BR'ER DASCHLE AND THE TAR BABY:

Democrats Split on Plan to Block Bush Nominee: Senators Weigh Risks of Filibuster (Helen Dewar, February 9, 2003, Washington Post)

With all 51 Republicans and at least three Democrats supporting him, Estrada would clearly win a simple majority vote. But 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster, and Democrats would need 41 of their 49-member caucus to keep it going -- which one Democratic leader said is possible but not likely.

Politically at least, there are risks regardless of which course the Democrats take.

If they back off a fight that they have elevated to an important test of constitutional rights and duties, they are liable to be accused by liberal loyalists, part of their core constituency, of political cowardice.

If they block Estrada, they will almost certainly be accused by Republicans of "obstructionism" in an echo of charges raised in last year's campaign, which resulted in the GOP takeover of the Senate. Republicans, eager to renew the charge, accused Democrats of threatening a filibuster before they even took up the question.

"It's always politically risky when you stick your neck out . . . but failure to act has consequences as well," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who voted against Estrada's nomination as a member of the Judiciary Committee and advocates a filibuster now that the nomination is before the Senate.

The question "gives people a nervous stomach," said Sen. John Breaux (La.), one of three Democratic senators who support Estrada and oppose a filibuster. "The filibuster is the only weapon we have, and it's got to involve something people understand . . . not just lawyer-speak," he added.

The biggest problem for Democrats is that while the reason for their filibuster is abortion, they can't say that, so their argument is legalese, whereas the GOP will just say that the Democrats are blocking him because he's Hispanic. That latter narrative line is much, much cleaner.

Nor do Democrats stand to fare any better strategically. If they go through with this they have to win or look impotent. But winning means taking out a Hispanic nominee who's on track to become a Supreme Court Justice. That has to have some effect among Latino voters. Moreover, having gone to the mattresses against Mr. Estrada, when George Bush just goes ahead and nominates someone equally conservative, but perhaps Anglo, can the Democrats muster 60 votes again, and what about the third and fourth nominees? And if the final result of their filibuster is that some conservative ofay ends up on the bench instead of Mr. Estrada then what was the point? Other than blocking a conservative Hispanic from eventually reaching the Supreme Court?

MORE:
Democrats on defense with Hispanics (Donald Lambro, 2/10/03, The Washington Times)

[T]here were growing complaints that Senate Democratic opposition to Mr. Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada to be the first Hispanic judge on the U.S. Appeals Court in the District is alienating Hispanic voters.

"It doesn't sit well among the majority of the [Hispanic] community. They ask what is it about him that's so extreme. That's where the Democrats fall down," said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. LULAC, the nation's largest Latino grass-roots organization, is supporting the Estrada nomination.

Mr. Wilkes said that if Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle decides to wage a filibuster to block a vote on the nomination, "I think it will hurt them. There is going to be that swing vote in the Hispanic community wondering what ... is going on."

"I don't think the party feels the Democrats are handling the Latino vote very well. They are fumbling. They have not had an adequate response to the Republicans. It's clear the Democratic Party is struggling," Mr. Wilkes said in an interview.

Other Hispanic and Latino leaders privately say that Senate Democrats are being pushed into opposing the conservative judicial nominee by the party's liberal constituencies, including feminist groups, pro-choice Democrats, and civil rights organizations such as the NAACP.

But other Democratic insiders who do not want to be identified say that Mr. Daschle and the Democratic National Committee have been getting complaints from some grass-roots Democrats that the party's opposition to Mr. Estrada is not playing well with many Hispanics in their states.

AN UGLY STALL (RUDOLPH GIULIANI, February 10, 2003, NY Post)

LET me share with you a great American success story.

A 17-year-old named Miguel Estrada immigrates to this country from Honduras, speaking only a few words of English. He attends Columbia College, making Phi Beta Kappa and graduating magna cum laude, then Harvard Law School, becoming editor of the Law Review.

Next, he serves as a clerk first to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amalya L. Kearse (a President Carter appointee), and then to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. From there, he joins the Solicitor General's Office, serving as assistant to the solicitor general of the United States for a year under President George H.W. Bush and for four years under President Clinton.

Then Estrada becomes a partner in a prestigious private law practice - yet finds the time to perform significant pro bono service, including some four hundred hours representing a death row inmate before the Supreme Court.

In recognition of his special abilities and achievements, President Bush nominates Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He is supported by no fewer than 16 Hispanic groups, who express enormous pride at the prospect of the first Hispanic joining one of America's most prestigious courts. Also supporting him are numerous prominent Democrats, including President Clinton's solicitor general and Vice President Gore's counselor and chief of Staff.

Sounds pretty good? Well, here's where this story runs the risk of a most unhappy - and unfair - ending.

For nearly two years, Senate Democrats have delayed action on the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 10, 2003 3:18 PM