Floor Discussion Over the Nomination of Miguel A. Estrada to Circuit Court Judge of the District of Columbia

Mr. SCHUMER. My colleague from Utah has talked about how it is unfair to block a conservative nominee who is Hispanic. I would like to ask my colleague a question about Judge Rosemary Barkett, a Hispanic woman, born in Mexico, who spent her early years there before her parents immigrated to the United States. At an early age, she devoted herself to religious service and took vows to become a nun, then a schoolteacher, educating children in Florida, then became a very distinguished lawyer. After years in private practice, she underwent a rigorous screening process, and she was appointed to the State trial bench.

Mr. SCHUMER. Now that the Senator from Utah knows that Judge Barkett is Hispanic, would he in any way characterize his own action as anti-Hispanic?

Mr. SCHUMER. My friend from Utah just characterized the kinds of questions, such as what are your opinions of court cases, in an attempt to destroy the career of Mr. Estrada. I would like to ask the Senator, you were just talking about Judge Paez with Senator Sessions. I ask the Senator, my friend from Utah, if you recall some of the questions Senator Sessions asked Richard Paez: In your opinion, what is the greatest Supreme Court decision in American history? What is the worst Supreme Court case?
    
I would ask my colleague two questions. Was Senator Sessions attempting to destroy the career of Richard Paez? Second, does he recall that instead of saying, I cannot answer that, Senator Paez gave answers to both of those questions?

Mr. SCHUMER. I was pursuing this line of questioning before, and then somehow we turned to other people to ask questions. But when I asked my colleague before how he could say this about Judge Barkett, which is a reasonable thing for him to say—I do not begrudge him one bit. I do not think he has an ounce of discrimination in his body—how that was not anti-Hispanic, but opposing Judge Estrada was anti-Hispanic, he prefaced his remarks by saying, well, you are opposing not Hispanics but conservative Hispanics; you are anti-conservative Hispanics—was my friend from Utah being anti-liberal Hispanic when he opposed Judge Barkett or was he simply ignoring the fact that she was Hispanic—he said he did not even know—and instead opposing her on her views and her record, something at least to this Senator is not only legitimate but an obligation to know about the views and the record? So I would like to—

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
    
So, Mr. President, I ask my colleague, the Senator from Utah, how one is any different from the other. And isn't, as it seems to most of us, one the mirror image of the other, either exactly blasphemous or equally pure?

Mr. SCHUMER. One judge nominated to the same DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Snyder—a fine judge, well respected, the highest ABA rating, same thing as Miguel Estrada in a lot of ways—never got a hearing, he never got a vote. He is from DC. There were no home State Senators to object to him, unlike Mr. Moreno.
    
I ask my colleague, why wasn't it very unfair not to let Mr. Snyder have a vote on the very same circuit to which we are debating Miguel Estrada's entrance?
    
Mr. SCHUMER. The final question in relation to the hearing tomorrow, would the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Utah, just give us 1 day of questions for Mr. Roberts? As the Senator well knows, we had an unprecedented three court of appeals nominees before us in 1 day—all three controversial, all three very erudite. We never had that before. We took all day.
    
To his credit, our chairman waited until 9:30 but that is when the questions finished with Mr. Sutton and one of the reasons many Members find difficulty voting on Judge Roberts, who is a brilliant man. I would just like to ask some questions. We have not had a chance to ask questions.
    
I ask my colleague, if you give us 1 day of hearings on Judge Roberts, we would agree to vote the very next day. Would that be acceptable to the Senator?