Miguel Estrada

Why would anyone want someone who refuses to publically stand behind their principles for any elected office?

And for the effect on the Hispanic community:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62437-2002Sep24&notFound=true" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62437-2002Sep24&notFound=true</a>

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, composed entirely of House Democrats, plans to announce today that it opposes the nomination of Miguel Estrada to a federal appeals court, deepening an already wide partisan chasm over the nomination.

In a statement they will release today and in interviews, the caucus's 18 members portrayed Estrada as aloof from the everyday concerns of Latinos. Caucus Chairman Silvestre Reyes (Tex.) said the organization seeks Hispanic judicial nominees who have "demonstrated a commitment to protecting the rights of Latinos" in their professional work and volunteer activities, and who have worked to expand civil rights and economic opportunities for Latinos. "Mr. Estrada falls short on each of those matters," Reyes said.

The Estrada nomination received a second blow yesterday when the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund expressed "grave concerns" over whether Estrada would be a "fair and impartial jurist" on issues such as racial profiling. The group did not outright oppose Estrada, but said "the burden to address these concerns lies with the nominee."

Estrada seems pretty shadey but how I loath the fillibuster. It somehow doesn't seem very democratic to me.

It's the last defense against majority bullying as the Republicans are trying to pull off here.

The Democrats are not saying that they'll block him as a nominee at all costs. They simply would like some more info provided. How is that different from any job selection process where they call you in for multiple interviews with multiple interviewers?

Why just have him answer the questions and once he does so, he's in? At that point, the Democrats would have to allow him to at least be presented for a vote or else they'd be proven as scheming liars, and once up for a vote, the Republican majority would get him in there.

Are you saying you want the Dems to use affirmative action to let in a person based on their race, not their views?

I agree with what you're saying, if Estrada has nothing to hide, he should just answer the questions and get it over with. If the only time a fillibuster was used was for efforts such as these, I certainly wouldn't mind.

However, good legislation can also get lost by a group of congressmen with pockets getting fatter.

This nomination once again proves the Democrat's point that George Bush hates non-whites.

Yeah, Democrat's are just endlessly doing that.

Set up many other straw men lately?

Since Hispanic groups probably have as many differing opinions as any other collective, I would imagine this could hurt the Dems in some Hispanic groups and help them in others.

And if Clinton's Solicitor General approves someone, every Democrat must approve them...Because Clinton in every way and form represents each and every Democrat in our great nation.

To be fair and balanced its been ugly all around on these nominations for years. Reps and Dems really go for the jugular here. Its a part of the game. I don't know anything about Estrada and haven't followed this. Just glanced over it quickly but it seems to me Estrada shouldn't be ducking any questions. If he isn't than something should be done.

Crazy question: Why doesn't Estrada speak for himself and stand up for his personal beliefs?

I think that's explicitly cited in Chapter 4 of the Be A Man manual.

Yeah, I guess I'd rather hear someone stand by a stupid answer than avoid a question.

If you're referring to the release of his opinions when he aided the Solicitor General, that's a ludicrous demand that is unprecendented and opposed by ALL of the living former Solicitors General.

As for answering questions, its a moot point. We all know he's a conservative, that's why he's being nominated. He could sing like a choir boy and spell out every single position he has, and then the Democrats would just twist and pervert his stances like they have with all the other nominees.

Fact is the man is perfectly qualified with impeccable credentials. Democrats simply don't like his viewpoint and its an important court.

Filibuster to their hearts' content. Let them waste their vacation. Let the American public see them dragging out "the people's business" and continuing to villainize this innocent looking guy. They're playing a straight political game here, nothing more. I just don't think its going to work out very well for them.

Yeah, a democratic president wants to nominate a judge & you have no problems with just letting it go. You wouldn't want to know about how he leans on certain issues, you'd just trust the president.

Right.

Where did you get that from. I said everyone knows he's a conservative, that's why he was nominated. So complaining that he didn't spell every single concievable policy he has is just politics. Fact is, he's a conservative Latino which is almost as bad to liberals as a conservative African-American.

Democrats have a litmus test for all nominees now, and all the stellar qualifications don't matter at all unless you're gung-ho abortion. Funny how Republicans didn't hold Clinton's Supreme Court nominees to this same litmus test.

Not to mention the very fact that whatever Estrada's personal convictions his purpose is not to judge by his convictions but by law. He is actually adhering to the law in not stating his positions because he believes that they don't matter to the descisions of his job. He has to go by what the law says.

Have you EVER BEEN in this forum before? I have seen someone say that, in THIS forum, at least 4-5 times. "Another example of how Bush hates 'brown' people" I believe is the exact quote.

And no, the Republicans didn't go insane over Clinton's choices for the Supreme Court. But the SC is an entirely different animal than a Federal Appeals Judge. Supreme Court candidates should have to debate a little on their political views.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD AN APPEALS JUDGE HAVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS POLITICS??!?

He's a federal appeals judge for crissakes. They are very important figures, but in the LAW, not politics. If he gets nominated for the SC, fine, go nuts. But Jesus H...