Should the Senate confirm Estrada?

Harry Reid

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 | 9:15 a.m.

By John Ensign

John Ensign, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nevada.

I always feel grateful when I see an individual who has, and can continue to have, a lucrative career in the private sector but decides instead to willingly forfeit the benefits of such a career to serve his community and his country.

So it is particularly disheartening when such a person falls victim to the sometimes nasty political process in Washington. Such is the case of Miguel Estrada, who has been nominated by President Bush for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Estrada embodies much of what is great about our country, having come to America as an immigrant from Honduras, speaking almost no English, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, and ascending to the highest levels of the legal profession. Miguel Estrada was handed nothing and achieved what he did through hard work, perseverance, a commitment to education, and a belief that America's opportunities were closed to no one willing to work for them.

Sadly, Mr. Estrada's accomplishments and desire to serve his country have not been enough to protect him from vociferous and partisan attacks with absolutely no foundation in fact. Senate Democrats have gone far beyond their bitter rhetoric and taken the highly unusual step of trying to derail Mr. Estrada's nomination through the use of a filibuster, which is a legislative tactic designed to keep the nomination from coming to a vote. A review of Mr. Estrada's career and qualifications shows clearly that his only crime is being the nominee of a Republican president.

Mr. Estrada himself is in no way a partisan advocate. He has served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He is enthusiastically supported by prominent Democrats, including top advisers to former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore.

The long list of Hispanic groups backing Miguel Estrada's nomination includes the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Latino Coalition, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses.

In Nevada alone, more than a dozen groups have stepped forward to support Mr. Estrada, including Fair Treatment for Immigrants, the Nevada Education Council, the Reno Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Brazilian American Association, the Salvadorian Foundation of Las Vegas, and the Colombian Club of Las Vegas.

Some Senate Democrats, however, cannot tolerate a nominee of President Bush no matter his character and qualifications and are willing to try to scuttle his nomination for the sole purpose of denying the president something they see as a political victory. What they fail to understand is that Miguel Estrada's appointment to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will be a victory for all of us because our judicial system will undoubtedly be strengthened by the judgment and wisdom that Mr. Estrada will provide.

Democrats complain loudly that Mr. Estrada has not provided enough information about his views on certain issues.

First of all, it is clearly improper for Mr. Estrada or any other judicial nominee to take a stance during the nomination process on issues he or she might have to rule on as a judge.

Secondly, the White House has offered to arrange question-and-answer sessions with Mr. Estrada on those inquiries that are proper and had only one senator accept that invitation.

I also find it ironic that some of those same Democrats who say they oppose Mr. Estrada because he has not provided enough information on his views also criticize him for being too conservative. You have to ask how they could arrive at such a judgment if, as they allege, they haven't received enough information on his views. It is an inconsistent argument, to say the least.

By orchestrating a filibuster and denying Miguel Estrada an up-or-down vote in the Senate, Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent that could poison the nomination process for years to come and offset the balance of powers in the federal government that our nation's founders intended.

Let us all hope that these short-sighted, mean-spirited, and misguided attempts will fail, and that Miguel Estrada, a fine American and fine judicial candidate, will be allowed to serve our country. The swearing in of Judge Estrada will affirm that hard work and a desire to better the American judicial system must prevail over empty rhetoric and petty politics.

By Harry Reid

Harry Reid, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Nevada. He also is the Senate's Assistant Democratic Leader.

The debate over Miguel Estrada's nomination to a lifetime seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has derailed into a false debate about race. What are the facts on this score?

Democrats who object to Mr. Estrada helped a Democratic president confirm 8 out of the 10 Hispanic judges now serving on our federal circuit courts. Republicans charging that Democrats are anti-Hispanic successfully blocked President Clinton's Hispanic nominees and have traditionally opposed policies that give a hand up to those who have historically suffered discrimination.

Those who play the race card deflect debate away from the real question: Should a man who refuses to answer questions in a job interview be rewarded with the job?

What if you were interviewing Miguel Estrada for a lifetime job? Imagine, for example, that Mr. Estrada is applying to be caretaker of your child. A service recommends him, you observe that he's well-educated and has experience in the field. Some former employers give him high marks. Others express serious concerns.

You interview Mr. Estrada. You're interested in his views on disciplining children. When you ask him, he says he has no views on the matter. But you know that the service recommending Mr. Estrada discusses the issue in depth with its candidates.

You ask him what type of caretaker he would emulate. He says he can't answer. He tells you he has no views about issues central to his life's work, but that he would take good care of your child. Would you hire him? Would you hire him if you couldn't fire him? Of course not.

When Mr. Estrada appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, these are the kinds of answers he gave Democratic senators. Some of his supervisors say Mr. Estrada is capable of being impartial. Others emphatically say he is not.

When asked his views on civil rights, women's rights, environmental protections, workers' rights, Mr. Estrada said he had no views. When asked which Supreme Court justice he would emulate, Mr. Estrada said he couldn't answer.

The service promoting Mr. Estrada -- the White House -- surely asked these questions before nominating him. To be sure, they got answers. When asked for writings which might reveal his views, Mr. Estrada and the White House have refused to provide them. Other nominees have answered similar questions. They have provided these same types of documents.

Mr. Estrada wouldn't answer the Senate's questions, but promised that he would faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Would you hire him for the job? Would you hire him if you couldn't fire him? Of course not.

Mr. Estrada is applying for a lifetime job on the federal court that defines the scope of civil rights, women's rights, environmental protections and workers' rights among other issues.

That court will determine the fate of Nevada's lawsuits challenging the president's Yucca Mountain proposal. I want to know if Mr. Estrada will bring an impartial eye to the Yucca cases and the other important cases he would judge. That's my constitutional duty.

A parent interviewing a caretaker would want to know that person's views before placing a child in his care. I want to know Mr. Estrada's views before entrusting him with the life-long job of interpreting the laws and constitutional protections that govern our lives and our children's lives.

Should a man who refuses to answer questions in a job interview be rewarded with the job? Of course not.

archive