Judge Estrada

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I would like to see our liberal members here attempt to defend the filibustering of the nomination of Estrada. A judicial nominee has NEVER been filibustered simply for no real reason before and this case is getting irksome.

 

The Democrats claim they are filibustering because he won't "answer their questions". The White House offers them to submit all of their questions to hm about 2 weeks ago and he would answer ALL of them. Maybe 5 Democrats submitted questions.

 

The Democrats demanded access to his memos he wrote while in the Justice Dept, ignoring that they have no right to see them (nor does the White House --- and the White House HASN'T seen them ever).

 

They filibuster SOLELY because they disagree with him and this is an action that NO Congress has EVER done in the history of this country.

 

So, I'd like to see a defense for this unfair and unjust action --- if a defense is possible.

-=Mike

[Guest Mad Dog]

It's typical politics.

 

They want to keep him out so that several years down the road they can put a token Hispanic judge somewhere and claim that they're the party of diversity.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Eh.

 

Since Bush has a majority in the Senate, it makes it easier for him to pass very strongly conservative justices without much of a check. I don't see the problem with filibustering until he puts up a more moderate candidate.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Eh.

 

Since Bush has a majority in the Senate, it makes it easier for him to pass very strongly conservative justices without much of a check. I don't see the problem with filibustering until he puts up a more moderate candidate.

And I have a REAL problem with it. NO President has EVER had this done to them in the entire HISTORY of the country. Not a single one. This is an abuse of the Senate's "power" here and the Dems are going to regret this in a major way.

 

All this will do is make nominations to the bench virtually impossible for ANY future President (including Dems -- they might wish to remember that) and the Senate's right to "advise and consent" was not intended to be bastrardized like this. It is absurd to force a President to get 60 votes for ANY nominee of his.

 

Estrada was even given very high qualification marks by the friggin' ABA. He's eminently qualified --- the Senate has no right to filibuster a candidate because they don't agree with him. The ONLY justifiable reason for a filibuster would be for ethics problems (as happened to Abe Fortas).

-Mike

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Mike, at least it seems that there is no longer that judical vacancy crisis Pat Leahy was harping about a few years ago. I guess all open slots are filled if he's going to lead a filibuster on Estrada...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I don't think it will come to that.

 

It's not as if the dems filibuster EVERY conservative candidate Bush nominates.

 

It's simply because Estrada is rather radical in his beliefs, if I'm not mistaken.

[Guest Mad Dog]

It gets old when they do this to every little thing they don't like and then turn around and try to blame Bush and the GOP for not getting anything done.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware they're filibustering every candidate.

 

Must have been watching some other country.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I am not for the filabuster. I think that Estrada deserves his day in the sun. The only problem I will have is if Estrada dances around questions, gets confirmed, and then comes out as extremely conservative. I honestly think that judges should be more moderate, it allows them to be more fair and partial, IMO. Anytime you get extremes, then you get extreme rulings, either liberal or conservative.

[Guest Mad Dog]

I meant the tax cuts and the stim package from late 2001/early 2002 Tyler.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Who in their right mind wants Estrada in there. I am still in shock the Dems(and even most Repubs)helped put Ashcroft in office.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I have been following this debate over Miguel Estrada's nomination for the past ... God only knows when and it seems like typical partison squabbling. The Democrats are whining that Estrada has not provided enough information to make an informed decision about his nomination, and the Republicans are claiming the Democrats are being unfairly prejudiced toward Bush's minority candidate (Estrada would be the first hispanic on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.)

 

The Dems do have some good points. During his Judiciary Committee hearing, Estrada simply refused to answer a number of questions about his opinion toward cases. He has never had any judicial experience, jumping from clerkship to private practice for a number of years. While he is hispanic, he failed to provide even a single example of how he has contributed to any hispanic community, including pro bono service for underpriveledged hispanics, supporting hispanic law students, or advocating minority rights. He has even argued in defense of loitering laws (all the way to the Supreme Court) that commonly target poor minorities in urban areas. In fact, most of the hispanic organizations oppose Estrada's nomination.

