Democrats Go To Washington

Faced with a lack of pertinent information and an uncooperative administration, Senate Democrats should not take their filibuster power lightly. They are right in their efforts to block the judicial nomination of Miguel A. Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and they should use every constitutional means necessary to do so.

The Senate should never confirm a lifetime judicial nomination without first having an idea of that person’s interpretation of the law. Estrada, a Honduras-born 1986 graduate of Harvard Law School (HLS), has never served as a judge, has not written any substantive articles or publications that demonstrate his philosophical leanings and has failed to express many of his views publicly. The Democrats have been denied access to Estrada’s legal memos, which he wrote as assistant solicitor general and offer his views on Supreme Court cases. And he has dodged even the most general questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. For example, he would not say with which Supreme Court opinions he disagreed. The D.C. circuit court is widely viewed as second only in importance to the Supreme Court, and it is questionable whether a person who is reluctant to express his views on past cases should be eligible for a lifetime appointment on a bench of such great influence.

Estrada’s refusal to make known his legal opinions also sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the legitimacy of the Senate’s constitutional role to advise and consent. If Estrada is confirmed, other staunch conservative candidates are likely to get through as well, helping President Bush in his efforts to pack courts with right-wing ideologues.

While increasing diversity on the bench is surely important, Estrada’s unwillingness to articulate his views on contentious political issues, and the administration’s refusal to release his memos, leaves the Senate incapable of weighing his qualifications and unable to deliberate. Even the Congressional Hispanic Caucus announced its opposition to his appointment—explaining that Estrada “fails to convince us that he would contribute under-represented perspectives to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” The Alliance for Justice, a private non-profit advocacy group whose mission for the last 20 years has been to uphold high standards for judicial nominees, has also expressed concern about the nomination.

Until Estrada and the administration agree to cooperate with the reasonable requests of senators, filibustering should remain a warranted means of objection.