This week, the United States Senate will take up the nomination of Miguel Estrada, who received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee in a vote split along party lines. The D.C. Circuit is the most powerful appeals court in the country. Only the United States Supreme Court holds more influence. It is crucial that all judicial nominees be carefully evaluated for the lifetime positions they are seeking. NAF is deeply concerned that Estrada passed out of committee without providing necessary information about his legal record or opinions, especially since Estrada has no judicial experience. NAF urges the Senate to vote against Estrada's nomination and to send the message that refusal to provide basic information to the Judiciary Committee will not be tolerated.
The prominence of the D.C. Circuit cannot be overstated. Its special jurisdiction extends over federal agencies and a wide range of issues and its decisions affect every citizen of this country. Additionally, the D.C. Circuit has been a stepping-stone for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Three justices currently sit on the Supreme Court who previously sat on the D.C. Circuit: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Close scrutiny of a nominee's record is critical before approving a lifetime nomination to this or any circuit court.
Estrada was deliberately evasive during his confirmation hearing, refusing to answer specific questions from Senators or provide legal memos written while he was an attorney at the United States Department of Justice. Wholly uncooperative, Estrada declined to share his philosophies or analysis on any number of issues, including a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion. On the issue of reproductive choice, Estrada stated that his personal views were private and that he was "unprepared to share or discuss" them. When Senator Feinstein asked him if he believed Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, Estrada stated that his "view of the judicial function" did not allow him to answer that question.
A colleague of Estrada's, former Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender, has stated that Estrada is "so ideologically driven that he couldn't be trusted to state the law in a fair, neutral way." That frank assessment, combined with Estrada's vague and equivocal responses to pointed questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, show the need for further investigation into the fitness of Estrada for the federal bench. His outright refusal to solidly support Roe, which after thirty years is solid Supreme Court precedent, leads NAF to question how he could objectively evaluate cases dealing with reproductive choice that would come before him as an appellate court judge. For these reasons, NAF urges the Senate to reject this incomplete process and vote against the confirmation of Estrada.
|
