community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
"The Point" Counterpoint
by Anthony
Thursday, Feb. 06, 2003 at 12:44 PM
anotaro@libcom.com
A rebuttal to a local conservative news editorial on the nomination of Miguel Estrada
Fox 53 WPGH regularly airs a conservative editorial feature called "The Point" with Mark Hyman. The following is a transcript of a recent segment on D.C. Circuit Court nominee Miguel Estrada and my rebuttals and their subsequent reply. Comments are preceded by asterisks.
***THE ORIGINAL SEGMENT TRANSCRIPT
PLAYING POLITICS IN COURT
He was a teenaged immigrant who spoke little English, but years later, after a successful law career Miguel Estrada was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The liberal American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating and non-partisan Hispanic groups have endorsed him. Yet, his nomination was blocked in the Senate for 18 months.
He was re-nominated last month, however, political groups have vowed to kill his nomination with Senate Democrats threatening to filibuster. The reason for opposition was best summed up by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a leading critic, who admitted his, �votes against judicial nominees are almost always driven by judicial ideology� and not based on the individual�s qualifications.
Our federal court system will continue to suffer as long as Schumer and his crowd play politics with judicial nominations.
That�s the Point.
Tell me what you think by filling out the form below.
I'm Mark Hyman.
**This form can be found here. The following was my response.***
Mr. Hyman,
If you expect people to believe that it is only the democrats that have political and ideological motives in mind when selecting judicial appointees then you have certainly missed the point. The flipside to Senator Schumer's comments are also certainly true insofar as the selection of judicial nominees are also almost always driven by judicial ideology.
I do not question Mr. Estrada's credentials. His ideology, however, must be questioned. It only stands to reason that the Bush administration would want to nominate someone who shares its views on critical political issues. This is the way that an administration's ideology can outlive the term of any one elected official. But what is Mr. Estrada's political ideology? Unfortunately this question is difficult to answer because so little of his views are evident in the public record. While this certainly makes him a convenient choice for those wishing to foster the illusion of an apolitical nominee, there are some things we do know of Mr. Estrada's record: such as his support for anti-loitering laws in private practice that many have deemed to be racist and an affront to civil liberties. You also fail to mention the fact that Mr. Estrada served as council to the Bush campaign during the legal battles following the presidential election.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that we know very little about Mr. Estrada's political and ideological affinities. Are we to assume that someone who stands to be appointed to one of the most influential judgeships in the nation, one which has historically been prerequisite to a seat on the United States Supreme Court, holds no opinions regarding the most politicized issues of our time?
Mr. Hyman, I applaud your call to depoliticize the judiciary branch of our nation's government, but the appointment of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals would not serve this end. It would only serve to perpetuate the ideology of the Bush administration.
Anthony Notaro
***I then received the following response:
Mr. Notaro,
Thank you for taking the time to offer your comments regarding judicial nominations. We appreciate your thoughts, however, it SHOULD NEVER be about a nominee's ideology. EVERYONE has an ideology and someone else will always diasagree with another's ideology. The operative question is how will a nominee apply the rule of law as a judge? If we argue over personal ideologies than not a single nominee would ever be confirmed as a judge.
The Point.
***To which I replied:
The question still remains: how would Mr. Estrada apply the rule of law as a judge? On what basis are we to make this evaluation? There is nothing to indicate his impartiality and objectivity on political issues. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has the power not only to apply the rule of law, but also to uphold or strike down current laws on the basis of what its judges determine to be these laws' constitutionality. These decisions would almost certainly be based upon that judge's ideological interpretation of the constitution. To deny this fact is unrealistic. Consider this: Given two potential judicial nominees with equal credentials and reputation, but widely divergent political ideologies, which would President Bush choose to nominate? Certainly he would choose the one whose political affiliations most closely resembled his own. Why should this be the case if political ideology has no effect on the execution of the nation's judiciary powers? The answer quite simply is that the idea of an apolitical judiciary system is a myth that has no reality in our nation. Would that this were not so, but unfortunately it is.
The solution of course is to appoint nominees that do not incite such ideological battles in the Congress, nominees who have displayed on public record their propensity to apply the rule of law with the utmost fairness and impartiality insofar as such objectivity might be humanly possible. Mr. Estrada has no such record and thus should not be confirmed to this very important position. The burden of proof lies with the President and with Mr. Estrada to demonstrate his ability to be a neutral and unbiased judge. It is my strong belief that they have failed to meet this requirement.
Anthony Notaro
For Mr. Notaro
by Lilly Tucker
Thursday, Feb. 13, 2003 at 5:56 PM
BRAVO!! Very well stated, and....to "the point!"
janet jackson
by concerned parent
Tuesday, Feb. 03, 2004 at 7:32 PM
In reference to Janet Jackson's half-time show: did any of the football fans consider that they were being used? Her brother is confronted with charges that if convicted will require jail time. Her actions causing football fans unrest takes away the attention from her brother's trial. This was done in our homes to our children on prime time sports, isn't this the same as contributing to the deliquency of a minor?
Only one thing is Demonstrated
by George K.
Friday, Feb. 06, 2004 at 1:13 PM
vine_swinger_chuckie@yahoo.com
On one thing is demonstrated by you, Mr. Notaro: that you are good at posing rhetorical questions, and you cannot provide solutions. Your solution, to find a nominee that has no ideology, is most unrealistic. Are you saying that the president should nominate a storybook character??
This nomination has demonstrated that the process is essentially "BROKEN"! The law is living and changing, as is the interpretation of the constitution, as it applies to the changing country (population, technology, demographics). Active/passive judges are a fact of life. The fact that the House of Representatives has found a way to filibuster in order to block a vote on the confirmation hearing is a subversion of the rules for nomination of a judge, and you know it. This is where the process is broken, as I have said. Presidents had been free to nominate judges and have them confirmed quickly. Now, with so much posturing due to this subversion, justice has actually been destroyed, because so many benches have been left unfilled over the past years, due to difficulty of confirmation. Many judges, even if approached, do not want themselves or their families under scrutiny for things which have absolutely NOTHING to do with their performance as judges.
Your contention is based solely on the fact that GWB nominated the man. In any other time, the "diversity" jackals would be cackling contentedly to have a hispanic nominated to a seat such as this. But a potentially conservative hispanic! Horrors! Another Clarence Thomas! Damn the role model he could be and get him out of here!
This man was fully qualified to sit on the bench he was nominated to, and the politics of the day destroyed that possibility. People like you, Mr. Notaro, filibustered with word that tugged at the fears of non-existant extremism. The only extremists that were observed in this situation were the people that blocked Mr. Estradas nomination. He was villified and discarded before he could ever be given a chance to perform.If a person, let alone a MINORITY, was treated in this way anywhere else, there would have been an uproar from the activist community and the ACLU, to name a few organizations.
It is people like you, Mr. Notaro, that are bogging down the justice system and rendering it inoperable for many people. It is people like you, Mr. Notaro, that are confusing the uneducated, and disinforming them about the workings of our government. It is people like you, Mr. Notaro, that practice hypocrisy, preaching diversity while pulling the bench out from underneath a fully hispanic judge.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)