Michael Gerhardt has a great article in Sunday's Washington Post about the pending nomination of Miguel Estrada for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, widely seen as the second most powerful court in the nation, and often a stepping stone to the most powerful court, the Supreme Court. Gerhardt examines the issue of Congressional oversight of judicial appointments, including its history and the flip-flop in the positions of the Republicans and Democrats over how judicial review is done.

What is different about Estrada and his refusal to answer questions in his congressional hearings is how young he is. Previous reticent nominees, like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, at least had a bit more of a track record that could alert people to how they viewed certain issues (unfortunately, though, not enough to refuse either an appointment, in the view of non-right-wingers). Estrada, though, comes with a fairly clean slate as a judge, having served for less than a decade as one. So, without a record, the only thing Senators have to base their understanding of Estrada's judicial philosophy on is how he responds to their questions, and he refuses to do so, claiming that it would interfere with his independence as a judge.

Gerhardt writes:

It is hard to see how the questions Estrada has declined to answer would jeopardize his independence. He would not identify a single Supreme Court case with which he disagreed, and initially wouldn't even name judges he admires (though he cited three in writing later). Other Bush judicial nominees have answered such questions. Reagan and Bush White House officials asked them of people under consideration for nomination.

It's that last sentence that I think solves the current stalemate. According to several reports, the current administration vets their appointments with an extensive questionnaire and interview process, and I would be quite surprised if Estrada had been as similarly reticent with Bush officials. Democratic senators should simply ask Estrada if he had been questioned by the White House prior to being put forward as a nominee, what questions they had asked, and what his responses to them had been.

There should be no reason why he can't share with Congress the same information he presented to the White House, right?