Mr. Estrada's nomination in no way justifies a filibuster. The case against him is that he is a conservative who was publicly criticized by a former supervisor in the Office of the Solicitor General, where he once worked. He was not forthcoming with the committee in its efforts to discern his personal views on controversial issues -- as many nominees are not -- and the administration has (rightly) declined to provide copies of his confidential memos from his service in government. Having failed to assemble a plausible case against him, Democrats are now arguing that this failure is itself grounds for his rejection -- because it stems from his own and the administration's discourteous refusal to arm Democrats with examples of the extremism that would justify their opposition. Such circular logic should not stall Mr. Estrada's nomination any longer. It certainly doesn't warrant further escalating a war that long ago got out of hand.
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
The Washington Post comes out against filibustering Estrada's nomination. I say, if the Democrats want to filibuster - make them speak; don't let them simply threaten a filibuster. Make them go on TV stopping Senate business while they try to keep a qualified man from the bench simply because they think he's friends with conservatives.
Posted by Betsy Newmark at 6:30 AM