Estrada update

Juan Non-Volokh has a brief summary of the Senate filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas when he was tapped to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Fortas filibuster has been cited as the precedent to block Miguel Estrada from the D.C. Court of Appeals. Non-Volokh thinks the comparison is a poor one:

It seems to me there are important differences between the Fortas nomination fight and that of Estrada. First, the stakes were higher as Fortas was nominated to the Supreme Court. Second, there were specific and credible allegations of impropriety against Fortas. On the other hand, the explicit basis for the Estrada filibuster -- the need for more information about his views -- is disingenuous on its face, as this letter by White House counsel Al Gonzales makes clear. If Senate Democrats wanted more information, they would have posed more questions to Estrada and those that have seen the disputed memoranda from the Solicitor General's office.

He also notes that the Fortas filibuster was bipartisan whereas the Estrada filibuster entails one political party specifically blocking a President's nominee for the federal court. Oh well… Constitution Shmonstitution!

(I think my spell-checker just imploded with that last one)