Read yesterday's article in the Wall Street Journal
entitled Judicial Profiling found on page A22 on 11/27/2001. Then
read the biography I pulled from judicialselection.org found below.
Miguel Estrada: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date: June 11, 2001 · From the Free Congress Foundation,s
Judicial Selection Monitoring Project
Background:On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated
Miguel Estrada to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
Miguel Estrada is a native of Honduras who immigrated
to the United States at age 151. Two years later, Mr. Estrada took
the SAT2 in English and was accepted to Columbia College, from which
he graduated magna cum laude. He received his J.D. from Harvard
Law School in 1986 and once again graduated magna cum laude. After
graduation Mr. Estrada clerked for Amalya L. Kearse, U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New York, N.Y., and Supreme Court
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He then went on to work as the Assistant
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and
was later promoted to Deputy Chief, Appellate Section, for the same
office. From 1992-1997 Mr. Estrada served as the Assistant to the
Solicitor General of the United States. Mr. Estrada is currently
a partner with the firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in Washington
DC.
Mr. Estrada is very highly recommended by a number
of influential Latino organizations, including both the Hispanic
Business Council3 and the Hispanic Business Roundtable4. The president
of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, Mario Rodriguez, praised Mr.
Estrada,s qualifications, "Miguel Estrada brings to the court
a distinguished legal record based on his many years of work in
the public and private sector . . . Mr. Estrada also brings a unique
perspective an human experience understood only by those who have
migrated to a foreign land as a teenager not knowing the language".5
The organization,s vice-president, Jamie Ramon, is also supportive
of Mr. Estrada,s nomination, "No one can seriously doubt the
integrity and qualifications of Miguel Estrada".6
The only criticism from the Latino community comes
from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLD), which
accuses Mr. Estrada of lawyering "on the backs of Latinos."7
However, based on Mr. Estrada,s record, it is easy to see that this
accusation is without merit, and the PRLD has provided no evidence
to back up this outrageous statement.
History:
Drug Trafficking
One of the most controversial issues Mr. Estrada
faced was that of drug trafficking. Three cases in which he represented
the government--and in which the defendants were Latino--illustrate
his handling of this issue. Mr. Estrada successfully argued the
judicially restrained position in these cases.
In a case before the Supreme Court, the defendants
were convicted of various drug offenses and using firearms during
these crimes, in violation of federal law8. The debate here was
over the meaning of a clause within the statute where any other
sentences for related drug crimes "shall [not] . . . run concurrently
with any other term of imprisonment."9 Opposing counsel wanted
to expand the meaning of this clause so that "any other term
of imprisonment"10 meant "any other federal term of imprisonment."
The Court agreed with Mr. Estrada that "any" did not mean
"any federal" and that the Court did not have the power
to make such a change.
In another case before the Supreme Court, the case
centered on whether respondent,s confession was admissible in court.
Police searched the house of a suspected drug dealer and found not
only cocaine and heroin, but also counterfeit money.11 With an interpreter
to read the accused his rights in his native tongue, and while under
custody of local officials, federal agents read respondent his rights--which
respondent waived.12 Respondent then admitted to knowing that the
money was counterfeit.13 The two sides disagreed as to whether a
clause in a federal statute determining the admissibility of confessions
applied to a suspect when under control of any law enforcement agency,
or only federal law enforcement.14
The Court agreed with Estrada that the context
of the statute showed that the disputed clause only applied when
a suspect was under control of federal authorities, and that to
imply that the statute meant something that would not fit with the
context of the rest of the statute would be an incorrect interpretation.
