Perhaps because there wasn't a large "D" on his voter registration?
Hmmmm... could it be?
Posted on 09/14/2003 5:01:03 AM PDT by mhking
A famous American once dreamed all men might someday be judged by their character, not by the color of their skin.
In the case of federal appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada, it seems that Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream happened. But some Senate Republicans don't want to believe it.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia often decides cases dealing with the federal government's powers. So its decrees can ripple out, casting broad ramifications for all of America. Also, the court is often a steppingstone to the Supreme Court.
Estrada, President Bush's appointee to this court, withdrew his nomination last week after being subjected to two years of Senate wrangling.
Senate Democrats filibustered his nomination -- stalling it unless his supporters could muster 60 votes to force a vote. They could not.
The cries from Senate Republicans, who could not muster the votes, came quickly and were not so thinly veiled. Appalled, several accused their filibustering colleagues of bias against Hispanics.
It is not that some members of the Senate don't want Hispanic nominees. They just didn't want this Hispanic nominee.
RUFFLED FEATHERS
The facts do not support the accusation of bias.
Senate Democrats have approved other Hispanic court nominees by the Bush administration without such divides. Five to be specific. A statement released by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (all Democrats) said of the approved Bush appointees, ``These nominees, though conservative in thought, expressed an understanding of the role of the courts in the lives of America's Hispanic community and displayed a respect and an appreciation for the Federal judicial confirmation process.''
The statement hints at why Estrada's nomination went down.
Estrada ruffled feathers on several fronts. During confirmation hearings, he refused to answer many questions. That is common in such hearings. Future judges do not want litmus tests applied to their future rulings. But Estrada was deemed particularly contrary.
He refused to cite even one Supreme Court decision in the last 40 years that he found any fault with.
At one point in a hearing, Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said to Estrada ``you have given us virtually no opinion on anything.''
In a meeting with one Puerto Rican group, Estrada reportedly called the questioning ``boneheaded.''
Which isn't to say some of the interviews Estrada underwent weren't silly in nature. Some Latino groups tried to figure out if Estrada was up to the task of representing all Hispanics. As if Latinos are a monolithic block of nearly 40 million people. A ridiculous contention.
Estrada's resumé gleams brilliant. An immigrant from Honduras, he came to the United States as a teenager, without fluency in English. By the age of 40, he had argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court.
But Estrada has never held a judicial seat -- so there were few public records to surmise his leanings.
Without such rulings, Senate Democrats tried to get the White House to release Estrada's memos from his days in the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General. The White House refused. Former solicitor generals -- from both parties -- agreed with the White House decision.
LIMBO UNFAIR
In the end, that led to Estrada being judged for his character -- or what some Democrats were assuming his character was. They saw him as too conservative for the Court of Appeals seat.
Where Senate Republicans do have a legitimate gripe is with the use of the filibuster. The nomination became far too contentious. Estrada's was the first filibuster of a lower-court nominee in American history.
Ultimately, Estrada did what he had to. In a letter to Bush, he cited the need to ``return my full attention to the practice of law, and to regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family.''
This side of Estrada's character can be applauded. Two years in such Senate limbo is unfair.
For Hispanics, it's actually a good sign that his nomination was blocked. It proves simply being a certain ethnicity or race is not enough to gain Senate approval for a seat on the federal bench.
That is fair. It is judging people for their character.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
That's a polite way of putting it...
Perhaps because there wasn't a large "D" on his voter registration?
Hmmmm... could it be?
"The seriousness of the charges warrants an investigation into the matter."
Indeed.
For Hispanics, it's actually a good sign that his nomination was blocked. It proves simply being a certain ethnicity or race is not enough to gain Senate approval for a seat on the federal bench.
That is fair.
The author of this piece is at best confused. If the GOP has a legitimate gripe, then the absence of confirmation is not fair.
I sense a desire to defuse the allegation of racism. I say accuse the DEMs of racism, because they are obsessed with categorizing individuals based on race.
R I G H T, and the sun does nor "really" rise in the east and set in the west, it is all a figment of your imagination!
Who are you going to believe? What we tell you to believe or your lying eyes?
I will believe what my eyes can clearly see:
What IS taking place is unbridled/evil BIAS against ANYTHING and ANYONE who is moral, upright, conservative, evangelical and supportive of America and American ideals.
Wouldn't want to upset wet Teddy and Upchuckie Schumer.
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.