Orrin Hatch: “it is disturbing to me that much of the debate regarding the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals…”

“it is disturbing to me that much of the debate regarding the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has focused on previous nominations considered by this Senate. In particular, the nominations of Judge Richard Paez and Judge Marsh Berzon, who now sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have been raised over and over again by Senators opposed to Mr. Estrada. The discussion of previous nominations is troubling for a number of reasons. First, Judge Paez and Judge Berzon were confirmed by the Senate. They were not subjected to a filibuster as is the case for Miguel Estrada. Second, on a personal level, it is disappointing to me that these two judges should be used as examples of alleged Republican obstructionism, when I worked hard for their confirmation, argued against delay, and supported their nominations. To continue to inject prior nominations into the Estrada debate indicates to me that the opposition is more interested in some sort of retribution for misperceived wrongs rather than fulfilling the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent. I have heard it stated on the Senate floor, referencing the so-called filibuster of Judge Paez, ``what goes around comes around.'' I certainly hope that it is not the case that the refusal to give a vote to Miguel Estrada is some sort of payback.”