What happened to the Estrada filibuster?
- Thread starter sJaAxKe
- Start date
GOP has given up for now trying to get him confirmed. Will likely try again later, or so they say.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030311/ap_on_go_co/senate_judges_3
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030311/ap_on_go_co/senate_judges_3
Good that Estrada has been blocked, at least for now. When asked for an opinion on a Supreme Court case, "I don't have one" is acceptable at the lunch table. It's not acceptable at a Senate confirmation hearing.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,436
- 19,867
- 146
Bullsh!t. A judge is supposed to hold his opinion and remain objective until he has heard the entire case.
How good is a judge that already has their mind made up in every matter?
The blocking was purely political in nature. They have NO real reason to block his confirmation, and that's why they used the filibuster.
Actually that is not correct. Democrats have asked for private breifs, however they are asking for something that would violate client attorny priveledge. Estrada has sat infront of day long committe to answer questions and has further offered to answer any questions the democrats have. So far no questions have been brought to him.
The democrats do not want to nominate a conservative hispanic judge. This man is more than qualified for the job.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,436
- 19,867
- 146
Rudy can sum it up better than I can...
AN UGLY STALL
By RUDOLPH GIULIANI
February 10, 2003 -- LET me share with you a great American success story.
A 17-year-old named Miguel Estrada immigrates to this country from Honduras, speaking only a few words of English. He attends Columbia College, making Phi Beta Kappa and graduating magna cum laude, then Harvard Law School, becoming editor of the Law Review.
Next, he serves as a clerk first to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amalya L. Kearse (a President Carter appointee), and then to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. From there, he joins the Solicitor General's Office, serving as assistant to the solicitor general of the United States for a year under President George H.W. Bush and for four years under President Clinton.
Then Estrada becomes a partner in a prestigious private law practice - yet finds the time to perform significant pro bono service, including some four hundred hours representing a death row inmate before the Supreme Court.
In recognition of his special abilities and achievements, President Bush nominates Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He is supported by no fewer than 16 Hispanic groups, who express enormous pride at the prospect of the first Hispanic joining one of America's most prestigious courts. Also supporting him are numerous prominent Democrats, including President Clinton's solicitor general and Vice President Gore's counselor and chief of Staff.
Sounds pretty good? Well, here's where this story runs the risk of a most unhappy - and unfair - ending.
For nearly two years, Senate Democrats have delayed action on the nomination of Miguel Estrada.
Citing no specific issues, Democratic senators vaguely alluded to Estrada being "way out of the mainstream." Others raised equally hollow charges - all of which have not only kept Estrada from getting the vote he deserves, but denied the American people of a talented and effective jurist.
Obviously, the fact that the Judiciary Committee was controlled by the Democrats until this year helped delay action. Last week, the committee finally voted to approve Estrada's nomination, hewing strictly to party lines. But now a few Democratic senators want to prevent a vote before the full Senate by way of a filibuster.
Despite all the racket, the knocks against Estrada are so easily dismissed that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a thin veil disguising his detractors' true motives. Let's take a look at them:
Some note that Estrada lacks judicial experience. Yet five of the eight judges now on the D.C. circuit had no previous judicial experience - including Chief Judge Harry Edwards, who when President Carter appointed him in 1979 was even younger than Estrada is now. Indeed, several Supreme Court justices - including Byron White and Chief Justice William Rehnquist - had never been judges when they were named to the land's highest court.
Estrada no rookie. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and was a highly respected Assistant U.S. Attorney in my old office, the Southern District of New York. And the American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating - "well qualified," a designation that some of the very senators who now oppose him have called the "gold standard."
Some object that the Bush administration won't produce memoranda from Estrada in the Solicitor General's Office. Bear in mind the Solicitor General's function: His office represents the United States in court - in other words, the government is his client. Why would a client or his attorney choose to reveal their private and privileged communications?
The zeal to read a nominee's private memoranda seems to apply only to this nominee. Seven past nominees to the Courts of Appeals had worked in the Solicitor General's office - yet not one was asked to disclose attorney-client memoranda. And every living former Solicitor General - including Democrats Archibald Cox, Seth Waxman and Walter Dellinger - signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee stating that sharing these confidential memos would damage the Justice Department's ability to represent the United States before the Supreme Court.
Some civil-rights groups complain that in private practice, Estrada defended anti-loitering laws. In truth, he was retained by the Democratic City Solicitor of Chicago to defend the constitutionality of the anti-gang ordinances of Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Miguel Estrada brings a proven ability to work with others in a fair and constructive way, and his appeal is not limited to any set of ideological backers. President Clinton's Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, called his former colleague a "model of professionalism and "competence" and described his "great respect both for Mr. Estrada's intellect and for his "integrity." Ronald Klain, former Counselor to Vice President Gore, wrote: "Miguel is a person of outstanding character, tremendous intellect, and with a deep commitment to the faithful application of precedent."
The Senate must fulfill its duty to consider the appropriateness of judicial nominees. But that "advice and consent" was never meant to empower special-interest groups to hijack the appointments of abundantly qualified, eminently decent nominees.
