pageok
pageok
pageok
Miguel Estrada Supports John McCain, Too:

Again from Jennifer Rubin (Commentary): "Conservative lawyer, former Assistant to the Solicitor General and filibustered federal appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada says 'McCain' as well." For those who don't know, Miguel is both brilliant and solidly conservative.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Miguel Estrada Supports John McCain, Too:
  2. Ted Olson Endorses John McCain:
Waldensian (mail):
EV, what views must one hold to be considered "solidly conservative"? I'm not being cheeky -- people throw the word "conservative" around a lot, and seem to mean different things, so I was wondering what your criteria are.
1.31.2008 8:23pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
McCain is a mixed bag. His votes on some issues such as abortion and funding the Iraq war are certainly conservative. But on many other issues he stands in opposition to the conservative Republican base. The McCain-Kennedy Senate Bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens really caused a widespread uproar. He's a believer in anthropomorphic global warming. He's a big spender having voted for "No Child Left Behind" and other expensive social programs that conservatives don't support. You can look at his voting record here and make up your own mind. Note that he has missed a lot of important votes. In my opinion he is anything but a "solid" conservative. If he is nominated many conservatives will not vote. Be prepared to live under the second President Clinton.
1.31.2008 9:20pm
Theodore (mail):
I'm reliably informed that not everyone at Gibson Dunn &Crutcher is supporting McCain.
1.31.2008 9:24pm
Fub:
A. Zarkov wrote at 1.31.2008 9:20pm:
He's a believer in anthropomorphic global warming.
The scientific theory that Mother Earth is getting really hot under the collar and it's all our fault?
1.31.2008 9:40pm
stevesturm:
In my more naive days, I would have been impressed by the cast of characters coming out for McCain. But now that I'm an grumpy old cynic, I can't help but think that political endorsements have an element of quid pro quo, where endorsements are paid for with appointments, pork or some other payoff.

As for Estrada and Ted Olsen, I'd like to think that they are fine, principled conservatives who would never sell their endorsement for a judgeship, a cabinet position, or for anything else. But that's the catch, if they're fine, principled conservatives, what in the heck are they doing endorsing McCain?
1.31.2008 9:50pm
byomtov (mail):
He's a believer in anthropomorphic global warming.

I don't understand why this is relevant to whether McCain is "conservative" or not.

It hardly seems reasonable to assign political significance to one's views on a scientific question.
1.31.2008 9:58pm
alias:
An endorsement could signify a lot of different things. Maybe Estrada and Olson think that McCain's principles are in line with theirs, or maybe they think he's the least of multiple evils, or maybe they think he's the most "electable," or maybe they personally like McCain more.
1.31.2008 9:59pm
Cornellian (mail):
It hardly seems reasonable to assign political significance to one's views on a scientific question.

Did you think it stopped with evolution?
1.31.2008 10:01pm
gregh (mail):
I'll be one of those conservative/libertarians voting for Hillary if McCain gets the nod. I haven't voted Democratic since the first time I went to the polls and voted for Carter against Ford. Four years later I joined in the national upchuck that got rid of him and never looked back. Sad...so...sad.
1.31.2008 10:06pm
Henri Le Compte (mail):
Ha, ha, ha! Perfect.... Miguel Estrada endorses McCain and all of the sudden he goes from being a dunce-- and a "worst Attorney General ever" candidate-- to "brilliant."

He may not have much of an IQ, but he sure has a "media"Q.
1.31.2008 10:52pm
Pin Head (mail):

A. Zarkov wrote at 1.31.2008 9:20pm:
He's a believer in anthropomorphic global warming.
The scientific theory that Mother Earth is getting really hot under the collar and it's all our fault?



"Anthropomorphic" global warming is the theory where Mother Earth is a hottie.

Anthropogenic global warming is where the earth is getting warmer and its our fault.
1.31.2008 10:55pm
alias:
Ha, ha, ha! Perfect.... Miguel Estrada endorses McCain and all of the sudden he goes from being a dunce-- and a "worst Attorney General ever" candidate-- to "brilliant."