 

From my liberal spin, it looks Bush is trying to squeeze by a conservative nominee under the guise of a minority.

 

Anyway, it is quite entertaining to watch the Senators shout at each other at 11:00 pm. Tune in if you're up. It's a great background noise to reading these forums.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

By the way, I've got pictures of the actual filibustering.

 

These are UNTOUCHED AND UN-PHOTOSHOPPED.

 

 

 

Gold.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Hispanic Organizations are usually liberal. Opposing a Republican president's nominee isn't that suprising.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I don't think it will come to that.

 

It's not as if the dems filibuster EVERY conservative candidate Bush nominates.

 

It's simply because Estrada is rather radical in his beliefs, if I'm not mistaken.

The expressed reason is that he "won't answer questions" --- but when offered a chance to ask them, the Dems refused.

 

And the Dems will filibuster numerous candidates from here on out. Nobody denies this.

 

And in what way is Estrada radical? Because he might not agree with Roe v Wade --- a decision A LOT of legal scholars don't agree with?

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I have been following this debate over Miguel Estrada's nomination for the past ... God only knows when and it seems like typical partison squabbling. The Democrats are whining that Estrada has not provided enough information to make an informed decision about his nomination, and the Republicans are claiming the Democrats are being unfairly prejudiced toward Bush's minority candidate (Estrada would be the first hispanic on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.)

 

The Dems do have some good points. During his Judiciary Committee hearing, Estrada simply refused to answer a number of questions about his opinion toward cases. He has never had any judicial experience, jumping from clerkship to private practice for a number of years. While he is hispanic, he failed to provide even a single example of how he has contributed to any hispanic community, including pro bono service for underpriveledged hispanics, supporting hispanic law students, or advocating minority rights. He has even argued in defense of loitering laws (all the way to the Supreme Court) that commonly target poor minorities in urban areas. In fact, most of the hispanic organizations oppose Estrada's nomination.

 

From my liberal spin, it looks Bush is trying to squeeze by a conservative nominee under the guise of a minority.

 

Anyway, it is quite entertaining to watch the Senators shout at each other at 11:00 pm. Tune in if you're up. It's a great background noise to reading these forums.

1) The White House, about 2 weeks ago, told Dems to submit ALL questions for Estrada to the WH and they would have him answer ALL of them. The Dems refused to do so.

 

2) The ABA says he is eminently qualified.

 

3) Your examples of "contributing to the hispanic community" sounds A LOT like, well, being a traditional liberal. He is not a liberal. He has argued for anti-loitering laws because --- shockingly enough ---- he AGREES with them. He's supposed to argue AGAINST laws because liberals don't like them?

 

Do you not see how horribly unfair that is?

 

"Hispanic organizations" are as impartial as "women's rights groups" and "civil rights groups". They are left-wing schills.

-=Mike --- who wishes that if the Dems thought he was unqualified, they'd at least SAY it

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm not versed in his policies beyond "radical conservative" by several fairly liberal papers (such as the NY Times), but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're not off by all that much.

 

If he answers the previous questions posed, my opinions on him may change. However, far too much is unknown for me to lay a judgement on him.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm not versed in his policies beyond "radical conservative" by several fairly liberal papers (such as the NY Times), but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're not off by all that much.

 

If he answers the previous questions posed, my opinions on him may change. However, far too much is unknown for me to lay a judgement on him.

Did you miss the whole "THEY WON'T ASK HIM THE QUESTIONS" point here?

 

The WH BEGGED the Dems to ask the questions. They promised that he would answer ALL of them.

 

They refused and continue the filibuster.

 

How can he ask questions he isn't asked?

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What were the questions he previously refused to answer?

 

Why doesn't he answer THEM?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What were the questions he previously refused to answer?

 

Why doesn't he answer THEM?

