Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Let’s finish the story:

Durbin and his colleagues did as they were instructed. But they had nothing with which to kill the nomination — no outrageous statement by Estrada, no ethical lapse, no nothing. What to do?

They brainstormed. Estrada had once worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Solicitor General, right? (Appointed under the first President Bush, Estrada stayed to serve several years under Clinton.) That office decides which cases the government will pursue in the Supreme Court, right? And that process involves confidential legal memoranda, right? Well, why don’t we suggest that there might be something damaging in those memos — we have no idea whether there is or not — and demand that they be made public?
Durbin and his colleagues knew the Bush Justice Department would insist the internal legal memos remain confidential, as they always had been. It wasn’t just the Bush Administration that thought releasing the documents was a terrible idea; all seven living former Solicitors General, Republican and Democrat, wrote a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy begging him to back off.

But the Democrats didn’t back off. They had a new, very serious question to ask: What is Miguel Estrada hiding?

The answer was nothing, of course. But the strategy worked. Democrats stonewalled Estrada’s nomination, and, after losing control of the Senate in 2002, they began an unprecedented round of filibusters to block an entire slate of Bush appeals-courts nominees, Estrada among them. The confirmation process ground to a halt. More than two years after his nomination was announced, Estrada, tired of what appeared to be an endless runaround, withdrew his name from consideration. Instead of being on the federal bench, he is now in private practice in Washington.

And that was how Democrats treated the last high-level Hispanic court nominee. Think about that when you watch their lovefest with Sonia Sotomayor.

Dems totally fabricated the case against Estrada and FILIBUSTERED him. And did they pay a political price for that obstruction? Apparently not as they retook control of Congress a few years later with the benefit of a massive outpouring of contributions from the far left groups whose orders they followed.

Again, I am not recommending a filibuster of Sotomayor, but I marvel at the GOP strategists who fear we will pay a price for opposing her. The GOP will pay a price if they do NOT oppose her.

My question is if the Republicans are powerless as the Democrats and the media wants us to believe, what do we got to loose by opposing Sotomayor? If the Latino vote is gone anyways amd the women will not vote for GOP candidates, let’s just filibuster Sotomayor.

” …but I marvel at the GOP strategists who fear we will pay a price for opposing her. The GOP will pay a price if they do NOT oppose her.”

AMEN! When will the GOP grow a pair and fight back? They should be on every talk show reminding everyone about what the Dems did to Estrada, and state their opposition will be fair and based on the facts, not her gender and ethnicity.

I am so sick of hearing wussy GOPers caving to left’s predictable name-calling tactics. When will they learn that we are going to get that even when we do what they want and apologize for existing? That whole McCain thing worked so well for us, didn’t it?

I too agree to filibuster. The republicans have nothing to lose by doing so. If the democraps did not lose any hispanic voters by filibustering Estrada, the republicans won’t gain any by approving her. If there are serious philosophical differences that come out at the hearings (assuming republicans are allowed to voice any objections or have enough time to research the candidate, i.e. she is not Nafta tracked for approval by Leahy’s politburo) then we must filibuster. Just whining and saying we’re in the minority what can we do, is not sufficient. The dems never care whether they are in the minority or not, if their precious anti american principles are at stake. Neither must we. If we have a valid pro american principled defense, we must take that to the limit.