512 days after President Bush nominated him for a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Miguel Estrada will finally get a hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Discussion of the background (from a conservative POV) can be found here, here, and here. Here are four topics for discussion:[ol][li]Will Estrada be confirmed?[]Will the hearings be nasty?[]Have the Democrats practiced bigotry?[]What’s the reaction among Hispanic voters?[/ol]I think he will be confirmed because [ol][]He’s well qualified, with a unanimous top rating from the ABA.[]There’s no proof that he’s some sort of extremist.[]It’s bad politics to dis a leading Hispanic right before an election.[/ol]Regarding that third point, I would think the Democrats must have already taken some heat in the Hispanic community on account of the delay. Not confirming him would be really asking for trouble.[/li]
Regarding the nature of the hearings, I don’t see how the Democrats can afford their usual arrogance. Film clips could be powerful campaign weapons. Still, I’m not sure they know any other way to behave. We shall see.
Have the Democrats practiced bigotry by holding up this nomination and by generally giving Estrada a hard time? I suppose it depends on motivation. The links suggest that the Democrats’ goal was to keep Estrada from being confirmed because he is so outstanding. They don’t want a Republican to be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. If that’s true, I’d call it bigotry.
Even if the Judiciary Committee confirms Estrada now, their year-and-a-half delay has already harmed his chance of going to the Supreme Court by reducing his appellate court experince. E.g., if an opening came up in early 2004, Estrada would have only 1 year of experience rather than nearly 3 years.
Finally, how does the Hispanic community actually feel about this business? I can assure you that if a Jewish nominee were held up for over 500 days because he was too qualified, I’d be steaming, no matter which party did it. OTOH I don’t see where the Democrats got in trouble for their treatment of Clarence Thomas. So, perhaps their conduct in this nomination may not hurt them politically.
I think the Democrats whoh have opposed him have done so not because they believe he’s too good a jurist, but instead because they believe he’s too conservative a jurist. They disagree with his understanding of constitutional interpretation. A number of Republicans, however, have framed the opposition to Estrada’s nomination in racial/ethnic terms. If they can portray Democrats as anti-Hispanic, they believe it will help them weaken the traditional voting loyalty of many Hispanic populations in the US to the Democratic party.
1.) I think so. I certainly hope so.
2.) Certainly.
3.) Yes and no. More on that in a bit.
4.) I would guess they will be divided. Some will be thrilled to have “one of their own” on the bench. Others will call him a sell-out. I would say Clarence Thomas is a good model. Some loved getting CT in the SCOTUS. Others called him an Uncle Tom, saying he wasn’t black enough, and was destroying everything blacks had worked for decades to secure. I think the response will be similar, though probably not as extreme (or as polarized) as the CT case.
Back to the bigotry:
To me, calling them bigots would assume that they were holding back his confirmation because they felt that, as a Hispanic, he is less qualified than a non-Hispanic. I don’t think this is the case. I think they’re holding him back because parading a successful conservative candidate about, in there eyes, damages their case that the Democrats are the party of the minorities. The fear they’ll lose a segment of the Hispanic vote to the Republicans, and to some extent, they’re probably right. Every minority that achieves wealth and success undermines the case that without government assistance and the benevolence of the Democratic party, minorities will be condemned to poverty and powerlessness. And having a Republican minority, who actively fights against Democratic ideals, and tells the minorities that, in no uncertain terms, they don’t need handouts, they can succeed on their own merits… Well, the implications are terrible. If you’re a democratic politician, that is.
According to the Fox TV Special Report the hearing today went badly for Estrada, and he seems to be a goner. If so, I was wrong on #1.
The sound bite showed Schumer attacking Estrada on a statement he might or might not have ever made about not recommending a liberal as a clerk. This led to some bickering among Senators. However, the attack on Estrada was over his alleged ultra-conservatism. No proof was offered in the sound bites, but it wasn’t refuted either. So, I give points to Schumer for clothing his unfair attack in an effective and acceptible way.
