Tell Senators: Filibuster the Estrada Nomination!

[Rick Munroe]

(I know I'm "just a whore" but I think this is important & urgent. The following is from an email I received from People for the American Way. At the very bottom of this post is a link to contact your Senators, if you choose to do so; I hope you will.)

 

"Silence is golden...at least to the Senate Judiciary Committee's 10 Republican members, who voted on Thursday to recommend the Senate confirmation of right-wing lawyer Miguel Estrada to a life-time seat on the federal bench. Because Estrada refused to answer important questions about his judicial philosophy and the Bush adminstration declined to release Justice Department memos written by Estrada, senators know little about this nominee. Estrada's nomination will be considered by the full Senate as early as February 4th.

 

"If Estrada is confirmed with these stealth tactics, President Bush and his Senate allies will no doubt take this same approach with other nominees, including appointments to the Supreme Court. We deserve better nominees from President Bush and truly thorough consideration from our senators. But we're not going to get it until we make our point loud and clear. There is no better Senate tactic for conveying "We've had it!" than the filibuster, the very opposite of silence. Democratic and moderate Republican senators must use it if President Bush is ever going to get the message. Here's what you need to do.

 

"What scant details are known about Estrada's views caused a diverse coalition of organizations and all nine Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to oppose his confirmation.

 

"We know President Bush's silent treatment on judicial nominees can be overcome. Before casting her 'no' vote in committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that on Wednesday her office received 3,300 phone calls opposing Estrada while logging just 5 calls in support. That's what we need in every state, in every Senate office. But we have just four days to do it.

 

"Whether by 51 senators or 41 senators (the number needed to keep a filibuster going), we cannot allow the Radical Right to transform the Senate's constitutional responsiblity of "advice and consent" into "just listen and rubberstamp." If the Senate abandons this principle, President Bush will have a free hand to appoint extremist judges eager to abandon hundreds of other fundamental constitutional rights and liberties."

 

Among the organizations opposed to Miguel Estrada's confirmation:

 

[ul][li]ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights

[li]AFL-CIO

[li]Alliance for Justice

[li]American Association of University Women

[li]Americans for Democratic Action

[li]Congressional Hispanic Caucus

[li]Congressional Black Caucus

[li]Earthjustice

[li]Feminist Majority

[li]Labor Council for Latin American Advancement

[li]Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

[li]Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

[li]Moveon.org

[li]National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

[li]NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

[li]NARAL Pro-Choice America

[li]National Council of Jewish Women

[li]National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

[li]National Fair Housing Alliance

[li]National Organization for Women

[li]National Partnership for Women and Families

[li]National Women's Law Center

[li]People For the American Way

[li]Planned Parenthood Federation of America

[li]Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund

[li]Sierra Club

[li]Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project

[li]United Auto Workers

[li]Working Assets[/ul]

 

(The following is part of a letter from the president of People for the American Way to the Senate Judiciary Committee which details Estrada's record: )

 

"As more than 200 law professors wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, 2001, no federal judicial nominee is presumptively entitled to confirmation. Federal judicial appointments are for life and significantly affect the rights of all Americans. This is especially true for the D.C. Circuit, which is the court of last resort in almost all cases concerning the important decisions of federal agencies with nationwide impact on employment, civil rights, communications, environment, and many other important matters. Because of these factors, and because of the Senate’s co-equal role with the President in the confirmation process, nominees must demonstrate that they meet appropriate criteria for confirmation. These criteria include having excellent professional qualifications and judicial temperament, an “open mind to decision-making,” and a “record of commitment to the progress made on civil rights, women’s rights, and individual liberties.”1

 

"Far from showing that he meets these important criteria, Mr. Estrada’s record raises extremely troubling concerns. Much of Mr. Estrada’s relatively short legal career has been in the Solicitor General’s office. Yet his direct supervisor in the Solicitor General’s office for several years, former Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender, has stated that Estrada is so “ideologically driven that he couldn’t be trusted to state the law in a fair, neutral way,” and that he is a “right-wing ideologue” with “an agenda that’s similar to Clarence Thomas’.” Los Angeles Times (April 11, 2002). While Mr. Bender has explained that Estrada was a “terrific oral advocate,” he concluded that Estrada “lacks the judgment” and is “too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge.” Newark Star-Ledger (Jan. 6, 2002); Washington Post (May 23, 2001).

