Phillipe de Croysays I was wrong, here, in arguing that the Democrats are indeed opposing Estrada because he’s Hispanic. His point is that they’re opposing him not because he’s Hispanic but because he’s Hispanic, too conservative (unlike White House counsel Gonzalez, whom they wouldn’t filibuster), and maybe even an ideologue, as one disgruntled Democrat who nevertheless gave him excellent evaluations subsequently asserted.
I believe my point still holds. The Dems are opposing Estrada because he’s Hispanic and conservative. They’re not filibustering equally conservative nominees who are not Hispanic. Thus they’re opposing him because he’s Hispanic. They obviously think he would be harder to oppose for the Supreme Court because he’s Hispanic.
de Croy also says:
I don’t think nominating Estrada was a racist act. I think the nomination — but even more, the Bush administration’s talk of putting Estrada on the Supreme Court — is race-conscious, which is not quite the same thing. I have no problem with Bush’s wish to put a Hispanic on the Court. I have a problem with the Republicans doing this and then complaining that we are taking ethnicity into account in some inappropriate way when we try to stop an objectionable Hispanic early in the process.
For the record, I have not argued that there is anything “inappropriate” about opposing Estrada because he’s Hispanic. I argued only that that is what the Democrats are doing.
De Croy’s argument reminds me of the U Mich defense: we’re not admitting them just because they’re black/Hispanic/whatever; it’s only one “plus” (or here, minus) factor among many. Depending on how the Michigan cases turn out, might this make the filibuster unconstitutional?