This is topic On The Nomination Of Miguel Estrada in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1123.html

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I found this article on the subject of Mr. Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit very interesting.

quote:
A defense of the Estrada filibuster

Estrada has some excellent qualifications. He graduated with honors from what many believe is the best law school in the country, Harvard. He served as a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice. And, as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office, he argued many cases before the Supreme Court.

Yet several advocacy groups - such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) - that generally support Latino nominees, have nevertheless opposed the confirmation of the Honduran-born Estrada. They have expressed deep reservations about whether he would be a fair and impartial judge.

-----

Under the Constitution, the Senate has the duty to provide "advice and consent" with respect to federal judicial nominees, and to ensure that, before confirmation, all nominees are fit to serve as judges. At a bare minimum, the Senate must be able to determine whether a nominee will be faithful to the Constitution itself. With Estrada, that can't happen given the current state of the record.

For most judicial nominees, the Senate can make this determination with relative ease - by reviewing the positions taken in the nominee's past writings as a judge, academic, or lawyer. But that is not the case with Estrada. He has not served as a judge, and has no academic writings. And his lawyerly writings are kept under lock and key - either in the Supreme Court building, or in the Solicitor General's office. In both places, Estrada very likely wrote numerous memos to his bosses making recommendations about how particular cases should be evaluated.

The Executive Branch, however, has declined to produce internal documents from Estrada's days in the Solicitor General's office. This is a defensible response in light of the fact that the U.S. government, like all clients, needs sound legal advice. Revealing such advice might chill attorneys in the Solicitor General's office from being full and frank in the future. Future S.G.'s Office lawyers might be loath to recommend politically unpopular but correct decisions by the Office - for they might be always calculating how their advice might play in some future confirmation hearing.

-----

Given the lack of a written record, Estrada had to carry a special burden in his confirmation hearings. He had to illuminate the Senate (and the public) as to his philosophies and beliefs about the Constitution. He had to draw a picture of the kind of judge he would be - how he would do something he'd never done before: decide constitutional cases.

Unfortunately, many found the picture Estrada drew unconvincing. Indeed, many observes, including some members of the Committee on the Judiciary, believed that Estrada was less than candid in his responses to questions in the confirmation hearings. For example, in a recent column for FindLaw, Edward Lazarus characterized as "almost laughable" Estrada's claim that he'd never considered whether Roe v. Wade had been correctly decided.

Abortion apparently was an issue hotly discussed among Supreme Court clerks, the very year that Lazarus and Estrada both clerked for the Court, so Lazarus has strong grounds for his opinion. And in any event, even if Estrada had somehow never considered Roe before, shouldn't the decision - one of the Supreme Court's very most important - have come to mind as he was preparing for his confirmation hearings?

If Estrada is not willing to talk about Roe, that's one thing - some nominees have taken the position that they cannot say much because it is unethical to bind themselves as to how they would decide future cases. If he's not willing to think about Roe, that's very much another. Do we really want a federal appeals judge who never gave a thought to Roe until he was actually sitting on the court?

-----

In the face of this stonewalling, a filibuster is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it's fitting. Using a procedural tool against a nominee who thwarts minimal confirmation procedures, is only right. If Estrada wants the Democrats to stop talking, he should offer to start. As a nominee, that's what's required of him.


 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
You think you've got problems with your judiciary? We have to put up with Lord Irvine (Lord Chancellor and Tony's mate). He has �5000 a roll wallpaper. At the taxpayers expense. And gets payed more than the PM. Efforts are being made to discover exactly which planet he does live on.
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
There are a couple of different issues here, but thankfully corruption isn't one of them.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
No, mostof what I hear focuses on whether Estrada's "hispanic enough" to be a judge.

These same organizations that are "opposing" him give no real reason for doing so, except the obvious one... he's a Conservative. Minorities aren't supposed to BE Conservative.

If these so-called members of the Judiciary Committee had a problem with him, one wonders why they approved him in the first place... his approval for a full Senate vote went through while the Democrats were still in charge of the JC.

Myself, I don't understand this grilling in the first place. Normally, judges aren't supposed to be biased on the bench, and their personal views are supposed to be irrelevant. And they certainly can't tell you how they're going to rule on any particular case. But these folk WANT to know what his personal beliefs are? They WANT to know in advance how he'll vote on a case that hasn't come up yet? Why? Certainly it won't make a difference, if he's a GOOD judge.

IMHO, he'd be a BAD judge, if he TOLD them.


The Democrats HAD their chance to block him in committee. On a committee THEY controlled. They did not. They APPROVED him. The time for second thoughts is OVER.

