Miguel Estrada

Senate Democrats said Tuesday that they would block a vote on President Bush's nomination of a conservative Latino lawyer to one of the nation's most powerful federal courts unless they get more information about his legal views, setting up a big political fight with the White House. Democrats announced they had enough votes to sustain a filibuster against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

After Republicans successfully filibustered two of President Obama's high-profile nominees to federal appeals courts, the president has launched the proverbial no-holds-barred effort to win confirmation of Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And a story by Times Supreme Court reporter David Savage suggests that this time the president may succeed -- as he should. But Srinivasan's apparently easy path to confirmation doesn't guarantee an end to the bipartisan practice of blocking eminently well-qualified judicial nominees -- especially to the D.C. Circuit, a sort of farm team for the Supreme Court -- out of partisan spite or as part of a long game to take out potential Supreme Court appointees of the other party.

Miguel A. Estrada, a Honduran-born lawyer selected by President Bush to be a judge on a powerful U.S. appellate court, on Thursday gave up his two-year quest to win Senate confirmation in the face of unshakable Democratic opposition to a nomination laden with partisan, ethnic and constitutional overtones. Bush reluctantly withdrew the nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after Estrada told him he wanted to move on with his legal career and family life.

New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan, who was first nominated to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., almost 2 1/2 years ago, has asked President Obama to withdraw her nomination. As The Times noted in an editorial today, Halligan was the victim of a Republican filibuster in which all but one of the GOP senators voting refused to cut off debate on her nomination. Had the nomination proceeded to a floor vote, she almost certainly would have been confirmed. Liberals and Democrats will decry the sandbagging of Halligan, who was accused by Republicans of extremism because she once filed suit against gun manufacturers.

The White House refused to release internal Justice Department memos written by one of President Bush's appeals court nominees, setting up a partisan showdown over Miguel Estrada. Democrats say they will use a filibuster to keep Estrada from being confirmed until he answers more of their questions. They also wanted internal Justice memos Estrada wrote while working for the solicitor general's office that could indicate how he would think as a judge.

New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan, who was first nominated to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., almost 2 1/2 years ago, has asked President Obama to withdraw her nomination. As The Times noted in an editorial today, Halligan was the victim of a Republican filibuster in which all but one of the GOP senators voting refused to cut off debate on her nomination. Had the nomination proceeded to a floor vote, she almost certainly would have been confirmed. Liberals and Democrats will decry the sandbagging of Halligan, who was accused by Republicans of extremism because she once filed suit against gun manufacturers.

President Bush urged the Senate on Tuesday to change its rules and ban the use of filibusters on judicial nominees and require direct yes-or-no votes on all court nominations submitted by the White House. Bush sent the request in a strongly worded letter as Senate Republicans scheduled a second vote to end a filibuster that Democrats are using to make him muster a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate to put Miguel Estrada in a key federal appeals court seat.

Republicans on Tuesday failed for a third time to break a Senate filibuster on federal judicial nominee Miguel Estrada but said they would continue to require Democrats to vote to keep the Latino lawyer off the federal bench. Senate Republicans, with a 55-45 vote Tuesday, failed again to get the 60 votes they needed to move to a final confirmation vote on Estrada, who was nominated by President Bush to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Re "A Judicial Nominee's Dizzying Spin," Commentary, Sept. 29: To complain, as Frank del Olmo does, that the process of the nomination of federal judges has become too politicized is to misunderstand our history and dream of a mythological confirmation process that never existed. Underlying Del Olmo's commentary seems to be the surprising and unsupportable assumption that all Latinos are interchangeable, that whether you have a Samuel Paz or a Miguel Estrada on the federal bench makes no difference, so long as the surname is Latino.

