Bush urged to fight for Estrada

ON CAPITOL HILL
Bush urged to fight for Estrada
Democrats, GOP continue sparring over D.C. circuit nominee

Though President George W. Bush has won high marks for his handling of Saddam Hussein, he continues to take a beating at home from Senate Democrats who have torpedoed his nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals via a filibuster.

One legislative-policy analyst thinks Bush should take a more active role in defending his man.

Now that the war in Iraq is winding down, Bush needs to "go out into the states and make it an issue" for senators supporting the filibuster, says John Nowacki, director of legal policy at the Free Congress Foundation, a politically and culturally conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

"I think Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison [R-Texas] is right – there's been sort of an effort to change the Constitution by requiring 60 votes instead of a simple majority" to approve judicial nominees, Nowacki told WorldNetDaily in an interview. Sixty votes are needed to break a filibuster.

Though Republicans outnumber them in the Senate, Democrats have managed to hold up a final vote on Estrada's nomination for months by means of filibuster, a legislative delaying tactic. On four occasions since the start of the current legislative session, Republicans have failed to win enough votes to do so. There are 51 GOP members in the Senate, 48 Democrats and one Independent – Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont.

Bush chose Estrada in May 2001, then re-nominated him in January. Critics have called him a "stealth nominee" because they say there is little public record of his legal philosophy. Republicans have said opponents have held up his nomination because he is conservative. The D.C. Circuit is considered a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court, and many opponents don't want to see Estrada one step away from the high court. His presence there could mean the overturning of controversial decisions held dear by Democrats.

A member of international law firm Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP, Estrada has argued 15 cases before the high court, winning two-thirds of them. From 1992 to 1997 he served as assistant to the U.S. solicitor general and has served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He has served as assistant U.S. attorney and deputy chief of the appellate section for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. Estrada has tried 10 cases as a prosecutor and argued seven cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Also, he has been given a unanimous "well-qualified" rating by the American Bar Association, or ABA, which bases its ratings on "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."

Nevertheless, "Estrada's nomination proved to be the gauntlet thrown down by both sides," said the ABA this month, in its publication ABA Journal. And indeed it has; Democrats have been as relentless in blocking his nomination as Republicans have been in pushing and defending it.

Margarita Tapia, a spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she wasn't sure when the full chamber would vote on Estrada's nomination again, but did say the committee, chaired by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would continue to push for his approval.

"Everyone's committed, including the president, to fight until Mr. Estrada's confirmed," she told WorldNetDaily.

Attempts to reach Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's office to find out when a vote would be held were unsuccessful.

Neither backers nor opponents of Estrada have been shy about speaking out about his nomination.

"A necessary qualification for any candidate for a position within the federal judiciary should be a proven record of success as a practicing attorney," said Fraternal Order of Police President Steve Young . "I believe that it is also necessary for a candidate to be familiar with the inner workings of the court and to have respect for the law-enforcement community of which they are an important part. Mr. Estrada meets both of these important criteria."

"So often you hear there are not enough qualified Latinos for these positions, but he is remarkably qualified," says Gabriela Lemus, spokeswoman for the League of United Latin American Citizens.

"Miguel has an absolutely brilliant mind. He is a superb analytical lawyer, and he's an outstanding oral advocate," added Robert S. Litt, Justice Department associate deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration.

But Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said, "I commend the Senate Democrats for reiterating their commitment to prevent President Bush, Karl Rove and the GOP from stacking our federal courts with judges whose views do not represent the mainstream values of this country. [Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle [of South Dakota] and Senate Democrats have again demonstrated the commitment of our party to achieve a fair and independent judiciary."

"Here we have a nominee who is clearly qualified, is highly respected and who is being held up for purely political reasons," said Nowacki. "Even when the Democrats had the majority [in the Senate] he would have had the votes for confirmation. If the American people were exposed to this and saw what was going on, they'd see this as another obstructionist strategy by the Democrats."

Nowacki also said questions about Estrada's lack of experience as a judge is a non-issue because many successful nominees to the federal bench in D.C. and elsewhere have had little or no experience as a sitting judge.

"And frankly, most Hispanic lawyers have not served as judges," he said. "I don't know if that disqualifies each and every one of them from serving on the federal bench. That's ridiculous."

The Left regards the judiciary as the critical branch of government. A quick survey of all the socialistic changes they've forced on the country, through the courts in opposition to Congress and the plain words of the Constitution, confirms this judgment.

It's quite possible that no Hispanic nominee to a Federal court position would ever pass muster with the Democrats. The overwhelming majority of American Hispanics are staunchly pro-life. Even the exceptions are sufficiently sensitive to the opinion of their co-culturists that they'd be unlikely to satisfy Democrats' all-out fidelity to the cause of unrestricted abortion on demand, federal funding for abortions, opposition to parental notification laws, and so on.

The Estrada nomination could be the severest domestic test of the Bush Administration and the Republican majority in the Senate. Let's hope they keep fighting the good fight.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

One way President Bush could fight for the Estrada nomination is to direct the Solicitor General to file suit in the Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the use of a filibuster, which is a procedural mechanism established by the Senate under Art I Sec 5, which deals with the LEGISLATIVE power of the Congress, is an unconstitutional interference with the President's APPOINTMENT power and the Senate's MANDATORY obligation to provide its advice and consent under Art II, Sec 2. This approach has been argued in other forums and, I am aware, has been advanced to the White House Chief Counsel as well as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Left regards the judiciary as the critical branch of government

Sadly, they're right.

