国会纪录：2003年2月6日（参议院）Page S2059-S2060行政会议______提名弗吉尼亚州Miguel A. Estrada，成为哥伦比亚赛道区的美国巡回法官 - 继续主席。民主鞭子。里德先生。我向椅子道歉。我知道椅子有事情要做。我们一直处于同一位置。我们知道，有时候持续有些不方便，但今天我们有点敢于在这里出来，尽管发生了很多事情。我们有很多人去纪念馆。来自另一边的参议员说：我惊讶于伊斯拉达没有民主党人。我们认识到会有其他时间辩论，但我们不希望记录出现，我们不感兴趣。 That is the reason I came down here, to offer my opinion. Migrada Estrada has literally had no paper trail. Despite what some of my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle, it is indisputable that Solicitor General memoranda have been turned over in the past. For example, the Department of Justice turned over Solicitor General memoranda for Bork, Rehnquist, and Easterbrook. On executive branch appointments, the Department of Justice turned over memoranda for Benjamin Civiletti. While my colleagues may note that former Solicitors General have written a letter opposing the release of these memos, they cite no legal authority for keeping these memos secret. Basically what they say is it would impede these people from writing their opinions. It doesn't happen very often that these people are asked to serve on the second highest court of the land. It is not often they are asked to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. But in cases in the past when that has occurred, with Rehnquist, Bork and, of course, another important appointment, Easterbrook, they were made available. And they should be made available here. There is no attorney-client privilege at work here. The courts have determined that applying that privilege to Congress would impede our work. Both the House and the Senate have refused to recognize the privilege in their rules. Former Solicitors argue that the policy considerations of ensuring candid advice outweighs the Senate's interest in examining this nominee. I don't think that is valid. As I mentioned, the precedent supports release of these memos to the Senate. Further, the United States' own Department of Justice guidelines from 2000 state: Our experience indicates that the Justice Department can develop accommodations with congressional committees that satisfy their needs for the information that may be obtained in deliberative material while at the same time protecting the Department's interest in avoiding a chill in the candor of future deliberations. It is my understanding the Department of Justice has made no attempt to reach such an accommodation with the Judiciary Committee. The stonewalling on the Estrada nomination is part of a larger systematic effort by this administration to disable the Senate, to govern in secret, to advance the interests of big business over the public interests. I joined an amicus curiae brief in a matter where Vice President Cheney had all these meetings with big oil companies. It was determined that there should be some divulging of whom he met with, when he met with them, and what they talked about. Litigation had to be filed on that, and I joined in that litigation, filing a friend of the court brief. It is not right that there be stonewalling. Here is another example of what has happened in this administration. My colleague and a dear friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, has called the Democratic calls for more information about Estrada ``silly.'' Well, we have a role as Members of the Senate to advise and give consent to nominations forwarded to us by the White House. I don't think what we are asking is silly. My friend may not agree with our position, but it is not a silly position. Here is a person about whom the Hispanic caucus of the Congress unanimously said: We don't want him. Here is a person about whom I put in the Record over 50 organizations yesterday saying: We don't want him. There are lots of different reasons organizations give based on his qualifications, his temperament. We have one of his former employers who said his temperament, demeanor is not appropriate to serve on a circuit court. In fact, he said he was an ideologue. [[Page S2060]] That is not silly. People may disagree with our position, but it is not a silly position. The Constitution's consent requirement is not just a rubberstamp requirement, as my colleague himself once observed. When a Democratic President sat in the White House, my Republican colleagues called for voluminous document presentations from his judicial nominees, and they got them. Judge Paez, I talked to his mother, trying to get him confirmed, and we finally did. Senator Hatch knows this. I had his mother talk to Senator Hatch. He was held up for 4 years. He was asked to provide documentation of every instance during his tenure as a lower court judge where he reduced a sentence downward from Federal sentencing guidelines. I had no problem with their asking for them. Why did he do it? Was his judicial temperament, his activism, as it is called by my friend from Utah, so much that he couldn't vote to confirm? That is a right that he has. Judge Marcia Berzon was required to provide the minutes from every single California ACLU meeting that occurred while she was a member, regardless of whether she had even attended the meeting. At that time, Chairman Hatch stated: [T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. That is not a ``silly'' thing he is doing. He has a right to do that. Senator Hatch continued: Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views. He had a right to do that. I think the Senate should be similarly diligent and probing in its review of Mr. Estrada's record. Basically, the Judiciary Committee asked him roughly 80 questions and he didn't give any answers. He gave answers such as ``I have not read the briefs;'' ``I wasn't present during arguments;'' ``I have to independently research the issue.'' He was asked to name three cases from the last 40 years--Supreme Court cases--of which he was critical. He didn't have any. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist, who presided in the Senate during the impeachment trial--and the Presiding Officer was one of the prosecutors--and, I thought, handled that impeachment proceeding with great solemnity--he was diligent and fair. I may not agree with all of his legal opinions, but what a nice man. I was chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, and I called the Chief Justice and said: Come visit with us at election time; would you do that? He did that. He answered questions, was real funny, and he had a great sense of humor. So Chief Justice Rehnquist, a person I have great respect for, said: Since most justices come to this bench no earlier than their middle years, it would be unusual if they had not by that time formulated at least some tentative notions that would influence them in their interpretation of the sweeping clauses of the Constitution and their interaction with one another. This nominee doesn't fall under that. He also commented: It would not merely be unusual, but extraordinary if they had not at least given opinions as to Constitutional issues in their previous legal careers. They are asking that the man be on the second highest court in this land and he doesn't have any opinion about other opinions written by judges. I think that really says it all--why there are questions being raised. I am going to bring in here--I was hoping to do it today. Everybody brings in visual aids to the Senate, and there have been efforts to cut the size of them, or to cut them out. Anyway, that has not been done. Let's assume we had a chart back here, a big white piece of cardboard, or posterboard, and we had here the judicial experience of Mr. Estrada. It would be blank. There would not be anything on it. We would bring out another chart and on that it would have Miguel Estrada and it would have there the questions he answered for the Judiciary Committee. It would be blank. There would be nothing on it. Does it seem ``silly'' that we are asking questions about this man? I don't think so. So I would say that we have a right and an obligation to move forward the way we are. The administration's secrecy is deeply disturbing in all these areas. It is more so in the case of Miguel Estrada. I have talked about Vice President Cheney not giving us information about the oil companies, and this nomination is also very troubling to me. If I could file another court brief in this instance, I would. It is not available. This is a different type of proceeding. Senators have a constitutional duty to evaluate this nominee. This nominee has stayed silent, refusing the American people a window into his views, judicial philosophy, and his manner of thinking. The administration has similarly refused to turn over documents that would illustrate those things to the Senate. Should we approve this nomination, the Senate would be setting a dangerous precedent that would greatly narrow the scope of the important power vested in us by our Founding Fathers. It would serve neither the Senate, the people of Nevada, nor the rest of the American people to confer such a rubber stamp on this or any administration, Republican or Democrat. The Founders carefully balanced the powers of each branch of government, and the Senate's role in approving a President's nominee is a critical part of that balance, this separation of powers. I submit that the examples I have provided show that this administration has forgotten, or ignored, the importance of that balance. There is no more important a time to remind this administration of the importance of that balance than in the case of a person who is nominated for a lifetime judicial appointment to the second highest court in our land. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. ____________________