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. 
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.
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).
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.
I’m willing to take that chance. Bust away, Dems. Do us proud.
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.
Given that I don’t know just how “drastic” the tactic really is, I have a question or two…
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?
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?
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…
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?
I think what you’re asking is, “Should this bill not be passed?”
Am I right?
-LA
From the Senate:
Just to keep our discussion on track with the Senate floor.
Filibusters are rare. Filibusters of judicial appointments are very rare. Filibusters of judicial appointments below the Supreme Court have never been done AFAIK.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
After the attacks on NYC and Washington DC Congress passed the resolution:
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)
from 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.
december:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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
This point was answered by Sen. Hatch in my cite.
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,
BTW the Washington Post editorial backed up this POV.
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.
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.