The Dems wouldn't ASK the questions. He can't answer if they won't ask. They wouldn't provide questions they wanted answers to.

 

If they won't ask --- which they WON'T --- then they should let him go.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

They DID ask him the questions previously.

 

I'm not talking about when the WH asked them... but when he INITIALLY didn't answer the questions.

 

Answer those.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

They DID ask him the questions previously.

 

I'm not talking about when the WH asked them... but when he INITIALLY didn't answer the questions.

 

Answer those.

If somebody is going to gripe that somebody won't answer questions --- but won't say WHAT questions the person won't answer (I've noticed you haven't mentioned it, either) --- then they aren't serious about getting the questions answered).

 

THe WH simply called the Dems bluff.

 

And I hope they continually call cloture votes ad infinitum.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I also said I'm not well versed in the specifics, but you ignored that in order to press your argument.

 

There were initial questions asked. Answer them. End of story.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

"Hispanic organizations" are as impartial as "women's rights groups" and "civil rights groups". They are left-wing schills.

No, I have no problem with any person of any persuasion from any ethnic background. What I am trying to say is that, from the actions of the White House, the responses of Miguel Estrada and the arguements of the Republican Senators, he is being misrepresented. The White House will not release memos from Estrada revealing his opinions on cases and rulings (which would allow the Senators to understand how he would rule as a judge). Estrada himself doesn't answer the same questions at the hearing. Then the Republican Senators accuse the Democrats of being unfairly prejudiced toward a conservative hispanic, when in fact they can't tell whether he is conservative, liberal or psychopathic because they don't have sufficient information about him.

 

So, the White House, by not supplying the necessary information to objective judge the nominee's disposition, is trying to get a conservative judge onto the bench under the smokescreen of being a hispanic, and coming close to calling the Democrats racist because the Dems want information about the candidate.

 

This is not an issue about minorities as the Republican Senate and White House are presenting it to be. It is about the Senate being able to carry out it's Constitutional Advise and Consent role for judicial nominees, and being unable to do that without the knowledge of the candidate.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I also said I'm not well versed in the specifics, but you ignored that in order to press your argument.

 

There were initial questions asked. Answer them. End of story.

And the Dems were asked, VERBATIM, to say what questions they wanted answered.

 

They chose to not say.

 

Thus, they have ZERO right to filibuster here.

 

But, not to worry --- this will all come back to bite them.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"Hispanic organizations" are as impartial as "women's rights groups" and "civil rights groups". They are left-wing schills.

No, I have no problem with any person of any persuasion from any ethnic background. What I am trying to say is that, from the actions of the White House, the responses of Miguel Estrada and the arguements of the Republican Senators, he is being misrepresented. The White House will not release memos from Estrada revealing his opinions on cases and rulings (which would allow the Senators to understand how he would rule as a judge). Estrada himself doesn't answer the same questions at the hearing. Then the Republican Senators accuse the Democrats of being unfairly prejudiced toward a conservative hispanic, when in fact they can't tell whether he is conservative, liberal or psychopathic because they don't have sufficient information about him.

 

So, the White House, by not supplying the necessary information to objective judge the nominee's disposition, is trying to get a conservative judge onto the bench under the smokescreen of being a hispanic, and coming close to calling the Democrats racist because the Dems want information about the candidate.

 

This is not an issue about minorities as the Republican Senate and White House are presenting it to be. It is about the Senate being able to carry out it's Constitutional Advise and Consent role for judicial nominees, and being unable to do that without the knowledge of the candidate.

And, legally, the WH has NEVER had access to the memos. The Justice Dept. has told the Dems that the WH never had access to the memos and the Dems won't get access, either.

 

And, once again, when asked to ask the questions, why did the Dems refuse to do so?When the GOP wanted a Clinton appointee to ask questions --- they SAID what questions they wanted answered.

 

The Dems have yet to give a valid reason behind the filibuster.

