Let's be honest. Miguel Estrada, who is President Bush's choice for a seat on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, probably is just as conservative as Democrats in the Senate fear.
But under the current political climate where Republicans dominate the federal government, that's not a good enough reason for the political gamesmanship Democrats are engaging in to stop Estrada from becoming a member of what one senator called "the Supreme Court's Triple-A team."
All Democrats are doing is providing Republicans with ammunition to be used against them in next year's elections, rather than strengthening themselves for 2004 electoral victories on Capitol Hill and/or the White House.
For those people who don't watch Congress' every maneuver, Bush chose Estrada in 2001 to serve on the appeals court that often hears cases of national significance and can provide experience for future justices of the Supreme Court.
Estrada, 41, an immigrant from Honduras who came to the United States when he was 17, would be one of the nation's highest-ranking Hispanic judges. But Bush's appointment does not become official until the Senate confirms it.
When the Senate's Republican majority tried last week to approve Estrada, Democrats dug up the rarely used filibuster (think Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only not as eloquent) to protest what they call a GOP "cover up" of Estrada's record with the solicitor general's office.
Simply put, Bush aides are saying nothing, other than pointing out Estrada came to the United States speaking little English, but worked his way through Harvard Law School and wound up arguing 15 cases before the Supreme Court.
Any legal papers, journal articles or other testimony that would give hints about his "judicial thinking" are being withheld. Estrada is saying as little as possible.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., says he knows enough personally about Estrada to vote against him, but wants to get more information about him out in the open.
Need a translation? Democrats want to find something that discredits Estrada as a "right wing nut" or "Hispanic sell-out."
Sure, Estrada may be conservative, but it doesn't make him a sell-out. Many Hispanics are inherently conservative on social issues, particularly if their values are rooted in the Roman Catholic Church.
Older Hispanics of Cuban descent are open about their preference for Republicans (many still resent JFK for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion), while some Hispanics of other ethnicities talk about issues like abortion and equal rights for gay people in ways perfectly in line with the GOP platform.
The major reason so few Hispanics become Republicans (only 20 percent, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study) is the vocal segment of conservatives in the "Party of Lincoln" who prefer the social dictum of Jefferson Davis, which makes Hispanics who would like to be Republican wind up with the Democrats by default.
Also, Estrada would not have received the judicial appointment if Bush had doubts about his philosophical leanings.
Some believe President Bush wants to make Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel and former Texas Supreme Court justice, the first Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme Court. But that possibility is now in doubt due to some conservative groups who do not believe Gonzales is opposed enough to abortion and affirmative action to deserve any future nomination.
So Estrada is conservative. It's not a good enough reason to filibuster.
While Finley Peter Dunne's mythical Chicago bartender "Mr. Dooley" wasn't kidding when he said, "Politics ain't beanbag," political gamesmanship is for times when you have some say in the government structure and the maneuver shifts the balance in your favor. None of the current senators have the purity of Stewart's "Sen. Jefferson Smith" to pull off a filibuster successfully.
Filibusters won't produce a justice more sympathetic on social issues. They only detract from what should be the goal of Democrats -- developing a cohesive reason why people should vote for their candidates in 2004.
I can already envision GOP campaign ads claiming Democrat senators are anti-Hispanic for refusing to support Estrada. (A recent letter in the New York Post made that very point against Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.)
Some people think Estrada is a Bush plot to undermine Hispanic opposition in the same way some African-American activists didn't know what to think when Bush's father chose Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court in 1991. The Internet site Latinovote.com even had a poll asking whether Hispanics "should be proud" of Estrada or whether he "is Clarence Thomas 2."
But Estrada's situation is closer to that of Linda Chavez. The former aide in the Reagan and elder Bush administrations with a record of opposition to organized labor was the younger Bush's original choice for Labor secretary. Petty allegations she provided assistance to an undocumented immigrant forced her to step aside.
Killing Chavez in favor of Elaine Chao was the lone Democrat victory. Does anyone seriously believe the Bush administration is any less conservative as a result? Bush got all his other cabinet appointments confirmed -- even John Ashcroft as attorney general.
Ultimately, the only thing that will save the people Democrats represent from years of political abuse is a November 2004 victory that gives them a share of power. Backing off the histrionics now is how they can best serve the American people in the future.
(Hispanidad is a weekly column about the culture of Hispanics and Latinos in the United States, written by Greg Tejeda, a third-generation Mexican-American. Suggestions for topics can be made to [email protected])