There was nothing in the report to indicate that Estrada’s ethnic heritage played a role in the decision. Of course, it ought to have given him a leg up, if the Democrats actually practiced what they preach.
The news report provided no information as to how Hispanic people reacted to this.
As long as the democrats have control of the senate there will be no Bush apointments confirmed. Qualified or no this is about spite and not government.
No
I’ve already seen the same tired rhetoric of “we don’t know how conservative he really is.” He’s doomed.
Yes
Now that the dems have openly stated that ideology is part of the confirmation process, all confirmations will be nasty. The only ones that will be focused on will be those candidates which seem to fit a Democrat demographic yet are nominated by a Republican (and likely vice versa).
It all depends on how truly offended the Senate Demos are about the President’s gaff about the Senate being more concerned about special interests than the nation’s security. If it was just an act then he probably will be confirmed, if just round one to every body climbing up on their high horse and galloping off in four directions at once, don’t count on it. If this is the beginning of a real factional fight then I am afraid that Mr. Estrada is just another corpse in the wake of the battle line.
I have no idea about whether or not Estrada will be confirmed.
Butt …
It seems to me that the whole process would go smoother if the “original intent” of the founders hadn’t disappeared from these proceedings somewhere between 1789 and now.
The appointement of a federal judge is not the same as an appointment to the president’s staff or the cabinet. Judges are members of a co-equal branch and it would appear that the framers wanted both the other two branches to be intimately involved in their selection and approval.
The prescription is that the president may, “… nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate appoint …” judges. The “advice” part of that mandate seems to be given short shrift by all presidents for quite a while now. I don’t know when this started, maybe some of our historians can answer.
Politics has been called the art of the possible, so it is the president’s job to nominate as judges those whose nomination can be successfuly confirmed. It seems to me that some work on the “advice” thing by getting together with the judiciary committee in advance with a prospective list of candidates proposed as judges of all the people, not just those who reflect a certain political philosophy. Maybe even have senators propose nominees, I’ll bet that happens now with senators from the president’s party. I can’t believe that this advance probing isn’t done to some extent now, but it looks like more “advice” might be valuable by extending it to opposing party senators before “consent” is required.
It probably did give him a leg up, just not enough to get past his idiological approach to the law. Y’all like accusing the democrats of playing racial politics but you republicans seem to have taken a real shine to them when you think they can help your cause.
By the way december, did you concern yourself with possible bigotry in 1996 when the republican senate refused to grant Richard Perez a hearing on his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals?
Yes indeed they have, as shown by this cite on the confirmation of Louis Brandeis. And I remember that during confirmation for Felix Frankfurter the same sorts of objections were raised.
According to the N Y Times, the Senate Democrats will not confirm Estrada unless the goverment releases his internal memos.
In a way, the Democrats have a point. He has no record on which they can judge his philosophy. (Of course, the record does support his outstanding competence.) These memos could provide a basis to judge his philosophy.
OTOH these internal memoranda are never released in a judicial hearing. As the Bush administration pointed out, the release of these documents could have a chilling effect on government lawyers.
Furthermore, I have no confidence that the Dems on this Committee would use this information in good faith. Based on their record, they would pore through all the documents and flaunt whatever bits coudl be used to make Estrada look bad.
The Democrats have taken a bad situation and made it much worse.
That’s OK as far as the political axis is oncerned, but judges also must be scaled on at least two other axes: conpetence and honesty. There are a fair number of incompetent or moderatelly competent judges and a few dishonest or dishonorable ones. The long-termrejecting highly qualified honest conseratives like Owen and Estrada, may be to wind up with a greater number of less competent, less honest judges.
I am amazed and thankful that outstanding lawyers like Estrada, Owen, Ginsberg and Souter choose to be judges making only around $100,000 a year. They could triple their income in private practice. We ought not take their financial sacrifice for granted.
As I said, the salary for one thing. Second, ISTM that some judges are sleazy and some are not terrific lawyers. This is just my impression as a non-lawyer.