If senators who feel it's their right to let special-interest agendas derail Estrada, the judiciary will lose a wonderful opportunity. Far worse, the entire system will have fallen victim to narrow and misguided attempts to thwart the Constitution.
The stalling of Miguel Estrada's confirmation has been not only unseemly and demeaning, but a perversion of the system of judicial selection. It is also the escalation of a dangerous trend. In their first two years in office, Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan saw more than 90 percent of their nominees to federal appeals courts confirmed. In the first two years of this administration, the figure is barely 50 percent.
Some say that's because President Bush isn't nominating qualified individuals. But Miguel Estrada clearly puts the lie to that suggestion.
I urge the Senate to allow this worthy man a vote. I urge the Senate not to underestimate what a fair vote will mean to Hispanic all across America.
I feel certain the result will be a confirmation - another wonderful chapter in a true American success story.
AN UGLY STALL
By RUDOLPH GIULIANI
February 10, 2003 -- LET me share with you a great American success story.
A 17-year-old named Miguel Estrada immigrates to this country from Honduras, speaking only a few words of English. He attends Columbia College, making Phi Beta Kappa and graduating magna cum laude, then Harvard Law School, becoming editor of the Law Review.
Next, he serves as a clerk first to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amalya L. Kearse (a President Carter appointee), and then to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. From there, he joins the Solicitor General's Office, serving as assistant to the solicitor general of the United States for a year under President George H.W. Bush and for four years under President Clinton.
Then Estrada becomes a partner in a prestigious private law practice - yet finds the time to perform significant pro bono service, including some four hundred hours representing a death row inmate before the Supreme Court.
In recognition of his special abilities and achievements, President Bush nominates Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He is supported by no fewer than 16 Hispanic groups, who express enormous pride at the prospect of the first Hispanic joining one of America's most prestigious courts. Also supporting him are numerous prominent Democrats, including President Clinton's solicitor general and Vice President Gore's counselor and chief of Staff.
Sounds pretty good? Well, here's where this story runs the risk of a most unhappy - and unfair - ending.
For nearly two years, Senate Democrats have delayed action on the nomination of Miguel Estrada.
Citing no specific issues, Democratic senators vaguely alluded to Estrada being "way out of the mainstream." Others raised equally hollow charges - all of which have not only kept Estrada from getting the vote he deserves, but denied the American people of a talented and effective jurist.
Obviously, the fact that the Judiciary Committee was controlled by the Democrats until this year helped delay action. Last week, the committee finally voted to approve Estrada's nomination, hewing strictly to party lines. But now a few Democratic senators want to prevent a vote before the full Senate by way of a filibuster.
Despite all the racket, the knocks against Estrada are so easily dismissed that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a thin veil disguising his detractors' true motives. Let's take a look at them:
Some note that Estrada lacks judicial experience. Yet five of the eight judges now on the D.C. circuit had no previous judicial experience - including Chief Judge Harry Edwards, who when President Carter appointed him in 1979 was even younger than Estrada is now. Indeed, several Supreme Court justices - including Byron White and Chief Justice William Rehnquist - had never been judges when they were named to the land's highest court.
Estrada no rookie. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and was a highly respected Assistant U.S. Attorney in my old office, the Southern District of New York. And the American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating - "well qualified," a designation that some of the very senators who now oppose him have called the "gold standard."
Some object that the Bush administration won't produce memoranda from Estrada in the Solicitor General's Office. Bear in mind the Solicitor General's function: His office represents the United States in court - in other words, the government is his client. Why would a client or his attorney choose to reveal their private and privileged communications?
The zeal to read a nominee's private memoranda seems to apply only to this nominee. Seven past nominees to the Courts of Appeals had worked in the Solicitor General's office - yet not one was asked to disclose attorney-client memoranda. And every living former Solicitor General - including Democrats Archibald Cox, Seth Waxman and Walter Dellinger - signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee stating that sharing these confidential memos would damage the Justice Department's ability to represent the United States before the Supreme Court.
Some civil-rights groups complain that in private practice, Estrada defended anti-loitering laws. In truth, he was retained by the Democratic City Solicitor of Chicago to defend the constitutionality of the anti-gang ordinances of Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Miguel Estrada brings a proven ability to work with others in a fair and constructive way, and his appeal is not limited to any set of ideological backers. President Clinton's Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, called his former colleague a "model of professionalism and "competence" and described his "great respect both for Mr. Estrada's intellect and for his "integrity." Ronald Klain, former Counselor to Vice President Gore, wrote: "Miguel is a person of outstanding character, tremendous intellect, and with a deep commitment to the faithful application of precedent."
The Senate must fulfill its duty to consider the appropriateness of judicial nominees. But that "advice and consent" was never meant to empower special-interest groups to hijack the appointments of abundantly qualified, eminently decent nominees.
If senators who feel it's their right to let special-interest agendas derail Estrada, the judiciary will lose a wonderful opportunity. Far worse, the entire system will have fallen victim to narrow and misguided attempts to thwart the Constitution.