 

"As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Estrada has expended significant time and effort in seeking to defend so-called anti-loitering statutes and ordinances, which have been demonstrated to disproportionately harm African-Americans and Latinos. Federal and state courts, including the Supreme Court, have invalidated a number of these provisions as violating the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including in several cases that Mr. Estrada has worked on. Indeed, the Supreme Court struck down such a provision in Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), despite arguments by Mr. Estrada to the contrary. In one case, Mr. Estrada went so far as to argue that the NAACP did not even have the standing to challenge such an ordinance because it was allegedly not relevant to the NAACP’s purpose in combating discrimination. The court squarely rejected that argument and struck down the statute. NAACP of Anne Arundel County v. City of Annapolis, 133 F.Supp.2d 795 (D.Md.2001). Mr. Estrada reportedly “offered to take the city’s case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, free of charge,” but the city reached a settlement after the court’s decision. Baltimore Sun (April 27, 2001).

 

"Even as he has argued against the First Amendment rights of individuals, however, Mr. Estrada has sought to use the First Amendment as a shield for a large company that had been found guilty of deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission. In Novartis Corp. v. FTC, 223 F.3d 783 (D.C.Cir. 2000), the FTC ordered the manufacturer of Doan’s Pills to undertake corrective advertising to help remedy deceptive ads that it had previously run concerning the product’s comparative effectiveness. Notwithstanding his efforts to limit individual First Amendment rights in cases like Annapolis, and despite the settled constitutional doctrine that commercial speech receives less constitutional protection than the non-commercial speech of individual citizens, Estrada argued that the corrective advertising remedy violated the First Amendment. The D.C. Circuit panel, including several judges appointed by Republican presidents, unanimously rejected this claim.

 

"Perhaps even more troubling, some of Mr. Estrada’s own comments about the issues raised by cases like Morales and Annapolis suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of or opposition to the role of the courts in reviewing legislative enactments and protecting individual rights. During a debate with Harvey Grossman of the Illinois ACLU on the subject during the National Public Radio program Justice Talking in 1999, Mr. Estrada made the following statement:

 

"'But I think that the important point here is what it is that we, as a people, are allowed to do. Mr. Grossman had his hearing in the City Council. He expressed his views. He told his neighbors this was a bad idea. They felt something else was needed. And one of the that[sic] things we do as a society by reason of being a democracy is that we vote on what we think is a good idea, see if it works, and if it doesn’t, then we can scrap it. But what we do not do is to take the person that lost all of his arguments in the debate and try to bring the courts to trump on his side. Transcript of Justice Talking (April 26, 1999)'

 

"This statement by Mr. Estrada betrays a fundamental misconception of the judiciary’s role in our democracy. It is, in fact, precisely when a legislature has used its power to violate the fundamental constitutional freedoms of the less powerful that judicial review becomes crucial. Americans are in fact “allowed” to take their cases to court and “trump” a city council or other legislature, even when it has previously rejected their arguments, in order to protect their constitutional rights. Mr. Estrada’s expressed view would mean that religious and racial minorities and others whose constitutional rights are threatened would have no recourse but to submit to the will of the majority. That view is antithetical to our Constitution and profoundly disturbing for a nominee to our federal courts.

 

"Questions have also been raised about Mr. Estrada’s understanding of the continuing problems of discrimination and his commitment to equal opportunity. As a former law clerk to Justice Kennedy, Mr. Estrada was interviewed in 1998 about the extremely small number of minority law clerks at the Supreme Court. Mr. Estrada reportedly dismissed the numbers, stating that “if there was some reason for underrepresentation, it would be something to look into,” but concluded that he did not “have any reason to think it’s anything other than a reflection of trends in society.” USA Today (March 13, 1998). Mr. Estrada’s statements suggest a troubling disregard or lack of awareness about the role of present and past discrimination in limiting the ability of minorities to obtain such important positions, including the role of the vestiges of past discrimination in creating and perpetuating “trends in society.” More recently, Mr. Estrada reportedly has “made no secret of his disdain for liberal Supreme Court rulings favoring criminal defendants and affirmative action.” Los Angeles Times (April 11, 2002). Mr. Estrada should be questioned closely about his views concerning the continuing effects of discrimination and concerning Supreme Court decisions that have approved affirmative action to help solve those problems.

 

"A recent news article has raised additional troubling questions relating to Mr. Estrada’s role in screening judicial clerkship candidates for Justice Kennedy. According to the article, one candidate stated that Estrada “asked me a lot of unfair, ideological questions” and “I felt I was being subjected to an ideological litmus test.” Another candidate reported that Estrada indicated that he was “screening out liberals” from clerking for Kennedy “because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.” J. Newfield, “The Right’s Judicial Juggernaut,” Nation (Oct. 7, 2002). Such use by Mr. Estrada of an “ideological litmus test”, if true, is extremely disturbing.