Re "Bush's Court-Nominee 'Diversity' Is a Cynical Ploy," Commentary, Nov. 2: Robert Harris states that Miguel Estrada was "hostile to the positions of most Latino organizations" but fails to note that most Latino political organizations are far to the left of most Latinos. On issues like homosexual marriage and abortion, for example, the organizations in question are much closer to the "politically correct" positions than most Latinos. Harris won't admit it, but Estrada was a victim of his willingness to stand for values held dear by the Latino community, and because he would not sell out, as most Latino organizations have done, they joined in attacking him. Larry A. Carstens Castaic The apple does not fall far from the tree.

The historic confirmation Thursday of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's newest justice will bring new perspectives to the Supreme Court, and not just because she will be its first Latino. After three days of debate, the Senate voted 68 to 31 in her favor, with nine Republicans crossing party lines to support her. During the debate and confirmation hearings, her experience as a Latina seemed to overshadow discussions about her qualifications.

Re "Bush's Court-Nominee 'Diversity' Is a Cynical Ploy," Commentary, Nov. 2: Robert Harris states that Miguel Estrada was "hostile to the positions of most Latino organizations" but fails to note that most Latino political organizations are far to the left of most Latinos. On issues like homosexual marriage and abortion, for example, the organizations in question are much closer to the "politically correct" positions than most Latinos. Harris won't admit it, but Estrada was a victim of his willingness to stand for values held dear by the Latino community, and because he would not sell out, as most Latino organizations have done, they joined in attacking him. Larry A. Carstens Castaic The apple does not fall far from the tree.

Lawyer Miguel Estrada was a well-qualified candidate to serve our judiciary system (Sept. 5). The U.S. Senate, however, for over two years refused to vote on his nomination. Our senators, whom we send to Washington to represent us and vote on our behalf, have consistently refused to vote on this nomination. I can respect a senator whom I disagree with, and who votes in ways I do not support. However, I cannot respect a senator who refuses to vote and refuses other senators the opportunity to vote.

Miguel A. Estrada, a Honduran-born lawyer selected by President Bush to be a judge on a powerful U.S. appellate court, on Thursday gave up his two-year quest to win Senate confirmation in the face of unshakable Democratic opposition to a nomination laden with partisan, ethnic and constitutional overtones. Bush reluctantly withdrew the nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after Estrada told him he wanted to move on with his legal career and family life.

Senate Republicans lost a fifth attempt Monday to break a Democratic filibuster of judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada shortly after the Senate approved its fifth U.S. Appeals Court nominee this year. Estrada, nominated for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been waiting for three months for a confirmation vote. But Republicans fell eight votes short of the 60 votes they needed to confirm him. The vote was 52 to 39.

Republicans on Tuesday failed for a third time to break a Senate filibuster on federal judicial nominee Miguel Estrada but said they would continue to require Democrats to vote to keep the Latino lawyer off the federal bench. Senate Republicans, with a 55-45 vote Tuesday, failed again to get the 60 votes they needed to move to a final confirmation vote on Estrada, who was nominated by President Bush to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott conceded Friday that President Bush's judicial nomination of Miguel Estrada, a Latino attorney seen by critics as too conservative, appears virtually dead. Bush nominated him to be the first Latino on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 17 months ago. If confirmed, Estrada would be positioned as a potential Bush nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senate Republicans on Thursday failed to break a filibuster blocking the nomination of a Latino lawyer to one of the nation's most powerful federal courts, a setback for President Bush's efforts to leave a conservative stamp on the judicial system. In a showdown roll call, the Republicans fell five votes short of the 60 they needed to cut off the Senate's monthlong debate and move to a final vote on Miguel A. Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Sen. Bob Graham voted Thursday to uphold a Democratic filibuster against judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada, drawing criticism from Republicans. Graham, who is running for president, called for Estrada to provide senators with more information to evaluate his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The name Miguel A. Estrada usually draws a blank here, an apologetic shake of the head. But mention the filibuster by Senate Democrats to block a vote on Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and recognition sometimes follows. "Oh, that guy. We need minority representation on the courts, but he'll be a token Latino," said Mary Jessie Garza-Mansur, 52. "To slap him in there because his name is Estrada, what good will it do?"