I think Monsieur Le Compte is confusing Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales.
1.31.2008 10:58pm
Justin (mail):
Oh, *now* he's solidly conservative. But when he was applying to the DC Circuit, his jurisprudence couldn't be known, huh? :)
1.31.2008 11:02pm
Rob Johnson (mail):
Amazing. Miguel Estrada endorses the man who is responsible for his not being confirmed. McCain is the primary reason why the Republicans did not deploy the nuclear option when Estrada was up for confirmation and it was 51 Rs to 49 Ds in the Senate.
1.31.2008 11:32pm
OrinKerr:
Henri LeCompte,

I don't think your MSM bias argument works. First, there is no MSM media here. Second, Estrada and Gonzales are actually two different people.
1.31.2008 11:36pm
EH (mail):
Ah, but they all look the same, no? Per Rob Johnson, I have to wonder if there were two Senators in the running for the Republican nomination and both of them had voted against Estrada, whether it would have been both of their faults. Even so, I guess personal responsibility dictates that it couldn't have possibly been Mr. Estrada's own fault.
1.31.2008 11:54pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Amazing. Miguel Estrada endorses the man who is responsible for his not being confirmed. McCain is the primary reason why the Republicans did not deploy the nuclear option when Estrada was up for confirmation and it was 51 Rs to 49 Ds in the Senate.

Don't assume that serious smart conservative legal minds (and though I find his views quite disagreeable, Estrada is a serious smart conservative legal mind) agree with the position that the nuclear option constituted a correct interpretation of the Constitution. It's entirely possible that Estrada, while believing Democratic objections to his confirmation to be bogus, thought that they nonetheless had the better of the constitutional argument. If so, he might have a very positive view of what McCain did, as he got several conservatives onto the bench without making a mockery of the Constitution.

This is just speculation, but it's plausible.
2.1.2008 12:20am
Oren:
Amazing. Miguel Estrada endorses the man who is responsible for his not being confirmed. McCain is the primary reason why the Republicans did not deploy the nuclear option when Estrada was up for confirmation and it was 51 Rs to 49 Ds in the Senate.
First off, McCain voted for cloture on Estrada so, not so much. Secondly, I don't think Estrada would want to be on the bench if it meant starting a Constitutional crisis in the Senate.
2.1.2008 12:21am
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
I can't help but think that political endorsements have an element of quid pro quo, where endorsements are paid for with appointments, pork or some other payoff.

Which would mean that Olsen and Estrada would get significant appointments in the McCain administration, which would obviate the concern that McCain wouldn't appoint the right kind of people to legal positions in his administration.
2.1.2008 12:23am
Lev:
stevesturm

what he said
2.1.2008 12:28am
Jacob Berlove:
Miguel Estrada is not solidly conservative.

.

I sure hope McCain doesn;t put him on the supreme court. If there's one thing that probably unites most conservative and liberal readers of this blog, it's the need for the Congress to be held to it's enumerated powers.
2.1.2008 1:26am
Jacob Berlove:
Sorry, the link didn't work- I'll try again. You can find testimony about Estrada's opposition to federalism here.
2.1.2008 1:31am
Jacob Berlove:
*doesn't
*its
2.1.2008 1:40am
donaldk2 (mail):
No, it's "it's" (it is)
2.1.2008 2:11am
Jacob Berlove:
Sorry, the second "it's" needs to be corrected- "Congress to be held to *its enumerated powers"
2.1.2008 9:00am
Virginian:

I don't think Estrada would want to be on the bench if it meant starting a Constitutional crisis in the Senate.


It's been several years since I took ConLaw, but I'm pretty sure the cloture rule is not in the Constitution. The "nuclear option" would have started a major pissing contest over Senate rules, but I fail to see how it would have been a Consitutional crisis.
2.1.2008 9:37am
Virginian:
In fact, the Republicans called it the "Constitutional option" for a reason...because there is no basis in the Constitution for the requirement for 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.
2.1.2008 9:38am
Ben P (mail):

In fact, the Republicans called it the "Constitutional option" for a reason...because there is no basis in the Constitution for the requirement for 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.


That's bordering on totally irrelevant. The Republicans might have called it that, but it's really nothing more than spin.


The only real procedural guideline in the constitution is that "Each house shall determine the rules of it's proceedings."

Although the 1789 Senate Adopted a form of a cloture vote in the rules, it was changed to allow unlimited debate in 1804.

The fillibuster remained unused until 1841, when a small minority of senators tried to block a whig bill. Henry Clay threatened to change the rules, but was voted down.

In 1917 the Cloture rule was re-adopted, but required 2/3'ds of those present, in 1949 it was changed to 3/5th.


There's ample evidence the founders intended the senate in particular to be a more deliberative body, and although the composition of the senate has changed significantly, that still holds.

Although it might be constitutional to change the rules, the fact is the senate has for nearly all of it's history either had no way of closing debate or a requirement that a supermajority vote to close debate. Changing this would have been a break with long standing tradition over little more than a partisan pissing match.


I think it's also relevant that republicans have shown little restraint using the cloture vote to further their own ends. (and I have no problem with that, it is the rules after all, but it does make the earlier crying about democrats unfairly using it seem a bit hypocritical)
2.1.2008 10:47am
Ben P (mail):
Correction, it was revised to be 3/5th's in 1975, the 1949 change was part of a fight over whether the vote had to be from the entire body or merely those voting.


It's also notable that the house had no method of forcing a closure of debate until 1842, when rules were adopted limiting the time on debate.
2.1.2008 10:50am
Cold Warrior:
I continue to be amazed by the backlash over McCain's involvement in the Group of 14.

In retrospect, a compromise was obviously in the interest of the Senate Republicans. If a simple majority of the Democratic-controlled Senate could ratify a nominee, and (as all but the most delusional among us should agree) a Democratic President is reasonably likely, then McCain did those of us who favor a limited judiciary a huge favor.
2.1.2008 10:58am
Oren:
It's been several years since I took ConLaw, but I'm pretty sure the cloture rule is not in the Constitution. The "nuclear option" would have started a major pissing contest over Senate rules, but I fail to see how it would have been a Consitutional crisis.
It would be a violation of the Senate's right to set it's own rules.
2.1.2008 2:54pm
Oren:
It's been several years since I took ConLaw, but I'm pretty sure the cloture rule is not in the Constitution. The "nuclear option" would have started a major pissing contest over Senate rules, but I fail to see how it would have been a Consitutional crisis.
It would be a violation of the Senate's right to set its own rules.
2.1.2008 2:54pm
Cornellian (mail):
In fact, the Republicans called it the "Constitutional option" for a reason...because there is no basis in the Constitution for the requirement for 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.

The alternative explanation is that they called it the "Constitutional Option" to paper over the fact that there was nothing in the Constitution that supported it.
2.1.2008 3:47pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I continue to be amazed by the backlash over McCain's involvement in the Group of 14.
You and me both, bud. It's stupid and shortsighted to change rules based on narrow present interests. It's like people forgot that Republicans were not guaranteed to be in the majority forever, and that they might want to use the filibuster themselves some day.

What's really bizarre is that the Gang of 14 compromise got just about all the GOP nominees confirmed anyway, and yet conservatives still weren't happy. It's like they wanted to stick it to Democrats by abolishing the filibuster even if there was no need to do so, purely out of a sense of arrogance over the fact that they had the power to do so.

Moreover, anybody who believes in small government -- as conservatives allegedly do -- should support the existence of the filibuster, since it keeps Congress from getting things done. (Oh, I know some people were pretending that there was a difference between the filibuster for laws and those for nominations, but that was obvious disingenuousness. No principle would have protected it in one case but not the other. Today Republicans abolish the filibuster for nominees; tomorrow, Democrats do so for laws, using the same procedural trick.)
2.2.2008 4:34pm