The Founders were amazingly insightful and prescient, but I think they anticipated that the President, Congress, and the States would jealously guard their unique powers and prerogatives rather than cede them to the Supreme Court because they were afraid that making unpopular decisions would risk their tenure in office.

This is a very bad idea, IMO.

We are being hurt by the Left because the courts are too powerful already. And that's why the Left has to die in the last ditch to stop Estrada, and Owen, and Pickering, and all the others.

OUR job is not to go back to the courts seeking to expand their power even more (I was opposed to Bush v. Gore, FWIW).

Our job is to force the Left to die in the last ditch for their bad ideas and poor tactical choices.

In this context, that means shutting down the Senate by forcing the RATs to debate 24-7 until they lose. This would have been much more effective before 3/19 but it could still work.

Then, assuming the RATs could hold the line until 11/04 (that would mean no new judges would be confirmed, certain Federal Circuits would grind to a halt, the Supreme Court would have to function with six or seven or eight Justices, no budget would be passed, the military would not get new equipment, etc, etc-all to allow the RATs to block judges that the people WANT).

Then, instead of asking the Courts to order the Senate around (very bad idea), we would ask the People to order the Senate around by defeating RATs in ND, SD, NC, SC, GA, LA come November 2004.

The thing is, the baby killing the RATs want to die to allow IS NOT POPULAR except among their core fanatical supporters. THEY AREN'T EVEN DOING THIS FOR REAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

Let the debate begin!

Sorry to disagree with you Jim. But, if you think that the courts have too much power, including the Supreme Court which upheld the Constitution in 2000 and which litigation you were against, then it is not clear to me why you want any sort of judiciary. I doubt that Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, if asked, would have said that it was wrong to go to the Supreme Court in 2000. Quite frankly, to argue for these nominees, but to attack the power or judicial system makes no sense to me. Please explain in more cogent terms than your initial response.

Our Constitution provides for situations when no candidate for President has a majority of electoral votes, and it also appoints a body (the Congress in joint session assembled) to judge the validity of electoral votes submitted for counting.

In either scenario, Bush would have been elected.

The Supreme Court has absolutely no authority over political disputes, nor should it. That's why we have political branches.

And, as an extra-special double-plus bonus, the Florida Supreme Court would have had its "authority" destroyed and the DNC would have gotten a black eye for a generation had we followed the political route and elected George Bush in the Congress.

I didn't even know that was possible. I'm very thankful that FR is a meeting place that is often populated with experts in various fields.

It's quite obvious that there is more diversity among conservatives than among liberals.

Liberal thinking is all lock-step. It's like their brains are the product of some crude copy machine through successive generations of copies. You know the kind I mean, where you end up with a copy of a copy, of a copy ad infinitum. And the one you end up with is in nearly illegible condition. Same thing is true of the liberals...they're not really sure why they are that way. (Must have been "dain bramage")

I came to the conclusion, a few years ago, that liberals become liberals by default. They just sink into it and lack the drive to actually become an individual. Liberalism is only a thin hair away from being eligible for classification as a disease.

In their world of viewing people as groups (like little worker bees) the only time they mention the smallest minority, the individual, is in what they like to label "self-esteem". But I think the conservatives have the best pathway to self-esteem. You preclude others from defining you, by clearly defining yourself.

Again, Jim you are just wrong. There is no telling how the vote would have finally played out in Florida, the media analysis not withatanding. But, if Gore had "won" in Florida, he would have had the electoral votes, period. If your point is that the Florida votes (electoral) should have not been counted for either candidate, who would have made that decision so as to "throw" the election into the House? Would it have been, a court? If not, then what body? As for the Court not deciding "political" questions: (1) It is not a "political" question. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, i.e., can a filibuster authorized by Art I, Sec 5 be used when Art II, Sec 2 is invoked by the President by making a judicial nomination; and (2), in any event, the courts, including the Supreme Court, hear and decide political questions all the time. Bush v. Gore was both a Constitutional and political case. Redistricting cases are political in nature, and the courts hear them all the time. You may not like it, but it is a fact. By the way, I will ask again, do you believe that Estrada, Owen and Pickering would have taken your view that Bush should not have gone to the Supreme Court in 2000? Finally, I have quarrel with the Senate going to a 24/7 filibuster, that's the Senate's prerogative. But, that does not preclude the President, and any senators who feel aggrieved by the use of the filibuster, to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court. The same Court that ruled correctly in Bush v. Gore, presumably much to your consternation.

... Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison [R-Texas] is right – there's been sort of an effort to change the Constitution by requiring 60 votes instead of a simple majority"

I like this plan of attack... There are THREE states that flipped from DEM to REPUBLICAN in 2002 (MN, GA, MO).

Even if the LAST CONGRESS approved of the 60-vote super-majority, the NEW CONGRESS has not.

Those THREE STATES' voters are being denied their rights of the constitution (moreso than the other 48 in the majority) and should lead the charge!

Where are you on this subject Sen Coleman, Chambliss, and Talent???

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.