The self-proclaimed "party of the people" has shown its true colors. The party that claims, time and time again, to champion the causes of women, minorities and "the oppressed" has revealed its true agenda.
For the Democrats, the nomination of Miguel Estrada proves that it's not enough to be a minority. It's not enough to overcome adversity and triumph through education and hard work. For the Democrats, you must be the "right kind" of minority to garner their support.
Miguel A. Estrada was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and immigrated to the United States with his family as a teenager. He attended Columbia College in New York and graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1983. Estrada received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1986 and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
With these sterling academic credentials in hand, Estrada served as a law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amalya Kearse of the Second Circuit. Estrada then clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
From 1990 until 1992, Miguel Estrada served as assistant U.S. attorney and deputy chief of the Appellate Section for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York.
During the Clinton administration, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an assistant to the solicitor general. Estrada is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. This court is widely believed to be the most influential circuit court and a stepping-stone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the control of the Democrats, the Senate Judiciary Committee let the Estrada nomination languish for more than a year and a half.
Only after the Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2002 elections and the Judiciary Committee fell under the chairmanship of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, did Estrada get his day. Estrada's nomination was passed out of the committee by a straight party-line vote.
Now Senate Democrats are moving to filibuster the Estrada nomination and set a dangerous precedent in the Senate. Never before has a circuit court nominee been filibustered. By proceeding with this course of action, the Democrats would effectively change the rules to require a super-majority of 60 votes for confirmation rather than a simple majority of 51 votes.
Three Senate Democrats have already said they will vote for Estrada: John B. Breaux of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia.
The reasons given by the Democrats in opposing Estrada are ominous and hypocritical.
First, the Democrats point to his lack of judicial experience. Estrada has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has been given a unanimous rating of "well qualified" to be a federal judge by the American Bar Association. A "well qualified" rating by the ABA has always been the gold standard used by Democrats to justify their support for a nominee.
The Democrats have argued that Estrada has not been forthcoming in releasing information on his legal opinions. Senate Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush requesting legal memos Estrada wrote while serving as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office. This request has been denied by the Department of Justice. More importantly, the request is opposed by the seven former solicitors general still living (four Democrats and three Republicans), who all deem the request as "inappropriate."
Perhaps most disturbing are accusations that Estrada is not "Hispanic enough" for the Democrats and certain special interest groups. In addressing questions posed to Estrada by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Texas Democrat Congressman Charlie Gonzalez was recently quoted in the Washington Times as saying that Estrada "hasn't involved himself in Hispanic organizations" or "paid attention to issues important to Hispanics."
Can someone please tell me what that has to do with being a judge?
Gonzalez went on to say that some of Estrada's answers did not "reflect that type of sensitivity and understanding that we believe would work in the interest of all minorities throughout this country, but especially the Latino community." Again, what does that have to do with being a judge? Isn't the role of a judge to interpret the Constitution and make rulings based on that interpretation?
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is made up of 20 House Democrats. These 20 Democrats unanimously oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada. The majority of the Senate Democrats, for dubious reasons, also oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada.
On the other side of the coin are organizations such as the Latino Coalition and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). These organizations, among many others, vigorously support the Estrada nomination and are currently employing full-scale lobbying efforts in Estrada's defense.
In other words, Hispanic advocacy groups support Estrada and Democrats oppose him. What type of message does this send to the largest minority group in the United States?
The message should ring loud and clear to not just Hispanics but all Americans. Miguel Estrada represents achievement on many levels: personal and academic as well as professional. Democrat opposition is based purely on politics and fear.
Americans of all races and ethnicities are smart enough to see what's happening. The Estrada nomination should not be shot down due to partisan politics. It's time for all of us to act. There is still time to let the Democrats in the Senate know how we feel.
When America speaks, the politicians listen. But the voice cannot be timid; it must reverberate through the Senate chamber.
Now is the time to let the Democrats know that to support a well-qualified judge means to support Estrada; to support achievement and accomplishment by a minority means to support Estrada; to support idealism over special interest groups means to support Estrada.
It's time for Americans to speak out. The Democrats will hopefully hear the message. If not, they will undoubtedly hear it at the ballot box in 2004.
