In this issue
April 9, 2014

Jonathan Tobin: Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame?

Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Kim Giles: Asking for help is not weakness

Kathy Kristof and Barbara Hoch Marcus: 7 Great Growth Israeli Stocks

Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease

Sabrina Bachai: 5 At-Home Treatments For Headaches

The Kosher Gourmet by Daniel Neman Have yourself a matzo ball: The secrets bubby never told you and recipes she could have never imagined

April 8, 2014

Lori Nawyn: At Your Wit's End and Back: Finding Peace

Susan B. Garland and Rachel L. Sheedy: Strategies Married Couples Can Use to Boost Benefits

David Muhlbaum: Smart Tax Deductions Non-Itemizers Can Claim

Jill Weisenberger, M.S., R.D.N., C.D.E : Before You Lose Your Mental Edge

Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease

Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear

The Kosher Gourmet by Marlene Parrish A gift of hazelnuts keeps giving --- for a variety of nutty recipes: Entree, side, soup, dessert

April 4, 2014

Rabbi David Gutterman: The Word for Nothing Means Everything

Charles Krauthammer: Kerry's folly, Chapter 3

Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children

John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet

John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds

Cameron Huddleston: Best and Worst Buys of April 2014

Stacy Rapacon: Great Mutual Funds for Young Investors

Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves

The Kosher Gourmet by Sharon Thompson Anyone can make a salad, you say. But can they make a great salad? (SECRETS, TESTED TECHNIQUES + 4 RECIPES, INCLUDING DRESSINGS)

April 2, 2014

Paul Greenberg: Death and joy in the spring

Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?

Mayra Bitsko: Save me! An alien took over my child's personality

Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities

Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene

Lecia Bushak: Why Hand Sanitizer May Actually Harm Your Health

Stacy Rapacon: Great Funds You Can Own for $500 or Less

Cameron Huddleston: 7 Ways to Save on Home Decor

The Kosher Gourmet by Steve Petusevsky Exploring ingredients as edible-stuffed containers (TWO RECIPES + TIPS & TECHINQUES)

Jewish World Review July 12, 2005 / 5 Taamuz, 5765

Don't Estrada Bush's Supreme Court nominee

By Kathryn Lopez

Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "Battle lines form" one headline read. "We are going to war" one senator said.

No, we're not launching attacks against terror camps in Syria or Iran (at least not yet). Those quotes have nothing to do with retaliating against the 7/7 London attackers. They're about a Beltway battle over the Supreme Court.

And all signs point to a long, hot summer. During which another presidential Supreme Court nominee could be made a verb. Or at least some Senate Democrats and a coalition of left-wing groups seem to want to make it so.

"To Bork" entered our vocabularies 18 years ago this fall. In 1987, Ronald Reagan's nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Chief Justice Warren Burger was Robert H. Bork, a U.S. Appeals Court. Ted Kennedy — then and now a flamethrower Democratic senator from Massachusetts — was among those who decried Bork on the Senate floor as the country looked on. Kennedy warned: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."

That kind of ridiculous, ghoulish rhetoric ultimately worked.

Democrats — and Republican helpers — prevailed and Bork was denied confirmation.

Like Bork, former Manhattan prosecutor Miguel Estrada's name should be a verb by now. He unfortunately earned it the hard, ugly way — by being a punching bag for Democratic senators and left-wing interest groups. President Bush picked him for a seat in May 2001 on the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals and the left subsequently set out to destroy him (and I do mean "destroy").

Estrada, who as a teenager moved from his native Honduras to the United States, was dubbed "Hispanic in name only." He was literally not Hispanic enough for liberals who believe that an ethnic background ties one to an ideology. They judged that a Judge Estrada's rulings wouldn't reflect their political will. And so they had to destroy his nomination, as Democratic memos and talking points made shockingly clear.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said of Estrada: "I'm scared of what will happen if he is confirmed." As Mark Levin puts it in his book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America," (Regnery Publishing, 2005): "Estrada's main offense in the eyes of his opponents was that he would not be an activist judge. He believed in following the Constitution." That means no writing in non-existent Constitutional rights from the bench — like that of privacy, which a psychedelic 70s' court managed to do.

Does this book sound intriguing?

Click HERE to purchase it at a discount. (Sales help fund JWR.).

When Estrada stepped aside after more than two years of vicious, degrading left-wing attacks, President Bush rightly said, "The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate's history."

As if the Bork and Estrada brouhahas didn't spotlight the shameful history for the Senate enough: Charles Pickering was nominated by this president for the federal appeals court. The left demonized his role as a U.S. District Court judge in a complicated Mississippi cross-burning case. Folks like Schumer (just call him Senator Attack Dog) tried to make it a black-and-white case against Pickering, by pitting him as a white-man vs. blacks kind of hater. Never mind that Charles Evers, brother of civil-rights activist Medgar Evers, said of his Mississippi brother: "The NAACP and the Klan are the only two organizations that are against (Pickering) down here."

In Washington today, all court watchers fully expect the president's nominee to get similar treatment — though senators' constituents should give them hell if they try. If she is a woman and she ever ruled in favor of, say parental notification for abortion, as recently obstructed lower-court nominee Priscilla Owen did as a Texas Supreme Court justice, she will be considered a misogynist — not woman enough.

Assuming it's a male nominee, if there's any a hint he's not open to being a left-wing activist, he will be a danger to women's rights and health, as liberal "women's groups" keep warning in "emergency" e-mails.

Donate to JWR

But it doesn't have to be this way. When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, she was confirmed four weeks after the initial announcement after a relatively easy confirmation hearing. And it could have been brutal.

Her views are extremist, unlike so many of President Bush's various federal court nominees who've been stuck with the same e-word over the past four-plus years. A former American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Ginsburg has advocated replacing Mother's and Father's Days with "Parents' Day" to put an end to traditional gender-role rigidity. She also favored lowering the age of consent for statutory rape to 12 and opposed the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts groups because they, again, "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles."

Senators, please don't Estrada the president's nominee. Even though good men and women are willing to go before the Senate firing squad (G-d bless 'em), on national television, and put up with what Clarence Thomas called a "high-tech lynching" in his case, senators could avoid trying to destroy one of our best and brightest. If you're up for being especially fair: Give the president his guy, assuming he's qualified. Dems, had their chance, now Bush has his. That call was made last November.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment by clicking here.


© 2005, Newspaper Enterprise Assn.