As Miguel Estrada waits along with the rest of the interested American people to find out whether or not he will be the next appointed member of the 2nd US Court of Appeals, the Republican members of Congress have been forced to file for "cloture” which will force a vote on Estrada’s nomination. This measure is necessary due to the fact that the Democratic members of the Senate are threatening to filibuster his nomination.

This comes as quite a surprise for many reasons.

An immigrant from Honduras, Mr. Estrada, although not a sitting judge, is most qualified for the position for which he has been nominated. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School. The American Bar Association has rated him as "highly qualified” (This is usually the ‘gold standard’ for the Democrats. All of the nominees that went through the Senate in years passed who were sponsored by Democratic presidents wore this rating as a satisfying qualification for the positions). The Solicitor General of the United States regards him as outstanding. Sixteen Latino organizations have endorsed him in his quest for what is considered the second highest court in the land and he has appeared before the United States Supreme Court over fifteen times. With all of these items on the man’s resume one would think that the American people would be lucky to have him as a member of the judiciary.

Sadly, that is not the case.

Even though Mr. Estrada has appeared and answered questions for the Senators, the Democrats in the Senate are threatening to filibuster Mr. Estrada’s nomination into oblivion. They do this because their don’t believe that Mr. Estrada has fully answered all of their questions. In reality, this is an excuse to deflect what they are really trying to do here, effectively denying power to the president to nominate to the federal court system. The shortsightedness of this tactic is nothing less than dangerous. If successful, it will most likely become a tactic used my members of future Congress’s to come when judicial nominees are subjected to partisan politics.

The attempt to block the Estrada nomination echoes the very practice of partisan politics past that the Democrats swore to separate themselves from during the 2000 Presidential Election. During that campaign the candidates and the leaders of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties promised that partisan politics was going to be a thing of the past. We were promised that they understood that partisan politics was so divisive that it was an actual threat to the well being of the nation. Now, I know that we all took those words at their face value during an election year. We all fully expected that it wouldn’t come to pass to the extent that it was promised but there was a sparkle of hope that perhaps it wouldn’t be escalated in the future. For a short while after September 11th the American public saw both Democrat and Republican standing shoulder to shoulder proposing actions to be taken and laws to be enacted and for a brief moment the promise came true, for a brief moment the American people saw how amazingly effective their government could be if they would just heed the will and the needs of the American people. For a brief moment it was what our Forefathers proposed it should be. Of course, that is all in the past and before the Estrada nomination.

Now we see partisan politics in all it’s ugliness being played out as the Democratic Senators threaten to filibuster instead of submitting to a vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Several Democratic Senators, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont being one of them, went on record back in the 1990’s as abhorring the filibuster tactic, among other tactics, with regard to a judicial nomination yet we stand poised to experience a Democratic filibuster nevertheless. Specifically, Senator Leahy said, "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.” As Senator Leahy today threatens to filibuster I think we all are owed an answer to this question: what part of your June 1998 quote, which is recorded in the official record, was a lie, senator? Is it only when it benefits your party that fair play should be adhered to?

The Democrats, led by their leader Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, are suggesting to the media that they are doing this because they fear President Bush will "load the courts” with conservative appointments. He is quoted as saying, "We have sufficient support to sustain a series of cloture votes. That was confirmed again today, and I would expect it to remain that way for whatever length of time they choose to continue this debate." The problem with this is that a minority of members in the Senate is usurping the consensus of the majority of members. The majority, which consists of Senators from both sides of the aisle, is set to vote to confirm the nomination. Yet this incredibly narcissistic partisan minority chooses to ignore the voice of the American people choosing to instead put their political party’s agenda before the will of the nation.

Mr. Estrada has responded to the Senators questions and has even made himself available to meet with those who still need clarification or have questions about his answers but there have been very few takers. There is no hiding here. There is no deception here. Yet, the liberal Senators refuse to bring this nomination up for the legitimate and bi-partisan vote on the Senate floor that it deserves. They refuse to do the work demanded of them by the American people in order to further their liberal agenda while they practice the poisonous art of partisan politics and gear up for the 2004 elections.

Isn’t it time that we demand that our elected officials in Washington and in our State Houses exclude party politics from the duties they were elected to perform? It is one thing to lean one way or the other but to disrupt the work of the Legislative Branch, the work sanctioned by the American voters, strictly as a courtesy to partisan party politics is nothing less than criminal.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.