Way to go idiots (Democrats). You just alienated Hispanics, one of your biggest voting blocks. Dumbasses.

Feh, I think most hispanics will be able to see that he was a strawman for the republicans.

Sad. Estrada was fully qualified, and a legitimate candidate. Fark the Democrats for their partisan politics.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

/give 'em more of what they gave us during the clinton years

Thank God he's out. Farking guy is a monster.

This was Ted Kennedy's way of standing up to Bush. He flat out told aides these filibusters were about brining attention to Democrats rather than stopping Estrada.

Then when Estrada backs out today, Ted Kennedy explains how ecstatic he is that he won, and then tries to blame this whole process on Bush.

I hate hard-ball hypocritical politicians.

Love the race card, Cons. Beautiful. That's why you don't get the hispanic vote, because you insist on compartmentalizing them as a demographic, not people. And as for Estrada, maybe next time he's in a job interview, he'll answer the interviewers questions. Works whern I interview.

most hispanics I know are republicans, I didnt' knwo they were supposed to be democrats... is that because they're supposed to be poor? I don't understand. Are minorites all democrats? doesn't make sense.

That's why you don't get the hispanic vote, because you insist on compartmentalizing them as a demographic, not people.

Ya...Democrats never do that with blacks.

I don't understand why this article doesn't mention that the Republicans did the same exact thing during the Clinton years.

Regardless, I think that both parties need to move away from appointing judicial nominees based on their fanaticism for their particular agendas. Rather, they should focus on putting excellent minds on the bench and filling those seats so that we will have a well-staffed, intelligent, Federal bench. This is just one of those things where the sides need to come to an agreement to try not to control politics from the bench, but instead do it from where they are supposed to, the House.

Gump - wrong. Republicans never filibustered a judicial appointment.

Waitaminute - If your potential employer demanded to know information never asked of any other candidate, you'd refuse too.

Yah, Estrada was a great candidate. He couldn't even comment on a single legal issue when questioned by the Senate. Or maybe I should say wouldn't, since his view of the Constitution was to tear it and the Bill of Rights to shreds. Oh yah, and shame on the Democrats for blocking his appointment and doing their job in protecting the public of the United States from a rogue jurist. As for stooping to the level of the people discussing the race card element. If having a hispanic judge is an important goal, then why wasn't he supported by hispanic groups? Because he wasn't worthy of the support.

I say good riddence

"Republicans never filibustered a judicial appointment"

Didnt't have to, they controlled the Senate. Hatch just held em up in committee.

A sad day for politics. Thank you very much Daschle and company!

Estrada speaks for all hispanics the way Louis Farrakhan speaks for all blacks and Pat Buchanan speaks for all whites, I doubt he will be missed by anyone except hard-line right-wingers.

The reason we have a shortage of federal judges now is because the republicans held up 2/3 of Clinton's nominees. When they get one drop of their own medicine, they biatch and moan. Yet another aspect of their asshatery.

This was the first time a judge of Estrada's level had been filibustered. The Republicans whimped out. It's time for them to grow some balls and make Ted Kennedy piss in a cup while he's in his 35th hour of a filibuster reading from the phone book.

forgive my poor-proof reading skills....

Hmm, since the only counties in Texas to vote for Bush were the border ones, iI guess most hispanics are democrats.

Estrada was a cipher. You do not get a judicial appointment by pleading the Fifth on your political positions. He filibustered himself.

Rockdrummer - then explain to me why we have so many openings on the federal bench? Believe me, it isn't just the Democrats. Both sides have been playing this game for years.


As for answering the questions, It's my opinion that questioning a judicial nominee on his opinions is directly contradictory to the idea of having an independant judiciary.

The problem though, at it's heart, is that both sides try to pack the bench with as many fanatics as the can because both the Supreme Court and our modern culture have placed so much policy making power on it.

Hmm, since the only counties in Texas to NOT vote for Bush were the border ones, I guess most hispanics are democrats.
Sorry for my previous post

Smegma - you're the idiot. Estrada's own people didn't like him. So much for alienating Hispanics, huh?

I love all this whining of you conservative asshats. Republicans blocked what... 50 Clinton nominations?

Now the Dems block ONE person because he refuses to answer any questions, and you have a hissy fit.

Yah, Estrada was a great candidate. He couldn't even comment on a single legal issue when questioned by the Senate. Or maybe I should say wouldn't, since his view of the Constitution was to tear it and the Bill of Rights to shreds.

Democrats weren't interested in his beliefs, these filibusters were all a game by Ted Kennedy & company. They wanted Estrada to answer a bunch of politically loaded questions, which they never required to any other candidate. Estrada decided to not play the political game, and stayed silent. Had Estrada answered these loaded questions well, Democrats would have continued to filibuster him on other political arguments.

Estrada was not even a Judge, and the pubs want to add him to the SCotUS? Are they crazy?

MrtuffPaws-

You are clearly insane.

Perhaps if Clinton wouldn't have nominated wackos who don't understand the Constitution, they wouldn't have been blocked. Is it the Republicans' fault Clinton didn't know how to nominate a judge.