In the third case, the court was faced with procedural
issues. Large amounts of cocaine were confiscated from defendants
when officers entered defendants, apartment. Although the officers
had no search warrant, exigent circumstances existed that, according
to the Supreme Court, allow officers to proceed without a search
warrant.15
Defendants acknowledged that these exigent circumstances
existed.16 Defendants also argued that the court erred in permitting
the undercover agent in the case--who did not speak Spanish--to
testify as to statements made in Spanish by the defendants, subsequently
translated for him by defendants, co-conspirator.17
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, statements
by a co-conspirator are not hearsay18, and since the statements
made to the agent were made in the presence of the defendants who
spoke English and had an opportunity to correct her--and did not--the
statements were admissible.19
Lastly, defendants attempted to argue that the
district court judge did not follow proper procedure when sentencing
them. However, the trial record showed that the judge sentenced
the defendants following all necessary procedures.20
In all of these cases, it is clear that the race
of the defendant had nothing to do with the outcome. The Unites
States employed Mr. Estrada in a capacity that required him to defend
the interests of the government regardless of his personal views.
Contrary to criticism from some quarters, these cases did not deal
with any issues regarding race or ethnicity, or an issue important
to solely the Latino community. In all of these cases, the defendants
distributed or intended to distribute hard-core drugs like cocaine
and heroin. Mr. Estrada simply argued that the courts interpret
relevant statutes to mean exactly what lawmakers intended them to
mean, not what a judge wants them to mean.
RICO
RICO is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Under RICO,
any person associated with an enterprise is prohibited from conducting
its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Mr. Estrada
is very familiar with this statute and has argued cases involving
RICO to both the District Court and the Supreme Court.21
Mr. Estrada appeared before the Court as amicus
curiae in a well-known RICO case brought against a pro-life group;
one that yielded a "liberal" result, yet followed principals
of judicial restraint.22 In the case of NOW v. Scheidler, the National
Organization for Women (NOW) and a group of abortion clinics brought
an action against a coalition of pro-life groups, alleging that
they were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion
clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation
of RICO. The pro-life groups argued that the RICO statute applied
only to those organizations with economic motives behind their racketeering
activities, although the RICO statute did not impose this qualification
on alleged violators.23 The Court agreed with Mr. Estrada,s position
in his brief--that the language of the statute was unambiguous and
to read a requirement for economic motive into the statute would
"warrant a different construction".24
NAACP v. Anne Arundel County
On October 11, 1999, the Annapolis City Council
adopted a "Drug-Loitering Free Zones" ordinance.25 Under
this ordinance, a neighborhood association or private citizen could
submit an application to city council requesting that their neighborhood
be designated a Drug Loitering Free Zone.26 After investigation,
if the chief of police then determined that there had been a certain
number of drug arrests in that area within a twenty-four month period,
the area was declared a Drug Loitering Free Zone.27
Once designated, police officers had the power--upon
observing certain activities enumerated in the statute--to ask the
person engaged in such behavior to "move on."28 If they
individuals refused to do so, they could be charged with a misdemeanor.29
This case was about the wording and construction
of the statute. Although the NAACP attempted to bring an equal protection
claim, alleging that the ordinance disproportionately affected African-Americans,
the case was not about that issue. In fact, the court never reviewed
the equal protection allegations. Rather than declare the statute
unconstitutional per se, the court adjudicated the case based on
more technical grounds.
The construction and wording of the statute were
not adequate. The statute did not require the usual criminal intent
on the part of violators; it was too vague in that it failed to
give adequate notice that would have enabled ordinary people to
understand what conduct it prohibited and criminalized what would
normally be protected activity.30
Business Cases
Many of the cases in which Mr. Estrada argued on
the side of a company have been about procedural issues, not the
furtherance of business generally. In US v. Dispoz-o-Plastics, where
Mr. Estrada represented the plastics company, the two issues in
the case were whether the district court erred in admitting evidence
at trial and whether the district court erred in denying to declare
a mistrial.31
In Nippon Steel Corp v. US, for example, Mr. Estrada
appealed a decision by an international trade court that allowed
the Department of Commerce to investigate allegations by American
steel corporations that Nippon was dumping steel on the US market.32
The issue here was not a defense of steel dumping practices, but
whether the trade court was the proper authority to hear the case.33
Conclusion
Mr. Estrada is well-qualified to serve
as on the federal bench. He has shown the ability to follow the
rule of law, and his record reflects this. Contrary to what his
critics would have the public believe, he is fair and really does
not have a highly controversial background.
