As Congress returns from the President’s Day recess, the U.S. Senate will certainly set a precedent. Senators will be debating the confirmation of judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, who would be the first Hispanic to hold a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This court is generally considered the second-highest in the country.
The Democrat minority is threatening to filibuster to halt Estrada’s confirmation. He would be the first judicial nominee to receive a filibuster since 1968, and the first appellate court nominee to receive this treatment.
Not to be outdone by her Democratic colleagues, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) now vows to support a filibuster after supporting the judicial nominee only two months ago. During the last two weeks of her re-election campaign in December, Landrieu’s principal campaign committee ran ads on Hispanic radio in New Orleans touting her support for Estrada. New Orleans is home to the largest Honduran population outside Honduras, and minority support was considered key to the success of Landrieu’s campaign.
Using a Clintonian defense, Landrieu claims the ad was a misunderstanding. “Unfortunately, some of my supporters in the Hispanic community who helped us produce this commercial misinterpreted my neutrality as a statement of support,” Landrieu said in a statement.
Landrieu also told the Baton Rouge Advocate during the campaign that she was more vocal on the issue of minority judges than Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). Yet, Breaux has crossed party lines and announced his support of Estrada. Landrieu may talk more, but it seems Breaux’s actions drown out her words.
Many from the New Orleans Honduran community who voted for Landrieu are upset about her flip-flop. “That was an issue for me in deciding how to vote,” Oscar Avila, a Honduran activist, told the Wall Street Journal. “[It] led a lot of people here to vote for her. Now we feel betrayed.”
Landrieu’s changing position could point to a larger change in her political philosophy. Although she campaigned as a moderate, she is now siding with those on the left-wing of her party. Although she campaigned as a moderate or centrist candidate, it is apparent she is a liberal.
A more serious precedent may be set than Landrieu’s political flip-flop. If Estrada’s nomination is successfully thwarted by a Democratic filibuster, court vacancies will take years to fill due to a partisan nomination process.
Ironically, the party that supposedly champions minorities did not give Estrada a judicial committee hearing after Bush nominated him under the Democrat-controlled Senate. After Republicans regained control, they promptly gave him a hearing. The 10 Republicans voted to send the vote to the full Senate while the nine Democrat judiciary committee members voted no.
Although Estrada has received the American Bar Association’s highest rating and praise of former Republican and Democrat colleagues, Senate Democrats are opposing his nomination. They claim Estrada is an ultra-conservative ideologue the committee does know enough information about.
In response, Estrada supporters cited performance evaluations he received while working in the Justice Department under Clinton’s administration. “[He] states the operative facts and applicable law completely and persuasively … with concern for fairness, clarity, simplicity, and conciseness,” wrote Paul Bender, Estrada’s former Justice Department boss.
Unable to prove radical conservatism or find dirt in the existing information known about Estrada, Senate Democrats claimed they did not have enough information. But only two Democrats sent follow-up questions to Estrada.
The heart of the Democrat’s rejection lies in their fear of losing control of the last branch of government controlled by liberalism. The judicial branch has brought a social revolution on the country that never would have been approved in the legislature. They invalidated numerous state laws on school prayer, the regulation of obscenity, abortion and even attempted to change the pledge. Activist liberal judges tend to take on the roll of policymaker while conservative judges see their role as referees of a game who do not make the rules but they simply rule on them.
Republican presidents will appoint conservative judges, and Democratic presidents will appoint liberal judges. The Senate needs to vote on a nominee’s ability to judge fairly and effectively, not their political philosophy. If this line is crossed, partisan bickering will prevent our nation’s court system from effectively working.