Estrada Nomination Withdrawn

[JB]

Yesterday morning, Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination. He said that the process he's had to endure has put him and his family under to much pressure. This is the first time in history that a judicial nominee was defeated by fillibuster. Thanks to the obstructionist Senate Democrats, the American people have been cheated out a man that would have been a fine judge. Let us remember this in 2004!!

[BrickCop]

I blame Bush too, he should have fought alot harder for him. He gave him some lip service that's about it IMO.

The Republicans should remember this if/when a Dem president ever nominates a Liberal judge. I don't remember them filibustering Clinton's nomination of the ultra-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[retired]

Quite frankly, I wasn't that impressed with Estrada, and the White House refused to release the motions he had written for the WH. He has never served in a judgeship before, and while I usually suport conservative candidates, the courts need to have a balance with conservatives, liberals, and middle of the roaders. We need balance.

[DaveInTx]

Originally posted by retired
...the courts need to have a balance with conservatives, liberals, and middle of the roaders. We need balance.
Sorry, I have to disagree. I would agree if liberals, especially, and the others, too, actually paid attention to the Constitution; unfortunately, virtually NO liberals appear to even know what the Constitution says, much less pay any attention to it. The conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders also suffer from this malady, but to a lesser extent. My point is: we do not need balance--we need judges that will follow the Constitution every time; if they do that, their political leanings are unimportant.

DaveInTx

[retired]

Dave,

You are correct in that none of the political philosophies seem to follow the constitution, thus my humble opinion that we need a balance in order to not allow one philosphy to control the court.

[Watchman]

Retired,

You know that we havent had a "balance" in years.

It is my opinion that any judge that dosent follow the Constitution, or if he refuses to do so, he ought to be found quilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.

Liberals are killing this country.

[JB]

Retired,

When a federal judge rules the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional, I would say that that's an indicator we need some more concervative judges to, as you say, have a balance.

Also, in regards to Mr. Estrada having never served in a judgeship before, remember that Supreame Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as five of the eight sitting judges on the D.C. Circuit did not have prior judicial experience before their appointments. In light of what you said, do you think these other judges have no business holding their positions?

[retired]

Originally posted by JB
Retired,

When a federal judge rules the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional, I would say that that's an indicator we need some more concervative judges to, as you say, have a balance.

Also, in regards to Mr. Estrada having never served in a judgeship before, remember that Supreame Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as five of the eight sitting judges on the D.C. Circuit did not have prior judicial experience before their appointments. In light of what you said, do you think these other judges have no business holding their positions?

JB,

The 9th Circuit court of appeals did not rule that the Pledge was unconstitutional. They ruled that the phrase "Under God' violated the establishment clause.

The only member of the current SC who has never served as a judgebefore his appoointment is Rehnqist. All of the others were judges before their appointments. Where did you get your information that eight of the siting judges didn't have prior judicial experience? Personally I would prefer that a person accepting a judgeship to the highest court in the land have prior jurist experience.