February
28, 2003
The Importance of Estrada
by Jay Bryant
If Republicans
stick to their guns on the Miguel Estrada nomination, they will
win - not just his nomination, but a domestic test of will every
bit as significant as the ones the Administration is currently
playing on the international front.
In November
of 1995, Newt Gingrich made a rare miscalculation, and underestimated
the will of President Clinton in the famous government shutdown
case. That miscalculation cost the Republicans the momentum from
the 1994 elections, saved Clinton's presidency and cost Newt the
speakership. Gingrich thought Congress could force Clinton to
back down. "We've passed a bill to keep the government open,"
he said in my presence. "Sooner or later he'll have to sign it
or take the blame."
No he didn't,
and the lesson to be learned is that if a president has sufficient
backbone, he can always win a game of chicken with Congress. In
the long run, this may or may not be good for the country, but
it's true nonetheless.
In the Estrada
case, a presidential win would be very good for the country, at
three different levels. First, it would place on the bench of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and exceptionally
deserving man, the substantive case against whom is, as those
who are making it are well aware, a joke.
Second, it
would demonstrate to the Democrats that they cannot use scorched-earth
tactics to prevent the United States Senate from conducting its
business in its traditional manner.
Third, it
would facilitate the confirmation of several other judicial nominees
waiting in the wings, thereby setting the table for the enrobement
of a responsible judiciary that could have a positive impact on
the nation for decades to come.
The key to
any successful democracy is the willingness of losers to accept
defeat. America taught the world how to do this, and now it happens
routinely in the most remarkable places around the globe, from
Russia to Belize. But in the 21st Century, the American Democratic
Party has been backsliding.
First, they
disputed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election; now they
are attempting to overturn the results of the 2002 Congressional
elections by holding the Senate hostage from their minority position.
What a contrast they present to the Republicans who, after the
Jeffords switch calmly and with great dignity handed over the
leadership to their opponents and pursued their objectives in
the electoral arena. Yet this year, Democrats refused to allow
the Senate even to organize rather than hand over committee chairmanships
to the G.O.P., and now have sunk to a new level of odium - something
never before even attempted in the history of the country - by
filibustering the nomination of an appellate court judge.
They are
doing it because they are partisan to a point beyond anything
imaginable in those halcyon days of our youth, when leaders cared
first about the welfare of the country, and when they found themselves
in the minority, counted on the superiority of their ideas and
campaign acumen to eventually reverse their fortunes.
In those
days, the Democrats had left, center and right factions, with
the latter two operating to brake the runaway train tendency of
the left. Now the right and center together are reduced to a handful
of noble anachronisms, and the embittered left, mostly men and
women who learned their politics in the violence and outrage of
the 1960's, has turned to guerilla tactics.
For them,
the stakes seem enormous; their principal fear is that a Republican
judiciary will overturn Roe v. Wade. They may or may not be right,
but what's important is that they believe it could happen, and
they know public support for the various steps from here to there
is trending against them, as has been shown by recent Gallup polls
showing massive majorities for measures such as a ban on partial
birth abortions, parental consent, waiting periods and other restrictions
left-wing Democrats find abhorrent. With public support hardening
against them, legislative action on these issues is certain to
follow, and then it will be up to judges to decide if the new
laws are constitutional.
That is
why they are willing to go to such extremes.
But time
is running out on their game. If war comes, they cannot possibly
hold the Senate hostage simply to appease their displeasure on
such an innocuous figure as Estrada, and even before that, if
the President and Senator Frist will but take a lesson from Clinton
and hang tough, the filibuster will soon enough crumble under
the weight of public disgust.
Other
articles by RealClearPolitics contributor Jay Bryant may be found
on his web site The
Optimate. A former television producer, Republican media consultant
and educator, Bryant has served in top staff positions in both
the Senate and House, as well as state government.
