We had to take all of our legal affairs reporters and put them on the Monica beat...

The Washington Times Lite, formerly the Washington Post, is still having a problem understanding why the Democrats are blocking the vote on stealth candidate, Miguel Estrada. The Times Lite/Post is taking a "pox upon both your houses" approach to criticizing both parties involved...but then they end up putting the onus on the Democrats.

The question at stake in the Democratic filibuster of Mr. Estrada's nomination ultimately has nothing to do with race or with Mr. Estrada's allegedly inadequate answers. It is simply whether a conservative president can reliably place on an appeals court a qualified conservative against whom no serious complaint has been made. The answer must be yes; for if he cannot, the courts will become the province of those anodyne centrists whose views don't offend anyone with power. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger noted in a recent op-ed article that the Democrats' problem is not really Mr. Estrada but the monochromatically conservative nature of the larger slate of nominees this administration has advanced. But while it is tempting to attach a name and a face to the problem, it is also wrong. Democrats should, as Mr. Dellinger suggests, make recommendations, and President Bush should listen and accommodate. The future of the judiciary is certainly a legitimate electoral issue. But a presidential election does not take place each time the Senate must vote on a judge.

Leaving aside the absurd notion that Bush should "listen and accomodate", seeing as he only answers to God according to the latest Howard Fineman blowfest, it would seem that the Post purged all legal reporting prior to the 2000 election. Let's refresh their memory:

May 23, 2000

Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed Tuesday to bring up a package of long-stalled presidential nominations, which includes judges and a controversial appointment to the Federal Election Commission.

The Senate will debate and vote this week on a package of 65 of President Bill Clinton's nominations, including the 16 judges who have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In exchange for Republicans allowing votes on judicial nominees, many of whom GOP senators view as too "activist" for lifetime appointments, Democrats agreed to stop blocking the Republicans' pick for the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith.

John Ashcroft

The issue isn't just appointments. Women and minorities have been disproportionately at odds with Senator Ashcroft because those rising from their midst often have policy differences with him, which shouldn't be surprising given that their life experiences are so different. He is wedded to the values of the Assembly of God church and has little tolerance for these differences. He is not a racist in the usual sense. It's just that he is so locked into the rightness of his views that he sees spokespersons for those who differ as enemies to be destroyed rather than opponents to be debated. Senator Ashcroft is constantly described as a man of integrity, but what does that mean if it leaves him free to use government office to destroy the reputation of others for political expedience.

That is what many Missourians believe he did to Ronnie White. It wasn't just African Americans who were offended. He blocked a highly respected Missouri Supreme Court judge from a federal position through deliberate misrepresentation and character assassination in order to create a law and order issue for his race against Mel Carnahan. He played the race card with court-ordered desegregation to advance his prospects to become governor. Someone rooted in religious values should set an example. Instead, his actions worsened race relations in a state that continues to struggle to improve interracial understanding. They diminished respect for justice and the courts at a time when more than ever we need to restore confidence in the law and the courts. They lowered the tone of debate between candidates and political parties. John Ashcroft polarized Missourians; his appointment will do the same for the country.

Or maybe the Post could just go here for a primer on judicial obstruction:

Won’t Republicans at least admit that their own inaction during the Clinton Administration created the judicial vacancy crisis?

When Democrats gained controlled of the Senate, they inherited 110 judicial vacancies – almost twice as many vacancies as existed when Republicans took control in 1995 (63). Today, after 80 confirmations, vacancies have decreased to 77 (including an additional 47 vacancies that have arisen since the shift in majority). By approving far more judicial nominees for this President than past Senates did for other Presidents, the Democratic-led Senate has reduced the number of vacancies and brought relief to the federal judiciary.

Also, vacancies on the Circuit Courts more than doubled during the period of Republican control of the Senate, increasing from 16 to 33. Two-thirds of these vacancies (22) were considered "judicial emergencies" by the Administrative office of the U.S. Courts because of high caseloads. Republicans blocked Clinton nominees who were waiting to be confirmed to 15 of these 22 “emergency” vacancies.

The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee held the first hearing for a Fifth Circuit nominee in seven years, the first hearings for Sixth Circuit nominees in almost five years, the first hearing for a Tenth Circuit nominee in six years, and the first hearings for Fourth Circuit nominees in three years.

Speaking of delays, why did Republicans block more than 50 Clinton judicial nominees by refusing to give them hearings or votes?

Republicans must know, but they' not talking. More than a dozen, well-qualified Clinton nominees had to wait over 500 days to be confirmed, including nine who waited over 700 days, four who waited over 900 days, two who waited over 1,000 days, and one, Richard Paez, who waited 1,520 days from nomination to confirmation.

Imagine that.....