 

They said they wanted him to answer questions and then didn't take up the offer to ask whatever questions they wanted in writing.

 

They said they wanted the same access to the memos that the WH had, not realizing that the WH had no access to them, either.

 

The WH has given the Dems the opportunity to have all of their concerns and questions answered.

 

The Dems refused to ask the questions.

 

They, obviously, are doing this SOLELY for political reasons.

-=Mike --- but, again, this is just going to bite them in the end.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

stuff

First, I want to address your issue of minority interest groups and stuff:

 

He's a minority that has fought in favor of laws that tend to affect minorities in a negative way. The Democrats are kind of suspicious of it all: seems to them like the Republicans are trying to get this guy appointed so they can say "Look! We like minorities!", yet this guy doesn't seem to be at all interested in pushing whatever the hell minority agendas might be going on.

 

On one hand, the Democrats are probably just paranoid about it all.

 

On the other hand, it is kind of unusual that he refused to answer some of those questions (I was under the impression that at these hearings, they are required to answer these questions).

 

On the gripping hand, it doesn't really fucking matter, because the Republicans will end up voting in whomever they want, a minority or not.

[Guest Powerplay]

Edit: Nm, Mike got to it first. Damn me eating while writing.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Now it makes more sense

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/feb0301.html#020503920pm

id Miguel Estrada tell a fairly obvious untruth at his Senate hearing last Fall?

 

Last week a New York Times editorial said that when "asked his views of Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, Mr. Estrada responded implausibly that he had not given enough thought to the question."

 

Now I was curious: what was the actual statement they were referring to?

 

I looked through the transcript and I imagine they must be talking about this exchange he had with Senator Diane Feinstein ...

 

MR. ESTRADA: The Supreme Court has so held and I have no view of any nature whatsoever, whether it be legal, philosophical, moral, or any other type of view that would keep me from [sic] apply that case law faithfully.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Do you believe that Roe was correctly decided?

 

MR. ESTRADA: I have -- my view of the judicial function, Senator Feinstein, does not allow me to answer that question. I have a personal view on the subject of -- of abortion, as I think you know. And -- but I have not done what I think the judicial function would require me to do in order to ascertain whether the court got it right as an original matter. I haven't listened to parties. I haven't come to an actual case of controversy with an open mind. I haven't gone back and run down everything that they have cited. And the reason I haven't done any of those things is that I view our system of law as one in which both me as an advocate, and possibly if I am confirmed as a judge, have a job of building on the wall that is already there and not to call it into question. I have had no particular reason to go back and look at whether it was right or wrong as a matter of law, as I would if I were a judge that was hearing the case for the first time. It is there. It is the law as it has subsequently refined by the Casey case, and I will follow it (italics added).

 

Now statements like these are carefully crafted by handlers and preppers. And their obvious purpose is to allow the speaker to muddle through without really answering the question. Or, perhaps, tell an untruth which can never quite be exposed as an untruth.

But for what it's worth, what does this statement actually mean?

 

As nearly as I can figure, Estrada is saying that though he has personal views about abortion and is familiar with the legal questions involved, he has never been in a position -- as a judge would be -- of having to sit down, review an actual case with an open mind, read all the relevant cases, and so forth. Now that's implausible on its face. But it turns out also to be almost certainly untrue.

 

Here's why.

 

In the Fall of 1988 Estrada was a clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy. On November 8th, 1988 then-Solicitor General Charles Fried filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the Court to take up the case which eventually became Webster and to use it to overturn Roe. On January 9th of 1989, the Court did finally grant cert, thus agreeing to hear the case.

 

Keep in mind that Kennedy was new on the Court and widely believed or at least, by many, hoped to be the one that would provide the decisive vote against Roe. Didn't turn out that way of course. But that's what people thought.

 

Keep in mind too that, according to Edward Lazarus's book Closed Chambers, the crop of clerks on the Court that year were particularly ideological. The conservatives among the clerks formed what Lazarus -- a clerk that year himself -- called "the cabal."