The stalling of Miguel Estrada's confirmation has been not only unseemly and demeaning, but a perversion of the system of judicial selection. It is also the escalation of a dangerous trend. In their first two years in office, Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan saw more than 90 percent of their nominees to federal appeals courts confirmed. In the first two years of this administration, the figure is barely 50 percent.
Some say that's because President Bush isn't nominating qualified individuals. But Miguel Estrada clearly puts the lie to that suggestion.
I urge the Senate to allow this worthy man a vote. I urge the Senate not to underestimate what a fair vote will mean to Hispanic all across America.
I feel certain the result will be a confirmation - another wonderful chapter in a true American success story.
Estrada's appointment will do as much for Hispanics as Clarence Thomas' did for blacks.
From watching C-span, republicans are no worse race-baiters than Democrats.
From watching C-span, republicans are no worse race-baiters than Democrats.
You beat me to it, Estrada cares no more for Hispanics than Thomas does for Blacks. He's a pawn to capture the Hispanic vote, but he will not serve their interest. He's been greased through on his surname, but the image of a working class Honduran who pulled himself up from the gutter is fiction designed to obscure any real analysis. He was an upper class Honduran, well educated before he came to America.
I don't think one opinion on any case in the history of the Supreme Court is too much to ask. Incredibly, he has none. Not good for a man with so little to judge him by.
So let me understand this. If a republican nominates a conservative minority, they are tool(I think the original term is uncle tom). But if a democrat nominates a minority they are a highly qualified individual.
IS this what you are trying to say?
"You beat me to it, Estrada cares no more for Hispanics than Thomas does for Blacks. He's a pawn to capture the Hispanic vote, but he will not serve their interest. He's been greased through on his surname, but the image of a working class Honduran who pulled himself up from the gutter is fiction designed to obscure any real analysis. He was an upper class Honduran, well educated before he came to America."
I could really care less about this, but what is "their" interest? Isn't a judge supposed to be imparcial (sp). I know if I had to go to court I would want someone who would listen to my case without having preconcived notions based on my ethnicity.
Not trying to be a pain or anything just thought about it when I read your post. On second thought i guess judges are part of the political system too. Everything is political in some form or another I guess.
Judges at higher levels shape the laws we all live by. They are never "fair and impartial" any more than Fox New is (or CNN). They have opinions on how the constitution should be interpreted and whether existing interpretations such as Roe v. Wade are correct.
Conservatives think only conservative judges are truly "well-qualified" and liberals are equally biased towards liberal judges. Appointment of judges is 100% politics and 0% finding the best person for the job.
What I'm trying to say is that Republicans are portraying him as a guy who started out in the bean fields and ended up a lawyer in America, and as such represents the millions of Latinos here doing our manual labor. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm sure both parties are crapping their collective pants over the chance to pack the courts with Hispanics, but lets try to at least be a little selective. I'd much rather see Alberto Gonzales, Bush's in-house counsel, get the nomination although he's supposedly in line for the SC.
As I said above, that's just the image Republicans want in order to show how much they love Hispanics.
A Bush judicial candidate who is blocked.....is most likely a good thing for the American people.
Anyway, the real issue here is that the Republicans know things about Estrada that the Democrats don't, and they don't want to share. From Estrada's reponses at the hearings, we can infer that he does not disagree with Roe v. Wade. Somehow, I don't think he'd be up for the nomination if the Republicans knew that wasn't the case. And with zero bench experience, who knows what this guy's views are?
Good article here
Good article here
So, let me see if I understand your view here. This guy is a lawyer, and the Dems want access to memoranda passed between him and his client (the US gov't). Think about how you would feel if you were his client. The opposition wants access to messages sent between you and your lawyer (this information is privileged, btw). You can tell your lawyer that you are guilty as sin, and he still has to represent you. The senate has no right to this information. They are just using it as a stalling tactic. Sen. Frist has said that he will keep bringing this up for a vote until Estrada is confirmed. We shall see how it plays out in real life.
it goes both ways. democrats doing it now, republicans did it a lot during clinton's tenure as well.
that's just how our government works. to me, it should signal to bush to try to find a more agreeable candidate.
that's just how our government works. to me, it should signal to bush to try to find a more agreeable candidate.
No, no, no.
Question: Can you talk about a Supreme Court decision that you don't agree with?
Estrada: No.
Forget the memos, this is a matter of record. Estrada has been grooming himself as a stealth candidate since the day he set foot in this country, failing to take a public position on any issue of consequence. But the politicians in both parties know better, they know he takes the term conservavtive to new depths and will legislate this rigid ideology from the bench. And Federal Court is no place for rigid idealogues, whether they are liberal or conservative.
AAjax
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2001
- 3,798
- 0
- 0
Actually I think this is the first time ever this tactic has been used to block a supreme court nomination. Almost every legal/law association in America is against him releasing his privat correspondence as a matter of law. I dont think this nomination is going to go away.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter