other than generalizations, that has any merit at all–since they could not find anything at his hearing that could be used to criticize him, his opponents resorted to the tactic of alleging that he did not say enough. That is ridiculous. They controlled everything. They could have asked him anything, and I think they did. Now, he didn’t say enough. > > The fact is that Mr. Estrada correctly refused to answer questions that called upon him to prejudge issues that may very well come before him as a judge. That is what every nominee with any brains has done from time immemorial. No nominee wants to have to recuse himself in a serious case later because of something he said before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Well, let me repeat that. The fact is that Mr. Estrada correctly refused to answer questions that called upon him to prejudge issues that may very well come before him as a judge. This includes his opinion on whether established precedent was correctly decided and how he would decide these cases if he were working from a clean slate. > > Lloyd Cutler, who was the White House chief counsel in both the Carter and Clinton administrations, and one of the premier lawyers in the country–certainly in this town–and one of the great public servants of all time, in my opinion, put it best when he said: > > \*_t would be a tragic development if ideology became an increasingly important consideration in the future. To make ideology an issue in the confirmation process is to suggest that the legal process is and should be a political one. This is not only wrong as a matter of political science; it also serves to weaken public confidence in the courts. Just as candidates should put aside their partisan political views when appointed to the bench, so too should they put aside ideology._ > > This is Lloyd Cutler, who was chief White House counsel for Presidents Carter and Clinton. He goes on to say: > > - To retain either is to betray dedication to the process of impartial judging. Men and women qualified by training to be judges generally do not wish to and do not indulge in partisan or ideological approaches to their work. \* > > Mr. Cutler concluded: > > _Candidates should decline to reply when efforts are made to find out how they would decide a particular case._ > > I agree with him, and so did all the Democrats on the committee when President Clinton’s nominees came before the committee. Now all of a sudden, they are applying a double standard or a different standard to Miguel Estrada and, I might add, other Republican nominees who are coming before the committee. > [@](#): > > **Mtgman** …and the administration refused to allow access to other information. This canard has long been discredited. The Dems asked for confidential Justice Dept work papers, which should never be made public. From the same cite, testimony of Sen. Hatch, > [@](#): > > …[New York Times wrote] "Mr. Estrada, a conservative lawyer with almost no paper trail,’’–I just made the case there is a paper trail on him–"refused to answer senators’ questions on crucial issues like abortion.’’ Give me a break. He did answer. He said that he would apply the law regardless of his personal viewpoints. > > This is a man who argued the case for NOW. Who knows where he stands–I don’t know. All I can say is that is a ridiculous statement. I guess editorials can be ridiculous, but this one is particularly. > > Meanwhile, the White House refused to hand over memos Mr. Estrada wrote as a government lawyer that could have shed light on his beliefs. > > They wanted memos on that side because they could not find anything else to give him a rough time about. They wanted memos on that side from the Solicitor General’s office and seven former Solicitors General, four of whom are Democrats, came in and said that would be a very inadvisable thing to do because it would chill the work of the Solicitor General’s office. People would not give their honest opinions if they knew that later they would be pilloried with those in the Senate of the United States. > > Meanwhile, the White House refused to hand over memos Mr. Estrada wrote as a government lawyer that could shed light on his beliefs. > > Mr. Estrada said it would have been all right with him. He is proud of his work. > > I have to say that the greater approach would be to recognize that there are some things that have to be privileged. As I say, all seven living former Solicitors General have said that. BTW the Washington Post editorial backed up this POV. > [@](#): > > He was not forthcoming with the committee in its efforts to discern his personal views on controversial issues – as many nominees are not – and the administration has (rightly) declined to provide copies of his confidential memos from his service in government. Having failed to assemble a plausible case against him, Democrats are now arguing that this failure is itself grounds for his rejection – because it stems from his own and the administration’s discourteous refusal to arm Democrats with examples of the extremism that would justify their opposition. Such circular logic should not stall Mr. Estrada’s nomination any longer. My underlines. Estrada’s lack of forthcomingness was normal. The confidential memos were rightly kept confidential. As I said above, an interesting point is that the facts favorable to Estrada are not well-known. If there is a filibuster, the public won’t like it when they learn that Estrada’s opponents had been misleading them. Attacking is good fun, but the attacker can become the prey. Then unjustified attacks can work against him. One can make a good case that the Democrats were seeking more information about Estrada merely to find a way to smear him. If that POV becomes widely believed, it will hurt the Democrats. ---
**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 7, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084/60 "2003-02-07T18:56:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*(BTW does some lawyer here knows how the editor of the Law Review is selected? Is the the top student in the class?) \*\* Becoming a staff member on law review at most law schools requires being in the top X% of the class (with X varying on the school) at the end of your first year of study. You spend your second year as a staffer. Editorial board positions are held by students in their third (and final) year. The outgoing editorial board selects the editorial board for next year from the pool of second-year staffers, usually based on the quality of their work as a staffer plus the usual political mumbo-jumbo. At least, that’s how it worked on my journal (which was sort of the “second-string law review” at my alma mater, and on which I held an editorial board position), and that’s how it worked according to my friends on law review. YMMV depending on what school you’re at. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-democratic-senators-filibuster-the-estrada-nomination/153084.md?page=4)