Remember Gonzales and Estrada

Since President Barack Obama tapped Sonya Sotomayor to become the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Democrats have neither stopped congratulating themselves for being the party of diversity nor stopped gushing about her life story, which they say makes her a shoo-in for the job.

“Her story brings a tear to your eye and makes me proud not only of her, but of being American,” New York Sen. Charles Schumer said.

Not to be outdone, Schumer’s counterpart in the House, Charles Rangel, called Sotomayor’s “trailblazing story” a “classic American tale, the kind of story that parents tell their newborns as they swaddle them good night.”

Indeed, most of the emphasis has been on Sotomayor’s past, not her judicial philosophy. And when conservative observers suggest demurely that Sotomayor’s story is terrific, but her jurisprudence is what really matters, critics cry racism.

“If Republicans unleash the attack dogs on Sotomayor, they will be looking at becoming a regional, minority party for the next couple of decades,” a Democratic political strategist told The Hill. “They really have written the playbook on how to antagonize Latinos, the fastest-growing political power in our nation.”

Well, if appointing a record number of minorities to positions of power is antagonistic, then Republicans are guilty as charged.

Remember the much-maligned former president by the name of George W. Bush? In 2004, USA Today pointed out that he had appointed “a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history,” even more diverse than President Bill Clinton’s cabinet.

The question, of course, is how Democrats handled those appointments. Did they issue news releases praising Bush for giving minorities unparalleled opportunities? Did they convene news conferences extolling the rags-to-riches life stories of the appointees?

In a word, no. Alberto Gonzales and Miguel Estrada, two Hispanic appointments by the Bush administration, are good examples.

In 2005, Gonzales became the first Hispanic U.S. attorney general. Although conservatives weren’t thrilled with the choice (Gonzales favors abortion access), every Republican in the Senate voted to confirm him. All but six Democrats, in contrast, voted against him.
Gonzales was eventually forced to resign in part due to accusations from Democrats (including Schumer, who was one of his fiercest critics) that he had politicized the attorney general’s office.

Several years before the Gonzales controversy, Democrats set their sights on Estrada, another minority Bush appointment. If confirmed, Estrada would have been the first Hispanic on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, often viewed as a springboard to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Estrada has a compelling life story, perhaps even more compelling than Sotomayor’s. He was born in Honduras and immigrated to America with a limited understanding of English. He still succeeded as a law student, U.S. attorney and member of the Justice Department prior to his nomination for the D.C. court in 2001.

His bid ended, however, after a two-year filibuster by Senate Democrats. Due to the D.C. court’s influence, Estrada could have become the first Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme Court when vacancies cropped up during Bush’s second term. But Democrats would have no part of it.

So, when weighing the Sotomayor nomination, some historical perspective is helpful. Remember that the so-called party of diversity was largely responsible for ousting the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general and blocking the nomination of what would have been the nation’s first Hispanic on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and, potentially, the U.S. Supreme Court.

That’s not surprising. The goal of liberalism has never been to put minorities in positions of power. It’s been to put liberal minorities in positions of power. All others need not apply.

David N. Bass is an investigative reporter and associate editor with the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Raleigh, N.C.