Estrada, on the other hand was given the highest rating by the legal panel the Democrats themselves insist on using! So they ruined him for purely political reasons.

It's shameful.

The DNC is the party of the KKK, and this goes even furthur to show that.

The party elected to power controls the appointments. When the democrats were in control, that's the way they played the game. Now that the people have chosen a Republican majority, the dems want to change the rules and filibuster. The constitution only requires an up and down vote. This is just another instance of the democrats usurping the will of the people.

Gump:

Show me where he is a judge. AFAIK, he is a practicing lawyer.

Oh yeah, here is his bio:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/estradabio.htm

2003-09-04 07:43:44 PM ArmadilloTamer
The DNC is the party of the KKK, and this goes even furthur to show that.
I hate when people say that. The Democratic Party use to be states-rights, southern, racist, conservative, pro-business, anti-womens rights, etc. Now that would be the a slightly more extrem rupublican party. The dems are now big govt(not the best thing to be), coastal(northeast, and pacific), minorities, liberal, anti-big business, pro-womens rights, etc.

Helix400 - "Democrats weren't interested in his beliefs, these filibusters were all a game by Ted Kennedy & company."

So the question "Do you think Roe v. Wade was rightly or wrongly decided?" is now a political question? It has poliltical implications, but first and foremost it is a legal question. More to the point, it is basically, Was the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade sound. You can give a legal answer to that. It is asked in law schools around the country, I guarantee it. Yet Estrada couldn't answer the question

The Republicans thought they could get their fascist judges confirmed just by finding ones that happen to be minorities. Wrong! No more Clarence Thomases!

The question posed regarding "Roe v Wade" was more political than legal.

Why does this one question make or break him as a judge? The question was asked of politics, not of law...

I vote for Estrada being an asshat and Republicans being hypocritical for reasons others have already stated. The Dems have held up two of Bush's nominees. The Republicans held up dozens of Clintons.

Estrada has mainly worked as a lawyer, so he doesn't have a large body of judicial work to look at. Examining his fitness for the post is the responsible thing to do. He played the stonewalling game and lost.

On the other hand Estrada kissed me.

I can speak with some authority on this ... most Latins are conservative b/c most of them are Catholic. And that ideology ties in closer with the Republicans than the Democrats.


Also, in my opinion, Dems didn't bother with the Latin vote until their numbers began to eclipse Blacks. Republicans had already made inroads with them because it was easier (the whole Catholic/religious thing) Now they're scrambling.


There has already been a Latin supreme court justice from 193238. Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, this guy was a two for one deal, he was also JEWISH! Of Sephardic background, he was active in a number of Jewish movements. He was appointed by President Herbert Hoover to the Supreme Court to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Nice try playing the race card Republicans. This nut job was nominated solely to make the GOP look less white than it really is, but no one was fooled by it. We already got snookered by Clarence Thomas. Fortunately a lot of people learned from that snow job and didn't let it happen again. I'm sure it won't be long before the GOP tweaks its affirmative action program and tries again, but in the meantime this is a significant victory. A hundred years from now when people look back at how close this country came to the brink of disaster under our conservative uberlords they will thank the Democratic Senators who stood up against Bush & Co.

good riddance!

AcornMan it's assuming a lot that our country will still be here in fifty years!!!

ooops, that html exploded. Beggin' yer pardon....

I can't find a date stamp on this article (Jeez, Washington Times, even the podunk press dates their articles.), but Hispanics don't particularly care about Estrada.

We had the potential to have a judge who actually understands and defends the Constitution, so naturally the Democrats wanted him out.

Estrada was a knuckle dragging conservative thug. Hopefully Priscilla Owen and that jackass from Alabama will go his way too. Aside from those monsters, all of Bush's appointees have been confirmed.

I'm sorry, I don't care if the reincarnated spirit of Learned Hand is being nominated, you have to answer the damn questions.

Confirmation is not a right, it's a process and a consitutional duty of the Senate. You either let the Senate do their job or go home.

All Estrada had to do was answetr a few questions, get a negative reccomendation from the Dems and let the Senators decide, but the White House decided to play politics.

To hell with that and see ya later asshat.

Look, some of you need to do some fact checking:

1. Republicans have filibustered a Democratic judicial appiointement. When LBJ tried to elevate Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice, Republicans in the Senate filibustered.

2. Most hispanics do vote Democrat. Most polls put the ratio at 2-1 in favor of the Dems. Although Republicans try to delude themselves into thinking that just because Hispanics are largely Catholic means that they should be voting for the party that's against abortion and homosexuality. But the reason why this ingenious political strategy hasn't worked for the last 30 years is because most lower-to-middle class Catholics, regardless of their ethnic background, have bigger things to worry about than whether or not people they don't know have abortions or homosexual relations. Sure they might care, but it just isn't what they're thinking about when they pull the voting lever.

3. Miguel Estrada probably lied to Congress. This guy said that in his 30 years as a constitutional scholar and employee of the Solicitor General's office he never formed an opinion on abortion. Mullarky. He also said that there hasn't been a single Supreme Court ruling in the last 50 years that he found objectionable. Maybe this guy should develop an actual opinion of the Constitution before he sits on the bench.