You can't work at a major newspaper without knowing what it means when someone has a `fo-ya.' It's newspaper-speak for a request for information filed under the Freedom of Information Act – FOIA.

The Freedom of Information Act works as one of the checks and balances that keeps our government under control, along with sunshine laws and open-meeting laws. It keeps our government from enacting laws and regulations in the dark – and it helps to hold those who make laws and regulations accountable to the people they serve.

One of the most distressing and dangerous steps the Bush Administration made when it took office was to scoff any attempt to find out just exactly what went on behind those closed administration doors. Dubya made certain any papers left from his time as Governor of Texas were under lock and key at his father's Presidential Library, they refused FOIA requests for information about such important tasks as drafting the administration's Energy Policy – going so far as to force the Government Accounting Office to sue.

The Federal District court that governs the District of Columbia, a panel that is remarkably conservative – the same panel that gave Kenneth Starr carte blanche to investigate federal sexual activity – upheld the administration's opinion. Sadly, with another conservative judge added to the Supreme Court, a decision such as that could conceivably be upheld.

How the Bush Administration is taking another step in controlling the flow of information for its own ends.

The latest is in the confirmation process for Miguel Estrada for a spot on the D.C. Federal Bench.

Estrada has very little to qualify him for the federal bench to begin with – his paper trail is scant. He has refused to put his judicial views on the record, and he has stonewalled the Senate Judiciary committee during his confirmation process.

Here's where the Administration has stonewalled: it has refused to release any memorandums of law written by Estrada during his time at the Solicitor General's office.

In essence, they are saying that, since Estrada is Hispanic, he should be rubber stamped to the federal bench – where there are a number of insiders who suspect he will fill one of the inevitable openings on the Supreme Court as the first Hispanic Justice.

But it doesn't work that way. And the Administration can't have it both ways.

Dubya has come out against Affirmative Action by backing an attack on an admission policy at the University of Michigan. It called the policy a `quota system' and trotted out Condi Rice to say so – which worked about as well as a Rush Limbaugh ad for Slim Fast.

Here is a case of Dubya trying to have his cake and eat it too. He's expecting the Senate Judiciary Committee confirm a judge simply on the basis of his ethnicity – since they, and he, refuse to release any justification regarding his suitability to sit on a Federal Bench.

That's hypocritical on its face.

The New York Times listed more than enough reasons to reject Estrada, although Orrin Hatch will try to muscle him through, along with a resurrected Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen – three arch-conservative ideologues.

``Mr. Estrada, a native of Honduras and graduate of Harvard Law School, has a strong legal résumé,'' The Times points out. ``But people who have worked with him over the years, at the solicitor general's office and elsewhere, report that his interpretation of the law is driven by an unusually conservative agenda. Paul Bender, a law professor and former deputy solicitor general, has called Mr. Estrada an ideologue, and said he "could not rely on his written work as a neutral statement of the law." In private practice, Mr. Estrada defended anti-loitering laws that civil rights and groups have attacked as racist.''

The editorial went on:

``Senators have a constitutional duty to weigh the qualifications of nominees for the federal judiciary. But they cannot perform this duty when the White House sends them candidates whose record is a black hole. Mr. Estrada's case is particularly troubling because the administration has more information about his views, in the form of his solicitor general memos, but is refusing to share it with the Senate.
``If Mr. Estrada is confirmed, he is likely to be high on the administration's list for the next Supreme Court vacancy. The D.C. circuit is a traditional feeder to the Supreme Court, and it is widely thought that for political reasons the administration would like to name a Hispanic.
``The very absence of a paper trail on matters like abortion and civil liberties may be one reason the administration chose him. It is also a compelling — indeed necessary — reason to reject him.''

So, the billion-dollar question is this: Is the United States Senate part of the system of checks and balances? Or is it just another rubber stamp?

More soon.