The heated political battle over the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is marked by frequently repeated assertions that are demonstrably untrue, and by increasingly harsh criticism of individuals and groups opposing Estrada’s confirmation and supporting use of the filibuster.
The recent hearing on the nomination of attorney Jeffrey S. Sutton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit failed to resolve, and actually reinforced, the serious concerns about his nomination. Senators should reject his confirmation to the appeals court in order to preserve the rights, freedoms, and legal protections that Americans have relied on federal courts to protect.
Democrats make principled stand on Estrada; Feinstein casts disappointing committee vote for states’ rights extremist Sutton
Senators are considering using a filibuster to prevent the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. The modern-day filibuster, a Senate procedure that requires 60 senators to agree to a vote on significant issues, is an essential check on the abuse of majority power and can be an effective strategy for achieving bipartisan cooperation.
In a party-line vote, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to recommend Senate approval of Miguel Estrada to a lifetime seat on the federal appeals court even though Senators and the public know very little about Estrada’s approach to judging – and what they do know is troubling.
Breaking with a bipartisan agreement, dating to the 1980's the Senate Judicairy Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch held a single hearing to examine three controversial nominees to lifetime seats on the federal appeals courts, virtually guaranteeing that senators would not be able to conduct a thoughtful and thorough review of their records.
Report of People For the American Way
in Opposition to the Confirmation of
Jeffrey Sutton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit