I rise to share an observation made by my colleague on this side of the aisle--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch from Utah--that, like him, I believe there is a double standard. Last week, I came to the floor to urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Last week, I had my statement focused on the late Byron White, Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. During my comments, I pointed out that Justice White's judicial career began in a manner very similar to that of Miguel Estrada. Justice White was nominated by President John F. Kennedy when he was only 44 years old. He went on to serve his country for three decades, without having any judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court. And he did an exemplary job on the bench. Yet opponents of Miguel Estrada have pointed to his lack of judicial experience as the 'poison pill' to his nomination. This is an unacceptable double standard. This experience litmus test, as I call it, is nothing but an obstructionist argument that is intended to undermine the entire judicial nomination process. It is wreaking havoc with our constitutional duty to confirm the President's nominations. To say that Mr. Estrada, one of the best appellate court lawyers in the country, should not be confirmed because he lacks prior judicial experience is simply ridiculous.
Wayne Allard: “I rise to share an observation made by my colleague on this side of the aisle--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the confirmation of Miguel Estrada and criticizing perceived double standards in judicial nominations.
Share
More from Wayne Allard
here we go again. We all know the Senate has limited time left this year to debate important legislation. It is becoming more and more clear the Democratic leadership is staunchly opposed to doing anything that would alleviate the…
one of my goals for this debate is to fight what I see as an erosion of fiscal discipline in the budget. I have offered an amendment to fully--I planned on offering an amendment to fully budget for the war, a war we know we are going to…
There shouldn't be any concern because we are a social welfare organization. We are prohibited from being partisan in our activity.
we think there is a reason for that, and we wouldn't recommend it to our consumers.