Or as a Democrat would say... "It's time to put this behind us and move on."
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
quote:
Myself, I don't understand this grilling in the first place. Normally, judges aren't supposed to be biased on the bench, and their personal views are supposed to be irrelevant. And they certainly can't tell you how they're going to rule on any particular case. But these folk WANT to know what his personal beliefs are? They WANT to know in advance how he'll vote on a case that hasn't come up yet? Why? Certainly it won't make a difference, if he's a GOOD judge.
You didn't even read the article did you.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Twice. It never did adequately explain the policy of questioning in this proccess.

quote:
Ideological litmus tests are concededly unfair, but it is also unfair for the Senate to know nothing of a nominee's true thinking with respect to constitutional law. It is crucially important to know who a nominee is and what he or she stands for before he or she confirmed to a lifetime job as a federal judge.

That's what the JC is there for. If they didn't like his answers, they shouldn't have approved him.

(Besides, isn't it fairly obvious where a Conservative would stand on upholding the Constition as written? This is disengenuous as well, and smacks of "politically correct" thought policing at its worst. What, do they expect to uncover a closet Monarchist this way, or something?)

quote:
He refused to answer reasonable questions from Senators; he refused even to bother to think about Roe.
If this were true (and there appears to be little corroborative evidence), then the JC shouldn't have approved him, if they were doing their jobs.. They did. The article utterly FAILS to explain why the JC approved him. If they were FORCED to by the process, that might be excusable, and I might approve of the currect actions... but no explanation is given, and I doubt very much you'd be able to get a Democrat who was on the Committee to give one either.

quote:
If he were confirmed to the Court of Appeals, would he similarly decline to think about cases that were not directly in front of him, no matter how significant they might be? A head-in-the-sand judge can't put the case in front of him in context, or see the big picture, and Estrada threatens to be just such a judge.

"Context?" "Big Picture?" Sound like buzzwords to me.

*Drops Constitution and books of US Law on desk*
That's all the "context" a judge needs.
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
quote:
...his approval for a full Senate vote went through while the Democrats were still in charge of the JC
When was that?

Your whole argument is based on the Judicial Commitee, but the Judicial Commitee doesn't actually confirm or reject anyone. The full Senate has to do that. So this whole argument about the Committee has nothing to do with anything.

quote:
Myself, I don't understand this grilling in the first place.
He going to be a Federal judge, appointed for life in a very important court. I hope he gets "grilled." Besides, Estrada has never been a judge, He has no written opinions that the Sentate can look at, so how else do we try and find out what his judicial temper will be like other than asking him questions. Questions that apparently didn't ask how he would have decided a case, rather questions that aksed if he'd even thought about a case.

Then there is this

quote:
If Estrada is not willing to talk about Roe, that's one thing - some nominees have taken the position that they cannot say much because it is unethical to bind themselves as to how they would decide future cases. If he's not willing to think about Roe, that's very much another. Do we really want a federal appeals judge who never gave a thought to Roe until he was actually sitting on the court?
that you ignore to go off in some ideological direction.

There is only one real issue of the article and that is the fact that Mr. Bush trying to appoint a person to the federal bench with no written judicial record who will apparently not answer questions. This denys the Senate its Constitutional role of advice and consent and as a result, Mr. Estrada should not be confirmed.

By the way, those books on U.S. law are the context that Mr. Estrada refused to talk about and the context that the article referred to.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Hey, guess what? I was WRONG!

Estrada was confirmed in the first Senate Judiciary Committee meeting AFTER the Republicans assumed control of the committee, on a 10-9 party-line vote.

He'd been stuck in committee since at least September, but that doesn't change the fact that I was WRONG.

Given that fact, I'm re-assessing my entire POV on this subject.
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I eagerly await the results of the re-assessment.
 
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
"Hey, guess what? I was WRONG!"

We're used to it.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Cartman: Spokesman for Ever-petty.
 
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Careful, now. Pompous gasbags have a nasty way of deflating.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
And yet you still post...
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Well, I don't think you're one to talk, mister self-masturbator.
 
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Can it be otherwise?
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I don't think so.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
There is mutual, though I guess that is sort of a misnomer, but it carries the meaning more than "mutual digital manipulation," I think.
 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Although people who aren't Tim are more likely to say that the other person "tossed me off". Maybe. I don't know what crazy colloquialisms you crazy Yanks with your crazy shoes use.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"Handjob".
 
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
quote:

Can it be otherwise?

Jeff probably has a machine made out of Legos!
[Wink]
 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3