* * *
WHY IS DASCHLE BLOCKING JUDGES NEEDED TO TRY TERRORISTS
WHEN WE CATCH THEM?
http://reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document-10.29.2001.1.html
Sen. Daschle Refuses to Bring Bush Judge Nominees
to Vote
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
October 26, 2001
Yesterday, the Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism
bill, which President Bush is expected to sign immediately. You
might think from that, that bi-partisan cooperation has taken over
in the realms of government in Washington. However, that is not
the case.
While the Attorney General may now have more tools
to ARREST terrorists, there appears to be a bit of a move on the
part of Tom Daschle to make sure they never get to trial. He is
absolutely refusing to budge on his strategy of blocking Bush judgeship
nominations.
Senate Republicans had been holding up spending
bills to force more judicial confirmations however, Daschle simply
told President Bush that he needs the appropriations bills more
than the Democrats do. The Republicans, not wanting to block needed
appropriations in a time of crisis abandoned their efforts to use
the appropriations bills for leverage.
This victory for Daschle comes at a time when there
are more than 100 vacancies on the federal bench. The issue, of
course, it Daschle's determination to force the President to select
liberal judges. Republican sources said they plan to "renew
their attack on the issue early next year."
"We're going to act in good faith," Sen.
Trent Lott said. "We're going to do what these times call for.
We hope they will do the same when it comes to confirming federal
judges."
And, while you are composing e-mail: send one to
Sen. Daschle to ask why he is trying to cripple the war on terrorism
by blocking the appointment of judges, go to http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.html
To call his district office: 605-226-7471
* * *
Sen. Edwards and his opposition to Judge Pickering's
confirmation
Recently I read commentary, www.nationalreview.com/york/york021102.shtml
<http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york021102.shtml>
, concerning Sen. John Edwards questioning of Judge Charles Pickering,
one of President Bush's nominees to the US Court of Appeals. It
feautured an exchange between Sen. Edwards and Judge Pickering,
which seems to have painted Pickering as a racist. However, I did
a little digging and found that Pickering as a prosecutor had put
several KKK behind bars during the 1960's and was promised on at
least one occassion that his career would be ended permanently one
day by the KKK. I've also heard unsubstatiated rumors from a friend
in North Carolina, that Sen. Edwards had some sort of connection
with the KKK. I'm wondering if there is a connection between Sen.
Edwards, who was a defense attorney in North Carolina, is fulfilling
this pledge made at least 3 decades ago.
William T. Arant
* * *
The Democrats Filibuster of Estrada - Date: Thu,
Mar 06 10:40 AM
The democrats filibuster of Estrada is pathetic.
They don't have a speck of dirt on him except he is a good American
with values; something a judge would need to be fair, just and impartial.
Clinton's morons on the 9nth circuit are more reversed than any
other court. why is the media being allowed to "not" cover
this and get away with it. tp
* * *
Miguel Estrada, Nominee to the US Court of Appeals
Today I caught a statement on television by Dashcle
(forum unknown) that he had come to the conclusion that Estrada
has extreme right wing views on several important issues. If Dashcle
can say that the democrats need more disclosure from Estrada before
they can determine his qualifications, how can he say that Estrada
is an extremist? Someone should call Dashcle on this obvious inconsistency
and ask him to define the "several issues" and to give
factual support for his conclusions.
H. Shields
* * *
I wrote 8-10 Democratic Senators urging them to
vote for cloture on the issue of confirmation
of M. Estrada and let the entire Senate vote for or against his
confirmation.
I received the following letter from Senator Levin.
Interesting enough, I received an similar letter, near verbatim,
from at least four other
Democratic Senators.
