The New York Times takes a hard line on Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada in an editorial today. Estrada's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday. The Times says,

"This is an administration that loves secrecy, on issues ranging from war in Iraq to Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. And it seems to think that if Congress is ignored, it will simply go away. Congress must insist on getting the documents it needs to evaluate Mr. Estrada, and it should not confirm him until it does."

Major objections from the Democrats have been expected for some time. The problem seems to be since Estrada has never been a judge, and apparently hasn't published much under his own name (as opposed to writing things for his various superiors,) no one knows where he stands on anything. So there are rumors he is too right-wing for an appellate judgeship on the influential DC Court of Appeals--and general feelings he is too inexperienced for the position, but nothing concrete to hold against him.

Judicial Nominee Michael McConnell, whose ultra-conservative views and posturings were made widely known through his prolific writings, did not cause the Democrats as much concern as Estrada. This is partly due to the general consensus that McConnell wouldn't be much of a threat to the nation because the Tenth Circuit is no great national policy maker. On the other hand, Estrada is a cause for concern because the DC Circuit is considered to be among the most influential of circuits. Even more of a concern is speculation that as both a hispanic and D.C. appeals judge, Estrada might get tapped for the Supreme Court.

The Washington Post said recently,

"If confirmed, Estrada would immediately become a leading candidate to be named the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Such a historic appointment could help Bush not only tilt the high court to the right, but also make political gains among the fast-growing ranks of Hispanic voters."

As of now, we have no reason to oppose Mr. Estrada. Like everyone else, we just don't know enough about him. But we did read in the same Washington Post article one thing about him we liked:

"Despite his career on the government's side of criminal cases, he took on a Virginia death row inmate's case pro bono in 1999, arguing unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court that the man should get a new trial because he had been denied access to information that would have cast doubt on key evidence against him."