By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
February 14, 2003
Amidst a high terror alert, nuclear, biological and chemical threats from Iraq and North Korea, discord at the United Nations and NATO with traditional allies and a roller-coaster stock market, it seems that the Senate Democrats have decided now is the time try to seize control of the U.S. government by launching the first filibuster in American history to block a President’s Circuit Court judge nominee. Democrats have blocked Miguel A. Estrada, the first Hispanic nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court since his nomination in May 2001.
What is THAT all about?
According the Senator Hillary Clinton the filibuster against Estrada is about the Senate being “faced with a nominee who has thus far refused to answer legitimate questions about what kind of a judge he would be, where he stands on the great issues of our time and of the past, what his positions are in thinking about these fundamental rights we cherish as Americans, whom he respects or admires on the judiciary already, or with whom he would compare and contrast himself. We cannot get answers to any of those questions.”
According to the House Hispanic Caucus, made up entirely of Democrats, they opposed him because “Mr. Estrada during his meeting with us, he has never provided any pro bono legal expertise to the Latino community or organizations. Nor has he ever joined, supported, volunteered for or participated in events of any organization dedicated to serving and advancing the Latino community.”
The House Hispanic Caucus opposes Estrada because he has not given them free legal advice? And Senator Clinton opposes him because he would not compare or contrast himself with other judges? Attorney General John Ashcroft points out: “Miguel also has the support of numerous Hispanic groups like the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the U.S.-Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and LULAC - the League of United Latin American Citizens - which called Miguel, quote, ‘truly one of the rising stars in the Hispanic community and a role model for our youth.’"
On the other hand, Senator John Edwards, a Democrat from North Carolina claims Estrada’s “refusal to answer reasonable questions during the confirmation process makes it impossible to examine his views of the law and determine whether his personal views would overrule law and legal precedent.”
Edwards than provided an example of Estrada not answering “reasonable questions.” It went like this:
Edwards: Are you a strict constructionist?
Estrada: I am a fair constructionist, I think.
Edwards: Do you consider yourself to be a strict constructionist?
Estrada: I consider myself to be a fair constructionist. I mean, that is today. I don't think that it should be the goal of our courts to be strict or lax. The goal of the courts is to get it right.
Edwards: I tried again. Let me ask the same question a little differently. The President gave a speech last night at a fundraiser and specifically referred to your nomination, among others. The President said, ‘For a stronger America, we need good judges. We need people who will not write the law from the bench, but people who’'--and I am quoting him now—‘strictly interpret the Constitution.’ Do you fall within the President's definition?
Estrada: I have not spoken with the President about this or any other subject. I don't know what he meant. If I had to take his text as a statute, I would want to know more about the circumstances in order to figure out whether I can answer your question.
Senator Edwards went on to note that Estrada had been asked, “Of the current members of the Supreme Court, who would you characterize as a strict constructionist? Who would you characterize as a fair constructionist?” Estrada replied, “ I would characterize each member of the current Court as a ‘fair constructionist.’''
According to Edwards, Estrada’s answer was a “no answer.” To most unbiased people, Estrada’s precise and very literal responses to Edwards’ questions would indicate a fine legal mind. To the Democrats it justifies the first major Senate filibuster since the Democrat filibuster to block the 1964 Civil Rights Bill that protected voting rights for blacks and the first filibuster in America’s history in opposition to a President’s choice for a federal judge.
According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch speaking in Executive Session on Wednesday, the Democrat filibuster involves pretty much the same issue. Hatch charged: “There is nothing more than prejudice going on here; nothing more than unfairness going on here; nothing more than a double standard going on here; nothing more than trying to trip up the President of the United States and make his life even more miserable than it is every day with North Korea, with Iraq, with all the other problems we have in this world, including France, Germany, and Belgium, which are acting disgracefully and deserve the condemnation of the world for their continuous disgraceful disruptions of the unity of our NATO allies and for their refusal to back Turkey, our ally …We are in the middle of a filibuster of a Federal judge, when the Constitution says we should give advice and consent, not advice and obstruction, not advice and a filibuster, not advice and unfairness.”
Hatch pointed to the unanimous high approval marks given Estrada by the American Bar Association and former solicitor generals of Democrat and Republican administrations: “To require a judge to state his views on legal questions or to discuss his past decisions before the committee would threaten the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the judicial system itself. It would also impinge on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of government as required by the Constitution.”
Hatch also said that former counsel to Presidents Clinton and Carter, Lloyd Cutter, “made it very clear” that judge nominees “should not be answering questions about how they might rule on given cases” and reminded Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton that their questions were a violation of Bar Association’s “Model Code of Judicial Conduct (that) also prohibits a nominee from discussing his personal views.”
What this is really all about is an effort by Democrats to reverse the 2000 and 2002 elections that they lost. Now a minority in the Senate once more, if the Democrats can block the President’s appointments and all legislation in the Senate, they can in effect seize control of America’s government and override the vote of the American people.
This is a clever, but very dangerous, attempt at a coup de e’tat to seize power at a time when war, terrorism, economic instability and major threats to the United Nations and NATO need to be addressed by responsible Senators.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com
Contact Your Senators
Links:
Biography of Miguel Estrada
Attorney General Ashcroft on Hispanics and Miguel Estrada
See February 12, 2003, Executive Session on Estrada filibuster.