Courts (Judicial Activism):
Miguel Estrada Deserves a Vote

view the .pdf | note: all footnotes are included within the .pdf

By Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst, NJ Family Policy Council

While most Americans are now occupied with the fact that our country is at war with Iraq, a “war of ideology” over judicial appointments continues in our U.S. Senate. While this may not seem to be an urgent issue to the average American, it is vitally important. Our lawmakers in the U.S. Senate must confirm judges to the bench who will interpret our existing law in their decision-making – not rewrite the law from the bench. Many Americans recognize that the judiciary branch has increasingly overstepped its bounds. One recent example that stunned the majority of citizens across the country was the when the ninth circuit court of appeals, recently declared that the phrase “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.

President Bush has nominated Miguel Estrada – “a man who believes that Congress should be understood by the words it uses in its statutes and that judges ought not to be about the business of implying causes of action that are not there, or reading into the Constitution rights that have not been created, or disregarding rights that have been specified” . Yet right now, Democrats in the Senate are engaged in an unprecedented blocking of this highly qualified nominee for the nation’s second highest court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Estrada has earned the American Bar Association’s highest rating, graduated with honors from Harvard Law, and has argued 15 cases before the supreme court, winning 10 of them. All of this opposition is being given to a now brilliant lawyer, who came to this country from Honduras as a teenager and could barely speak English. Miguel Estrada embodies everything that the American dream stands for. So why are the Democrats engaged in this “first of its kind in the history of our nation” filibuster, which is preventing a vote in the full Senate?

The fact is Estrada does not meet their liberal litmus test, and they are afraid he may eventually be nominated for the Supreme Court. They are of course entitled to express their opinion. However, our laws governing judicial appointments, as explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 76, say that the Senate’s Constitutional role of “advice and consent” extends only to keeping “unfit characters” off the bench. If Senate members disapprove, they are to express their disapproval in a full vote of the Senate .

By preventing an up or down vote in the full Senate, Democrats are not only engaged in subverting the constitutional process, they are also subverting our political system of checks and balances. When a president gets elected he earns the right to appoint

judges who he has confidence in. When that president is Democratic, he would tend to appoint judges who interpret the law in a liberal fashion. Likewise, a Republican president would appoint judges who would tend to be more conservative. This has historically been their prerogative. During President Clinton’s eight years, he appointed hundreds of liberal judges, two of which included judges who are now on the infamously liberal ninth circuit court. Now it should be President Bush’s turn.

The short and long of it is, it’s the American people who have been deprived of their ability to express their will, by this misbehavior of the Senate. We have selected a president, and we have selected the members of the Senate with our votes, but the majority will has not been allowed to be heard because a minority, in essence, is holding the process hostage. If you disagree with these tactics, please contact our U.S. Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg and express your opinion.

 

back...