Okay so the deal with Estrada isn't that there's no way to determine how the guy feels about anything, because he's not providing any information about his record.
In fact, the root of the problem is that there's no way to determine much about him for sure, one way or the other. He has never served as a Judge anywhere else, so there's no way to judge him on past decisions. He's not a scholar so there are no academic writings from which his values can be derived.
He refused to provide the Senate with a single Supreme Court Decision he disagrees with, for instance. (Yes, in the entire history of the Supreme Court.)
There simply isn't enough information about the guy, and it appears that Estrada has been instructed by the Shrub Administration to not make any statements about anything -- even to the Senate attempting to evaluate him.
"He has refused to answer any basic questions. And he has no record...
The people deserve better," said Senator Tim Johnson (D- South Dakota)
"I hope that never again will we see this kind of stealth process."
Mr. Estrada by law cannot answer questions about cases which he may be faced with; nor can he be asked about any specific case by those who nominate him or those who are to approve his nomination. As for no judicial experience, look how many SUPREEM COURT justices had no experience as a judge before their confirmation. The democratic party is rewriting the constitution by this filabuster. They are saying that you will need 60 votes to get a judge approved. Disgraceful!!!!!
Posted by: CS on March 5, 2003 05:42 PMThis is just one more issue the American people can add to their list of grievances concerning the democratic party. And I imagine it wont be the last, but surely someday they'll wake up and see this behavior isn't winning American approval....or votes.
Posted by: Jill Callahan on March 25, 2003 07:05 PMThis is just one more issue the American people can add to their list of grievances concerning the democratic party. And I imagine it wont be the last, but surely someday they'll wake up and see this behavior isn't winning American approval....or votes.
Posted by: Jill Callahan on March 25, 2003 07:06 PMObviously the reason Dems oppose Estrada is not because they "don't know" anything about him, but because they know perfectly well that Estrada is a total right wing extremest.
I read about an interview a while ago (forgive me, but I don't remember the details, but it's in MHO's archives) after Estrada was seen lunching with Ann Coultier. Coultier was asked if she and Estrada were friends. She admitted they were long time friends. That alone speaks volumes. From her long relationship, Coultier was asked if she knew his political disposition or views on any issues. After several attempts to get Coultier to say anything at all about Estrada's views (it was apparent she had been coached before the interview), Coultier still said nothing. Out of exasperation, the interviewer asked one final question, to which Coultier said something to the effect that liberals should run for cover if Estrada were appointed.
As for the constitionality or morality of filibustering nominations -- if CS and others are concerned about this sort of thing, they really should take it up with the Republicans who mastered the art of blocking nominations in the Clinton era.
Payback's a bitch, aint it?
Posted by: Jason on April 2, 2003 07:58 PMThe Senate should check the Supreme Court Judges that have been labeled "liberal", after getting on the bench became "conservative".
Check the judges before confirmed were labeled "conservative" after seated on the bench became "liberal".
the senate does not have to approve all nominees. that is why they are there to consult and vote. checks and balances people. remember the constitution???? or is that just liberal myth too???
