Jewish World Review Feb. 25, 2003 / 23 Adar I, 5763

Terry Eastland

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason | Whatever you may think of the filibuster, Senate rules provide for it. Rule XXII permits senators to block a vote on a given measure, unless no fewer than 60 senators invoke cloture.

The filibuster thus requires a supermajority to get something done. That isn't what the Constitution envisions, nor the way business is done in the House. But the rule is there, and there have been and will be filibusters.

Of course, there is one right now, by Senate Democrats, against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Now in the minority and aware that at least 54 senators - the 51 Republicans plus at least three of their number - would vote for Mr. Estrada, Senate Democrats are clutching for such power as they might find in Rule XXII.

The question their filibuster raises is its justification, especially since, in the long history of the republic, the tactic never has been used against a circuit court nominee.

Indeed, not that long ago, leading Democrats explicitly opposed judicial filibusters. Here are some famous last words, uttered by Sen. Patrick Leahy in 1998: "I would object and fight against any filibuster of a judge, whether somebody I opposed or supported. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down."

The Democrats' stated reason for their filibuster is that Mr. Estrada, whose legal brilliance they don't dispute, has failed to provide enough information about his legal views. "If we get that information," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said earlier this month, "we will let every senator make his or her decision."

To "get that information," Mr. Daschle wants (1) President Bush to release memos written by Mr. Estrada when he served in the 1990s as a career attorney in the solicitor general's office and (2) Mr. Estrada to "answer questions he refused to answer during his [confirmation] hearing."

Mr. Daschle won't be given those memos. And for a reason that transcends partisanship: The confidentiality and integrity of internal deliberations by government litigators must be ensured. Every living former solicitor general - including four Democrats - signed a joint letter to the Senate making that compelling point.

Nor can it be seriously maintained that the memos would reveal Mr. Estrada as some right-wing ideologue out to twist the law. Consider the testimony of Seth Waxman, who served as solicitor general under Bill Clinton. In a letter supporting the nominee, Mr. Waxman says Mr. Estrada was "a model of professionalism and competence" during the time the two men worked together.

As for the request that Mr. Estrada answer questions he "refused to answer," the Democrats especially want Mr. Estrada to tell them his views of specific Supreme Court cases, such as Roe vs. Wade.

While emphasizing that, as a circuit court judge, he would be obligated to apply the Supreme Court's rulings, regardless of his views of them, Mr. Estrada declined to opine on whether a given decision like Roe was correctly decided or not. He explained it wouldn't be appropriate for him to offer a view on a case "without doing the intensive work that a judge hearing that case would have to undertake."

The weakness of the Democrats' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason. There can be little doubt that the filibuster is a tactic designed to influence the president's power to nominate circuit court judges and especially any Supreme Court justices. The Democrats want nominees they would describe as "moderate."

But the problem with using the filibuster against a circuit court nominee - for whatever reason - lies in the precedent it establishes. If Mr. Estrada is denied a vote, Senate Republicans can be counted upon to remember how the feat was accomplished.

One must hope at least six more Democrats will find their way to the position Mr. Leahy once held. Judicial nominees shouldn't be subjected to filibusters. Each one deserves an up-or-down vote.

Appreciate this writer's work? Why not sign-up for JWR's daily update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.

02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less

© 2002, Terry Eastland