Estrada deserves fairness, not a filibuster

'There's no reason to mince around this, we're not going to allow an up or down vote on Miguel Estrada." With that defiant flourish, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid assumed point-man role in the Senate Democrats' scheme to filibuster a presidential nominee for a federal circuit court judgeship. If Reid has his way, Harvard Law magna cum laude grad Miguel Estrada – an immigrant who has overcome many obstacles in his life – will have to overcome yet another: He'll need to win the votes of 60 of the 100 senators, a supermajority, in order to be confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Denying Estrada a traditional vote is undemocratic, unprecedented and unfair. Back when the filibuster was used by the likes of Strom Thurmond to bottle up civil rights legislation in order to keep African-Americans down, the hue and cry was loud and justified. Now, Reid and cronies are using the filibuster to keep a talented Hispanic attorney in his place – apparently because they think he might be too conservative for their liking. I'm half expecting to see the Sen. Foghorn Leghorn cartoon character joining them to bluster away at the podium as they try to drown the Estrada nomination in an unending river of rhetoric.

This is no ordinary nominee, and no ordinary judgeship. Miguel Estrada is an inspiration for young people with dreams, from any background – but particularly for newcomers to America and members of ethnic minority groups. Dedication and hard work brought him success, and his example points the way for others.

A native of Honduras who immigrated to the United States at age 15, he graduated with high honors from Columbia College before going on to Harvard, where he was a law-review editor. He clerked on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, and for Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

For five years in the 1990s he was an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. Because this was in the Clinton administration Justice Department – and because his supervisors gave him rave job evaluations – it is hard to figure why Reid and company are so hostile to him. True, some hard-left lobbying groups have Estrada in their crosshairs, but why should senators bow to those zealots? No one has offered any evidence that Estrada is anything other than a sober-minded, by-the-book man of the law.

For anyone who cares how federal regulations are enforced, or federal lands governed, the makeup of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is important. Located in Washington, D.C., it handles appeals in cases involving federal bureaucratic management, everything from Endangered Species Act enforcement to federal protections for the disabled. This is a court that needs top-grade legal minds such as Miguel Estrada's.

If a potential client said he'd only hire me as his attorney if I showed him some memos I'd produced for someone else in another case, I'd have to say, "sorry, those are privileged." Yet this is precisely what the get-Estrada crowd are demanding of him. They want to see confidential memos that he prepared for a previous employer – the Justice Department. Because he can't turn them over, the Estrada-bashers exult, "aha – got you!" They've manufactured a neat, crafty excuse to deny him an up-or-down vote, "no reason to mince around this," in Reid's words.

There's a wee bit of irony in all this. Under what you might call "Reid's rules," a simple majority vote isn't enough for a judicial candidate whom Reid – or left-wing activists – don't like. But by that calculus, Harry Reid himself wouldn't be in the Senate today. In his 1998 Senate election, he didn't get even 50 percent of the vote. He "triumphed" by a mere 428 ballots out of approximately 415,000 cast. You might think this particular senator would be somewhat embarrassed to suspend normal democratic procedures for a judicial nomination. You might think "Landslide Harry" would be the last senator to insist that a distinguished Hispanic attorney needs a supermajority – 60 percent of the vote – in order to take the seat to which President Bush has nominated him.

* Johnson is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, a firm dedicated to limited government. He can be reached via e-mail at hej@pacificlegal.org.

My email to W:

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

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.