Estrada update

Some steam is building behind the Estrada nomination as big-guns Robert Novak and George Will both weigh in with columns this morning. Novak, in an apparent scoop, reveals what the Republicans and supporters of Miguel Estrada have suspected all along:

The Democratic filibuster against judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has little to do with the 41-year-old Honduran immigrant. It is part of a grand design to talk to death a succession of conservative judges selected by President Bush. Democrats are intent on keeping the Senate from voting on any appellate nominations that do not meet the party's specifications.
This extraordinary design, without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations, was launched Jan. 30 in the office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Present were Assistant Leader Harry Reid and six Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. With all pledged to secrecy, the fateful decision was made to filibuster Estrada's nomination.

At the Jan. 30 meeting in Daschle's office, the eight senators agreeing to filibuster the Estrada nomination did not discuss his merits or demerits as a nominee for the District of Columbia appeals court, second in importance only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather, the objections to Estrada were political and procedural. His confirmation, they agreed, would set a precedent that appellate nominees need not answer detailed questions and would make it hard to stop him as a possible future Supreme Court nominee. The senators talked about slowing down a Bush ''assembly line'' of conservative nominees and cited support from an energized Democratic base.

Emphasis added. Unbelievable. They “did not discuss his merits or demerits as a nominee” – they don’t care. All this nonsense about “not answering questions,” this obstructionism, this pettifoggery; Bush could have nominated Solomon to the D.C. court and they would have filibustered.

George Will, for his part, frames the issue as one of constitutional crisis:

If Senate rules, exploited by an anticonstitutional minority, are allowed to trump the Constitution's text and two centuries of practice, the Senate's power to consent to judicial nominations will have become a Senate right to require a 60-vote supermajority for confirmations. By thus nullifying the president's power to shape the judiciary, the Democratic Party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election.

Will also points out Senator Charles Schumer’s curious incuriosity towards Estrada’s opinions, despite his repeated demands the Estrada answer more questions:

Estrada, whose nomination has been pending for almost two years, and who has met privately with any senator who has asked to meet with him, answered more than 100 questions from the Judiciary Committee, an unusually large number. Only two of 10 committee Democrats exercised their right to submit written questions to Estrada for written answers. Schumer did not.

Of course he didn’t. As Novak’s insider information shows, it was never about Miguel Estrada’s fitness for the federal judiciary; it was always about setting up an unprecedented barrier to a President’s judicial nominees. In summary, I really couldn’t improve upon the final words from Will’s opinion piece.

Given the cynicism and intellectual poverty of the opposition to Estrada, if the Republican Senate leadership cannot bring his nomination to a vote, GOP "control" of the Senate will be risible.

And if the president does not wage a fierce, protracted and very public fight for his nominee, he will display insufficient seriousness about the oath he swore to defend the Constitution.

Both of these columns were found on the indispensible Real Clear Politics.