Posted on 03/04/2003 6:44:43 AM PST by conservativecorner
Given the chance, Democrats ask no questions of Miguel Estrada.
or weeks now, Senate Democrats have complained that appeals-court nominee Miguel Estrada has failed to answer questions about his legal views, leaving senators without enough information to make a decision on whether or not he should be confirmed. In an effort to address those concerns, the White House last week invited any senator who has doubts about Estrada's views to send him written questions. The White House asked that questions be sent by the close of business last Friday, and pledged that Estrada would answer them by today. "He would answer the questions forthrightly, appropriately, and in a manner consistent with the traditional practice and obligations of judicial nominees, as he has before," wrote White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in a letter to all 100 senators.
So far, the administration has not received any questions from any senators, according to administration sources. The non-response from Democrats casts doubt on the party leadership's repeated contentions that Democrats object to Estrada because he has failed to answer questions about his legal views. Sen. Tom Daschle, the Minority Leader, last month accused Estrada of "stonewalling" and said, "Our issue primarily is ensuring that we have the information upon which to base a decision on Mr. Estrada."
In addition to Daschle's remarks, Republicans have gathered a list of other quotes from Democrats during the recent Estrada debate in which senators demanded that Estrada answer more questions. Among them:
"When a nominee does not answer basic questions, the Senate clearly has a constitutional responsibility to ask for the answers." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, February 26, 2003.
"I believe questions ought to be asked and answered and senators have a right to ask questions and senators have a right to have those questions answered. It is pretty simple." — Sen. Barbara Boxer, February 26, 2003.
"Is it too much to ask of a person who is being offered a lifetime position to simply answer a few questions?" — Sen. Blanche Lincoln, February 13, 2003.
"The Senate has a right to complete and responsive answers to its questions before confirming someone to a life term on such an important court." — Sen. Russell Feingold, February 10, 2003.
"We are straining to find some information on which to base a reasoned judgment about his nomination to the second highest court of the land for a lifetime appointment." — Sen. Richard Durbin, February 26, 2003.
None of those senators — or any other Democrat, for that matter — submitted questions to Estrada.
The Democratic failure to question Estrada opens a new course of debate for Republicans. As the filibuster continues, when a Democratic senator complains that Estrada has failed to answer questions, Republicans will ask whether he or she asked Estrada any questions when the White House invited such inquiries. Republicans, of course, already know the answer. Their goal now is to make sure the public knows, too.
Bender appears to be the one whose ideology interferes with his lawyering. As the "political" deputy in the Solicitor General’s Office, he had inordinate influence over policy on a range of controversial issues, including child pornography. Bender had been chief counsel to the 1970 presidential commission on obscenity that recommended eliminating all legal restraints on obscenity and pornography. The Senate voted 95 to 5 to reject this extreme proposal.
Bender apparently carried the cause forward to the Clinton Administration. A case titled United States v. Knox involved a pedophile convicted of possessing videotapes of young girls provocatively posed and scantily dressed. The legal issue in his U.S. Supreme Court appeal was whether the federal child porn statute, banning depictions of a minor engaging in "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," could apply when the minor was at least partially clothed. The Clinton Justice Department first argued in March 1993 that the statute did not require actual nudity.
After the Supreme Court accepted the case, the Justice Department switched positions and in September 1993 sided with the pedophile, arguing for a narrow definition of child porn. The difference? Bender had come on board. Since the prosecutor now supported the criminal, the Supreme Court sent the case back without deciding it. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, later twice rejected this unprecedented and radical re-definition of child porn
This time the Senate voted 100 to 0, and the House voted 426 to 3, for a resolution condemning Bender’s position. President Clinton himself, no prude in sexual matters, agreed in writing with the Senate that the new Benderized definition was unacceptable. But Bender is the man claiming Estrada is an ideologue. No wonder Bender hasn’t given interviews on this subject in months.
This is his critic???
I couldn't agree more. The Dems have given us a great opportunity on a silver platter, and Frist is risking seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.
I called my dim senator's office yesterday to grill the handler about her assertion that my senator needed more information. "Did the senator submit any written questions as White House counsel Gonzalez invited him to do? Did he sit down with Estrada? How does he expect to get more information if he doesn't do these things?" She then claimed that he wants to see DOJ memos. "Why would the DOJ change its rules for Estrada, other than that he's Hispanic? Don't you know how racist that sounds? Not a single nominee in history has ever had DOJ or Solicitor General or other internal memos released to the Senate when considering a nominee? Do you even know that? Does the senator know that? Why is the minority nominee being singled out? Why is a double standard being applied to Estrada?"
It's actually quite fun and best of all the call was free.
Gutless hypocrites. I want to see Hillary's questions, on the record, for public discussion. Put up or shut up.
Just look at affirmative action. The whole thing comes down to "What color is your skin?" We have a job opening, are you the right man for the job? I won't know until I get a look at the color of your skin. You want to attend my University? I dunno. We're pretty particular -- what color is your skin?
Name me a Republican platform item that smacks of racism. There isn't one. For the Dems, it's all about promoting abortion, and the judgement of people based on skin color.
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.