 

"The same article raises serious concerns about Mr. Estrada’s work on a case concerning the power of judges to impose huge contempt fines on parties without according them criminal due process protections. Estrada was reportedly the principal lawyer who worked on the federal government’s amicus curiae brief in United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994), which argued that $52 million in contempt fines against the union should be permitted to stand, even though the union was never allowed a jury trial on the facts. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument. According to the Nation article, “Estrada misrepresented the legal precedents to fit his anti-union bias.” J. Newfield, “The Right’s Judicial Juggernaut,” Nation (Oct. 7, 2002).

 

"We are also deeply troubled by the evaluation of Mr. Estrada’s nomination by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), which interviewed Mr. Estrada personally and has recently opposed Mr. Estrada’s confirmation. Among other issues, PRLDEF has raised serious concerns about Mr. Estrada’s judicial temperament, explaining that Mr. Estrada was “contentious, confrontational, aggressive, and even offensive” in his discussions with PRLDEF. PRLDEF Position Statement (September 17, 2002). Similar concerns have been raised by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is announcing today its opposition to the Estrada nomination. Washington Post (September 25, 2002). These evaluations by such respected organizations are entitled to great weight and are serious cause for concern.

 

"In short, the publicly available information raises serious questions and troubling concerns about the nomination of Mr. Estrada to a seat on this nation’s second most powerful court. We urge that the Committee thoroughly investigate and review each of the issues discussed above, as well as the concerns raised by others about Mr. Estrada’s nomination, at its upcoming hearing and in its continuing consideration of the nomination. The Committee should also continue to seek access to all relevant materials that can help provide insight into these matters. These serious concerns must be satisfactorily addressed before the Committee can vote on this important nomination."

 

(**Here's the link to contact your Senator; they provide a phone number to call, and/or you can use their form to send a free already-composed fax)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8147

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Blah blah blah.

 

We won.

 

You lost.

 

Get use to it.

 

There're plenty more where he came from.

 

Is ANYONE suppose to take that list of organizations seriously when it includes EARTHJUSTICE (based in OAKLAND)!

 

Judiciously yours,

 

FFF

[phage]

>Blah blah blah.

 

I would say the same to you. Your typical MO. Find one miniscule point to make fun of and then dismiss the rest.

 

You need to get used to the fact that the rest of us aren’t going to just roll over and let those wacky kids from the right do as they please. It’s called the loyal opposition and it brings BALANCE to the process. You like to glibly ignore the fact that “you” won due to a technical quirk in our election process and there wasn’t even a popular majority, let alone a clear mandate from the people that we need a major shift to the right.

 

I actually hope these kind of underhanded attempts to cram the right down our throats continue. The backlash will be a beautiful thing to see.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>It’s called the loyal opposition and

>it brings BALANCE to the process.

 

Give me a break. The Left is the last group that wants BALANCE. Let's take abortion for instance: since when has the Left EVER said, "Let's have a pro-life person appointed to the judiciary so we can have a balance for those who think it's fine to suck the brains out of a child while it's being born." What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

 

>You like to glibly ignore

>the fact that “you” won due to a technical quirk in our

>election process

 

A "technical quirk"? Oh yeah, that little quirk known as THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This is an example of the regard the Left has to the rule of law. They don't care what the law says, they care what they want.

 

 

>and there wasn’t even a popular majority,

 

Do I really need to give the Left a civics lesson? No president has EVER been elected because of a popular majority. It's called The Electoral College. If you don't like it, feel free to move to Saudia Arabia - maybe you'll like their political process better.

 

On a side note, Clinton NEVER received a majority - both times, more Americans voted AGAINST him than for him but you never heard any caterwauling from the Left about how Clinton wasn't a "majority" president or how he was elected because of a "technical quirk". More hypocrisy from the Left.

 

 

>I actually hope these kind of underhanded attempts to cram the

>right down our throats continue. The backlash will be a

>beautiful thing to see.

 

Right, "we" gained seats in both the Senate and the House - ouch! Now THAT was a backlash!

 

Smugly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>It’s called the loyal opposition and

>it brings BALANCE to the process.

 

Give me a break. The Left is the last group that wants BALANCE. Let's take abortion for instance: since when has the Left EVER said, "Let's have a pro-life person appointed to the judiciary so we can have a balance for those who think it's fine to suck the brains out of a child while it's being born." What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

 

>You like to glibly ignore

>the fact that “you” won due to a technical quirk in our

>election process

 

A "technical quirk"? Oh yeah, that little quirk known as THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This is an example of the regard the Left has to the rule of law. They don't care what the law says, they care what they want.

