Russ Feingold: “for the past few weeks, we have had a vigorous debate on the floor and in the country on this nomination. I discussed my…”

“for the past few weeks, we have had a vigorous debate on the floor and in the country on this nomination. I discussed my reasons for opposing Mr. Estrada's nomination before the recess. As I said then, I would probably vote to confirm Mr. Estrada to a lower court. But for this crucial court, at this crucial time, he is not the right person for the job. I have reached that conclusion in part because Mr. Estrada gave us so little to work with in trying to understand what kind of judge he would be. When we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in this country, we cannot be expected to take it on faith that Mr. Estrada will be a fair and impartial judge, with no ideological axe to grind. The Senate's role is too important to just "hope for the best." No, when we are asked to confirm a nominee to such a significant post, we have a right to expect that nominee to be forthcoming in answering our questions, and we have a right to expect the administration to be cooperative in providing any information that is relevant to making our decision. That is what the advice and consent process is about. Not some kind of phony "consultation", and certainly not a rubberstamp for the President's nominees.”