Harry Reid: “It is impossible for us to know one way or another whether members of the committee felt pressure to endorse Mr.…”

“It is impossible for us to know one way or another whether members of the committee felt pressure to endorse Mr. Fielding's view. It is certainly possible. And that possibility--like Mr. Fielding's clear conflict of interest--is the problem in this case. There are thousands of lawyers in the United States, thousands who are not steeped in partisan politics--Democrat or Republican. That is every obvious because the poorest contributors to campaigns of any group in America are lawyers. So most of them are not involved at all in politics. We rightly cast a skeptical eye on judicial nominees who are heavily involved in partisan activities. We do that because we want those who would define the breadth and depth of our constitutional protections to be impartial and without bias. Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on--Democrats or Republican--we should be able to agree that those who occupy the most partisan roles of either party should not be part of the ABA process. This does not, in the words of the ABA, impugn those partisans. It is to say that the fact of those partisan activities creates a clear appearance of impropriety. It is that appearance that is impossible to avoid. It is that appearance--and the doubt that it creates in the underlying process--that is the heart of all conflict of interest rules. This issue goes well beyond the nomination of Miguel Estrada.”