 

 

>and there wasn’t even a popular majority,

 

Do I really need to give the Left a civics lesson? No president has EVER been elected because of a popular majority. It's called The Electoral College. If you don't like it, feel free to move to Saudia Arabia - maybe you'll like their political process better.

 

On a side note, Clinton NEVER received a majority - both times, more Americans voted AGAINST him than for him but you never heard any caterwauling from the Left about how Clinton wasn't a "majority" president or how he was elected because of a "technical quirk". More hypocrisy from the Left.

 

 

>I actually hope these kind of underhanded attempts to cram the

>right down our throats continue. The backlash will be a

>beautiful thing to see.

 

Right, "we" gained seats in both the Senate and the House - ouch! Now THAT was a backlash!

 

Smugly yours,

 

FFF

[Donnie]

>Get use to it.

 

Actually, the expression is "get used to it." It's just like when people write "would of" instead of "would have". A typical mistake made by the ignorant. But don't worry, it doesn't weaken your "argument". You still come off looking like the self-hating moron you are, regardless.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>The Left is the last group that wants

>BALANCE. Let's take abortion for instance: since when has the

>Left EVER said, "Let's have a pro-life person appointed to the

>judiciary so we can have a balance for those who think it's

>fine to suck the brains out of a child while it's being born."

 

Don't look now, but what brings balance to the process is if the opposition fights for its own positions. It's not going to be very balanced at all if both the left and the right are supporting right-wing nominations.

 

>A "technical quirk"? Oh yeah, that little quirk known as THE

>CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

No, the technical quirk would be the various ballot screw-ups in Florida. Even if you support the Supremes' ruling (which was not based on constitutional reasoning but on its assessment that there just wasn't time to do a real recount; and don't forget that they actually went out of their way to say their ruling wasn't a precedent!), you can't deny that problems at the polls delivered Bush

his Florida electoral college votes. Even Pat Buchanan acknowledges

that he got a lot of votes he shouldn't have.

 

>No president has EVER been elected because of a popular majority.

>It's called The Electoral College.

 

Yes, and the last time the electoral college went against the popular

vote the wheeling and dealing necessary to get Hayes his votes resulted in an end to Reconstruction and launched the Jim Crow era. What a shining moment for the republic.

 

>If you don't like it, feel

>free to move to Saudia Arabia - maybe you'll like their

>political process better.

 

Who knew the Saudis elected their leaders by popular majority? Sounds like it's the right that needs that civics lesson.

 

>On a side note, Clinton NEVER received a majority - both

>times, more Americans voted AGAINST him than for him but you

>never heard any caterwauling from the Left about how Clinton

>wasn't a "majority" president or how he was elected because of

>a "technical quirk".

 

He did, however, receive more votes than any other candidate that year, as did Al Gore in 2000.

[Guest feisty1]

>Give me a break. The Left is the last group that wants

>BALANCE. Let's take abortion for instance: since when has the

>Left EVER said, "Let's have a pro-life person appointed to the

>judiciary so we can have a balance for those who think it's

>fine to suck the brains out of a child while it's being born."

>What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

The whole idea of specific issue "litmus tests" (such as what a potential judge's views on abortion are) is irresponsible and damaging the judicial system in the U.S. You're certainly right that Democratic congressmen are guilty of this, and of course the whole issue apparatus of the liberal agitprop organizations are behind it. However, it was the Republicans and especially the right-wing think-tanks (I know! An oxymoron -- "right-wing think!" hahahaha) and religious right that started the whole process under the Reagan adminstration. And on balance, Clinton's appointees to the Supreme Court were far more centrist than Reagan's or Bush's. Scalia is a downright fanatic and gets my vote for the most dangerous man in America. The issue here is not that Estrada is anti-abortion or Federalist or whatever, it's that nobody knows what his judicial philosophy is, not even the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who approved his nomination. I don't expect my elected representatives to give anyone a blank check, no matter who the President or who the nominee, but that is exactly what Jr. and Estrada are demanding.

 

>On a side note, Clinton NEVER received a majority - both

>times, more Americans voted AGAINST him than for him but you

>never heard any caterwauling from the Left about how Clinton

>wasn't a "majority" president or how he was elected because of

>a "technical quirk". More hypocrisy from the Left.

 

Clinton won the popular vote, as did almost every President before him. Jr. did not. Gore won the popular vote in 2000; that, along with the unusual circumstances under which the Supreme Court intervened, is the source of the resentment. And I heard lots of talk among Democrats (and what could only be described as screams of bloody murder among Republicans) during the Clinton administration mindful of the fact that there was no majority in America (nor is there now, for that matter). Perhaps you were screaming too loud to hear it for yourself.