While it is obvious that many Democratic Senators cannot think for
themselves, it would seem that they have sufficient aides to make
their responses somewhat different in an effort to fool feeble minded
constituents such as myself.
forkhorn
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me about the nomination
of Miguel Estrada to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia.
An independent federal judiciary is a fundamental
part of our constitutional democracy. In fact, nominating judges
to the federal bench is among the most important and lasting decisions
that a President can make.
Equally important is the Senate's role of advice
and consent on judicial nominations. Senators have a constitutional
duty to evaluate a President's nominees. Part of the proper exercise
of that duty requires that Senators be given adequate information
to evaluate nominees.
Mr. Estrada was nominated by President Bush for
a lifetime appointment to what is arguably the second highest court
in the land. The D.C. Circuit Court has jurisdiction over a broad
range of issues, from consumer and environmental protection to civil
rights and workplace rules. Despite the importance of the position
to which he has been nominated, Mr. Estrada's views on fundamental
constitutional issues were not provided to the Judiciary Committee
and therefore the Senate itself.
The facts that Mr. Estrada has no judicial experience
and has published little do not disqualify him. But they do make
it even more important that he be willing to discuss his views on
fundamental constitutional issues and to provide the Senate with
his legal memoranda. Unless and until the Senate is given access
to the information necessary for us to exercise our constitutional
duty to judge his nomination, I cannot support Mr. Estrada's confirmation.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
* * *
Legislators Tell Reid to Let Judge Go
The Nevada state senate voted last week on a resolution
to instruct U.S.Sen. Harry Reid - the nation's #2 Democrat and Tommy
Daschle's left-hand man - to allow a floor vote on judicial nominee
Miguel Estrada. Estrada has been stuck in a Democrat quagmire for
months now, with Reid, Daschle & Company effectively filibustering
the man's nomination out of pure partisan obstructionism.
The resolution is part of an ongoing nationwide
effort by Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform to enlist
state legislators in the effort to bring pressure on Senate Democrats
to stop holding the Estrada nomination hostage and allow the up-or-down
vote. To have such a resolution pass in his home state must be especially
embarrassing to #2.
Chuck Muth
* * *
Eliminating Weapon of Mass Obstruction
"To solve a national problem that White House
Counsel Alberto Gonzalez now refers to as a judicial 'vacancy crisis,'
the president should invoke a constitutional power that Senate minorities
cannot dominate: his power under Article II, Section 2 to fill as
necessary all judicial vacancies during a Senate recess. President
Bush must use this power decisively to appoint Miguel Estrada, Judge
Priscilla Owen, and all other nominees blocked by the Senate minority
merely because it disagrees with the president's political philosophy.
"The recess appointments power would not entail
appreciable political or legal risk for President Bush. He need
only use the same 'bully pulpit' that galvanized the country after
September 11, 2001, to make one powerful point: Blocking presidential
nominees merely because they share the president's political beliefs
is nothing less than attacking the presidency'sfundamental constitutional
powers.
"Once the president's opponents predictably
criticize him, he can easily win the political battle by publicly
offering to abandon his muscular use of the recess appointments
power for the same patriotic reason that he used it in the first
place: protecting an independent judiciary. Thus, President Bush
would agree to not use this power again if Mr. Daschle and his brethren
agree likewise to not obstruct the entire Senate from voting on
all judicial nominees within three months of their approval by the
Judiciary Committee. "If the Senate minority refuses to allow
voting by the full Senate, then most of the country will justifiably
conclude that it is waging a partisan war against an independent
judiciary."
- Columnist Gregory Page
RushOnline.com
Index * Specials
* Visitor
Debate Index
Cartoons
* Hall of Fame * War
On Terror * Topic
Index
AutoRentals.com
* CoverUps.com
* ElectionSpeeches.com
HomeVideos.com * MarineReunions.com
* MurderMysteries.com
Parties.com
* RealEstateVisits.com
* RetirementParties.com
* UsedTrucks.com
