But they found a way to block his path anyway. They complained that Estrada was evasive during hearings last fall and, looking for evidence of his right-wing views, demanded internal memos from his days at the Justice Department (the administration has refused to hand them over). Last week his nomination remained bogged down in the Senate–where, for the second time, Republicans failed to muster the votes to advance it.
Estrada’s trial by fire is becoming an increasingly familiar drama in Washington. Ever since the contentious hearings over conservative Judge Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination in 1987, senators have engaged in a quiet game of retribution over judicial candidates. The Senate is supposed to offer “advice and consent” in the president’s selection of federal judges. But over the years, the two parties have blamed each other for trying to pack the courts with ideologues–and both have done their share of foot-dragging to slow the process. This time, Democrats oppose Estrada not because they disagree with him on the issues, but because they don’t have enough information to know what he believes. They worry that if he’s confirmed he could be another “stealth nominee” who, like Clarence Thomas, could make an appealing pick for the Supreme Court.
Although it takes only a simple majority to confirm a nominee, quirky rules allow senators to stall the process unless there are 60 votes to shut off debate. Last month Democrats launched a filibuster against Estrada–but it’s hardly the 24/7 talkathon out of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” In today’s low-profile drama, senators pause for other business. Though the battle has been overshadowed by the brewing war with Iraq, it has sent the normally collegial Senate into partisan bickering. “I don’t think there’s any question the Senate is broken,” says Judiciary chairman Orrin Hatch.
Both parties hope the standoff will galvanize their political base. The White House wants to use it in the ground war of the 2004 campaign. GOP strategists concede that, so far, most voters don’t even know who Miguel Estrada is. But they hope to portray Democrats as anti-Hispanic obstructionists. “I’m not saying it’ll be a top-tier issue, but if we run an ad campaign we can get people fired up,” says GOP consultant Charlie Black. One likely battleground: Florida, where the White House is encouraging Housing Secretary Mel Martinez to run for the Senate seat now occupied by Democratic presidential hopeful (and filibuster supporter) Bob Graham.
Democrats bristle at the idea that they’re anti-Hispanic. “What idiocy,” says Texas Rep. Charlie Gonzales, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which, along with a number of Latino legal and activist groups, have lined up against Estrada. He says his constituents care more about Iraq, prescription-drug coverage and immigration.
Last week Bush asked the Senate to outlaw filibusters on nominees and hold “timely” votes on his judicial picks. A few senators are quietly trying to find an endgame. Hatch, who predicts Estrada will eventually be confirmed, also hints he has “procedural ways” to end the filibuster. But with more controversial nominees in the pipeline–Bush resubmitted nominations for Priscilla Owen and Charles Pickering, both rejected by Democrats last fall–tension is only likely to rise. If the fight is this heated over an appellate judge, Bush can only imagine the battle he’ll face if he tries to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