 

Now, Estrada left the Court I believe in early January of 1989, right about the same time that the Supremes agreed to hear the case, perhaps a few days before or a few days after. The relevant point, however, is that he was there for the entire period in which the decision was being made over whether to accept the case. At the time, Roe was the issue on the Court and Kennedy was the Justice on that issue. Estrada was clerking for one of the nine Justices who had to do exactly that 'judicial function' Estrada later described. As his clerk, doesn't that almost certainly mean Estrada pretty much had to do it too?

 

And there's more. It turns out there was another abortion related case being decided that Fall: the so-called "Michael H." case, a case which didn't itself have anything to do with the abortion issue, but which conservatives on the Court intended to use to open up a new line of attack against Roe. Scalia wrote the majority opinion in that case. And his first version, which would have been highly damaging to Roe was circulated in November 1988. Again, that's when Estrada was clerking for the guy who was in effect the Roe v. Wade Justice. (Note: Certainly different clerks work on different cases. In this case, a source tells me, the pool memo on whether to grant cert on Webster was written by a Blackmun clerk, ironically enough. And Kennedy was part of the pool. But in the Supreme Court, on a case of such magnitude, it's simply not credible that everyone there wouldn't have been chattering and thinking about this case and its disposition. Particularly Estrada.)

 

Nominees often say things that you pretty much know aren't true. But isn't this a case where Miguel Estrada said something that you can pretty much prove isn't true?

 

This plus this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12ESTR.html

 

In addition, Mr. Daschle asked the White House to provide copies of legal memorandums Mr. Estrada wrote while a lawyer in the office of solicitor general, in which he assessed cases the government was arguing before the Supreme Court.

 

The White House has refused to release those documents, saying that doing so would discourage government lawyers from providing candid advice for fear that their views might later be disclosed and used against them.

 

It just makes a bit more sense, they are fairly sure he lied and if they got access to these papers it would be proof he did, and they could deny him a seat based on that.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Now it makes more sense

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/feb0301.html#020503920pm

id Miguel Estrada tell a fairly obvious untruth at his Senate hearing last Fall?

 

Last week a New York Times editorial said that when "asked his views of Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, Mr. Estrada responded implausibly that he had not given enough thought to the question."

 

Now I was curious: what was the actual statement they were referring to?

 

I looked through the transcript and I imagine they must be talking about this exchange he had with Senator Diane Feinstein ...

 

MR. ESTRADA: The Supreme Court has so held and I have no view of any nature whatsoever, whether it be legal, philosophical, moral, or any other type of view that would keep me from [sic] apply that case law faithfully.

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Do you believe that Roe was correctly decided?

 

MR. ESTRADA: I have -- my view of the judicial function, Senator Feinstein, does not allow me to answer that question. I have a personal view on the subject of -- of abortion, as I think you know. And -- but I have not done what I think the judicial function would require me to do in order to ascertain whether the court got it right as an original matter. I haven't listened to parties. I haven't come to an actual case of controversy with an open mind. I haven't gone back and run down everything that they have cited. And the reason I haven't done any of those things is that I view our system of law as one in which both me as an advocate, and possibly if I am confirmed as a judge, have a job of building on the wall that is already there and not to call it into question. I have had no particular reason to go back and look at whether it was right or wrong as a matter of law, as I would if I were a judge that was hearing the case for the first time. It is there. It is the law as it has subsequently refined by the Casey case, and I will follow it (italics added).

 

Now statements like these are carefully crafted by handlers and preppers. And their obvious purpose is to allow the speaker to muddle through without really answering the question. Or, perhaps, tell an untruth which can never quite be exposed as an untruth.

But for what it's worth, what does this statement actually mean?

 

As nearly as I can figure, Estrada is saying that though he has personal views about abortion and is familiar with the legal questions involved, he has never been in a position -- as a judge would be -- of having to sit down, review an actual case with an open mind, read all the relevant cases, and so forth. Now that's implausible on its face. But it turns out also to be almost certainly untrue.

