Talk:Miguel Estrada

in the news
I agree this is a biased article, and it would be important to add detail about the controversy, especially now that the treatment of Justice Sotomayor is being compared to the case of Estrada's nomination. Unfortunately, I am not the person to add the details, but I wish someone would. Nshalloran (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)nshalloran

from Vfd
On 2 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Miguel Estrada for a record of the discussion. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:16, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

'He Is Latino'
The article states: "Some observers claimed that the Democrats also wished to avoid giving Bush points with Hispanic voters. The Democrats hotly contested this, however internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him "especially dangerous" as a potential future Supreme Court nominee (see1)."

And the reference (a WSJ OpEd) says: "The primary focus [of a meeting] will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees." and

"They [liberal groups at the meeting] also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

I think the article is PoV here, any thoughts? Richard Manion 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I inserted that a couple years ago (reinserted tonight with a different source). I don't know why it would violate any PoV problems. If we're talking about Miguel Estrada's failed nomination, having interest groups on record raising concern about him based on his ethnicity is highly relevant. Son of lucas (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is PoV. I don't know a better way to state it, but it's phrased very contentiously. Based on news reports, the full context of the memos indicates that the worry was that Estrada is a hard line conservative ideologue. The opposition to his nomination centered around the refusal to release his work at the Office of the Solicitor. The "liberal interest groups" mentioned his background in that context because they were worried that he would be hard to oppose without any decisions as a judge to go on or any other experience to base a judgment on because Republicans would allege racist motives. Well, that's the Dem PoV anyway. The article currently relates things from the Rep PoV. In any case, emphasizing the racial component over the lack of experience and the refusal to release his opinions is a VERY contentious way of putting things.173.30.27.245 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I’ve become interested in this topic, and am going to suggest a re-examination of this issue. The idea that he was opposed “because” he was Latino is inconsistent with the source material which is pretty clear in saying that he was opposed for his conservative views. Within that context, he was also deemed as more difficult to oppose because he was Latino. To suggest that ethnicity was a primary element in Democratic opposition mis-states the case. Johnadams11 (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word latino to exclude  Italy  is a geographic misconception.
&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly where to we draw the borders of "Latino" culture/ethnicity? Are all speakers of Romance (Latin based) languages Latino? If we must include Italians, how about French? Romanian? -BillyFla 70.94.245.229 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1992 DoJ position
It is not possible that "he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General for the Clinton Administration" in 1992, as the Clinton Administration did not begin until Jan 20, 1993. This is a technical impossibility that should be edited for clarity and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerbilsbite (talk • contribs) 01:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the Administration and added a reference to John Roberts who also worked in the SG's office at the time as Principal Deputy. Should we also add that Ken Starr was the Solicitor General at the time? -- Jvv62 (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section isn't NPOV
The section about Mr. Estrada's confirmation seems to be written in a fashion biased against Democratic senators. It cites the affirmative view of the ABA, notes the letter from the Solicitors General, mentions the memo published by Karl Rove, and concludes with a quote that criticizes Republican leaders for being insufficiently forceful against a Democratic filibuster. The problem here is that precious little is said about Democratic opposition to the nomination. No Democratic senators are quoted, no liberal pundits discussed, etc. Ony two unsourced sentences, early in the section, discuss Democratic objections: "Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there." This is insufficient, given the volume of type devoted to Estada's competence and allegations of Democratic scheming. Because of the lopsided discussion, the overall effect could bias the reader against the Democratic opposition. More quotes from the left of the spectrum should be placed within the body paragraphs, in order to give Mr. Estrada's detractors equal voice in the dispute. This would resolve the NPOV issue. Sacxpert (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some material regarding the accusation that Estrada held extreme right wing views. Feel free to suggest further additions.166.137.136.36 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. This article is still POV.  Did the Democrats have simply no reason to oppose him other than the fact that he was Latino?  That's not credible. Bruxism (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor POV Edit
I am removing the following sentence from the section about his nomination:

"Despite never having served as a judge, the Bush Administration had nominated the 41-year-old lawyer for one of the most important courts in the country (a pattern that would be repeated with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court)."

First, the parenthetical about Harriet Miers is completely irrelevant and should be deleted. This article is about Miguel Estrada, and who Bush nominated in future years has no bearing on this article and seems mainly to serve as a subtle criticism of Miers' nomination. Second, the entire sentence is uncited, is editorial in nature, and the wording indicates a critical POV. The fact that Democrats opposed the nomination due to his lack of judicial experience is enough without this extraneous sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbyrom (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miguel Estrada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118153756/http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york092702.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york092702.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050102092335/http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/estradabio.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/estradabio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)