 

--Michael

<N.P. : "The Winner Takes It All" - ABBA>

[phage]

>>I actually hope these kind of underhanded attempts to cram

>the right down our throats continue. The backlash will be a

>>beautiful thing to see.

>

>Right, "we" gained seats in both the Senate and the House -

>ouch! Now THAT was a backlash!

 

At least try to read before pounding out heartfelt responses. Notice the tense – future, dude, future – as in “will be”. It’s only been a few months since the GOP gained those seats and started acting like they now have the power to push a mandate that I don’t believe they were given.

 

Most people are not right-wing whack jobs like you or bleeding-heart liberals like me – they’re somewhere in the middle. Every push from the right will alienate a few more in the middle and it’s just a matter of time before the pendulum swings back. (And I hope it’s one of those big sharp ones, like in a Vincent Price movie, and it cuts off a few heads in the process.)

[taylorky]

hmmmmmmmmmmm a right winger that pays money to suck boys dicks..........i bet bob jones and your other right wing buddies would love to have you at the dinner table........oh shit thats right, they would'nt even allow a fruit in the house at all... no matter how much he kisses their ass.............would they? keep your tounge up the massas ass uncle brucie. maybe someday he might let you come in the front door of the big house...............taylorky@16:26-02/01/03

[Guest Tomcal_]

I have a question, I am not stating what i believe or whose arguments here make the most sense, but what i would like to ask is in regards to this quote: " Even Pat Buchanan acknowledges

that he got a lot of votes he shouldn't have." Why is it that everyone assumes the only voters in Florida who couldn't understand the ballot where Demorcrats(and some of Buchanan's supporters)? If the ballot truely was that confusing, wouldn't it work both ways for people voting for the wrong candidate, Republican and Democrat alike?

I remember seeing the ballot displayed on the front page of the L.A. Times and thinking, if the voter couldn't figure this out, they had no business voting, they were really ignorant! So are we saying that the Democrats in Palm Beach County just are not as intelligent as the Republicans there? Otherwise, as many Republicans would have voted for the wrong candidate just like the Democrats and it would have equalized each other.

[Guest Bitchboy]

The way I remember it, the elderly were the ones who apparently found the ballots so confusing. Many of these elderly, worried about Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid issues, say they intended to vote for Gore, whose stand on the issues made them feel more comfortable. I don't think elderly is synonymous with stupid, but poor eyesight and a lack of coordination apparently confused them. I suppose elderly Republicans could have made the same mistakes, but I guess the question would have to be: were there more Republican or Democratic senior citizens in the counties where the butterfly ballot was employed?

[Rick Munroe]

>The issue here is not that Estrada is

>anti-abortion or Federalist or whatever, it's that nobody

>knows what his judicial philosophy is, not even the

>Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who approved his

>nomination. I don't expect my elected representatives to give

>anyone a blank check, no matter who the President or who the

>nominee, but that is exactly what Jr. and Estrada are

>demanding.

 

Exactly. I thought that was clear in my post but as usual, some people only see what they want to see.

[tedbear]

Anyone else having trouble getting the automatic fax to work. I fill out all the forms, but when I as it to send, I get an error message that there are problems with the following areas, but the message ends there and doesn't show any "following areas".

 

(I'm paraphrasing, but that's the jest of the message)

[VaHawk]

I thought at the very least they let in passion fruits, spank the monkey paws, cumsquats, raisings, cherries, blewberries, boysberries, peecans and cockanuts(nothing sweeter than a cockanut milk shake!) http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/contrib/blackeye/evil_laughterpurple.gif I guess you have to take a gay Republican "tongue in cheek"? http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/cwm/3dlil/laff.gif

[Rick Munroe]

Hey Ted, I just did it again just to check & it worked fine for me. Try it again; or maybe the link for your state was corrupted (how ironic to use that word in a political-flavored post). Or try the phone number (202-224-3121). And thanks.

[VaHawk]

I sent a fax successfully to John Warner from Virginia, after all he was married to Elizabeth Taylor no less, although being a Republican, I have never voted for him and never will. It worked fine for me, buy my question is this: why only one senator and not both, as I would truly love!!! to express my opinion to the "esteemable" George Allen, Jr.!!!!

[Rick Munroe]

Check again. Mine had separate links for both NY Senators. I'm sure each state must have the same format.

[VaHawk]

I was able to send to Mr. Allen and did so, it just took a lot of guess clicking. Keep up the good fight!