 

Here's why.

 

In the Fall of 1988 Estrada was a clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy. On November 8th, 1988 then-Solicitor General Charles Fried filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the Court to take up the case which eventually became Webster and to use it to overturn Roe. On January 9th of 1989, the Court did finally grant cert, thus agreeing to hear the case.

 

Keep in mind that Kennedy was new on the Court and widely believed or at least, by many, hoped to be the one that would provide the decisive vote against Roe. Didn't turn out that way of course. But that's what people thought.

 

Keep in mind too that, according to Edward Lazarus's book Closed Chambers, the crop of clerks on the Court that year were particularly ideological. The conservatives among the clerks formed what Lazarus -- a clerk that year himself -- called "the cabal."

 

Now, Estrada left the Court I believe in early January of 1989, right about the same time that the Supremes agreed to hear the case, perhaps a few days before or a few days after. The relevant point, however, is that he was there for the entire period in which the decision was being made over whether to accept the case. At the time, Roe was the issue on the Court and Kennedy was the Justice on that issue. Estrada was clerking for one of the nine Justices who had to do exactly that 'judicial function' Estrada later described. As his clerk, doesn't that almost certainly mean Estrada pretty much had to do it too?

 

And there's more. It turns out there was another abortion related case being decided that Fall: the so-called "Michael H." case, a case which didn't itself have anything to do with the abortion issue, but which conservatives on the Court intended to use to open up a new line of attack against Roe. Scalia wrote the majority opinion in that case. And his first version, which would have been highly damaging to Roe was circulated in November 1988. Again, that's when Estrada was clerking for the guy who was in effect the Roe v. Wade Justice. (Note: Certainly different clerks work on different cases. In this case, a source tells me, the pool memo on whether to grant cert on Webster was written by a Blackmun clerk, ironically enough. And Kennedy was part of the pool. But in the Supreme Court, on a case of such magnitude, it's simply not credible that everyone there wouldn't have been chattering and thinking about this case and its disposition. Particularly Estrada.)

 

Nominees often say things that you pretty much know aren't true. But isn't this a case where Miguel Estrada said something that you can pretty much prove isn't true?

 

This plus this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12ESTR.html

 

In addition, Mr. Daschle asked the White House to provide copies of legal memorandums Mr. Estrada wrote while a lawyer in the office of solicitor general, in which he assessed cases the government was arguing before the Supreme Court.

 

The White House has refused to release those documents, saying that doing so would discourage government lawyers from providing candid advice for fear that their views might later be disclosed and used against them.

 

It just makes a bit more sense, they are fairly sure he lied and if they got access to these papers it would be proof he did, and they could deny him a seat based on that.

OK, let's hit a few facts here:

 

1) 7 living Solicitor Generals --- including 4 Democrats --- stated that giving over memos from his service in that office would be a terrible idea and that the confidentiality should NOT be eliminated for this confirmation process.

 

And, there is NO historical precedent for such an action in the first place.

 

2) You are aware that it is a violation of judicial canons for any nominee to actually express how they'd rule in a case in the future, right?

 

Well, it is.

 

3) He's extreme? Funny, but NONE of his former bosses at the DOJ ever said that in their performance reviews of the man. Not one, not even Bender who has SINCE decided that he's bad.

 

4) It is COMMON practice for Senators to submit written questions to nominees if they were dissatisfied with the answers. Again, it should be noted, the Dems refused to submit written questions.

 

 

The Dems have NOTHING on him except that he isn't liberal.

 

But, again, it's all good. They are simply making it impossible for ANY nominees to ever get placed on the bench.

 

I hope they're happy.

 

Wasn't it Leahy who said it'd be horribly unfair for ANY nominee to be subjected to a filibuster?

 

I guess his opinion has changed now.

-=Mike