# Democrats: Minority Nominees "Dangerous" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996 "2003-11-18T23:41:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ExecutiveJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@ExecutiveJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExecutiveJesus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/1 "2003-11-18T23:41:20Z")
A memo by staffers for Ted Kennedy recommended the stonewalling of Bush’s nominee to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Julia Gibbons. Nobody is making a big deal out of this, just as they’re not making a big deal over Kennedy smearing Bush’s female, Hispanic and black nominees as “Neanderthals” and letting special interest groups decide which judges they vote for. You’re not going to hear much about this from many media sources… those of you looking for an example of how the “liberal media” operates. People like Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott say something that might be construed as racist, and they get ousted from their positions from all the public outcry the media has installed. Not going to see that here. But here’s some blatant racist statements coming from the so called “color blind, defenders of minorities” liberal democratic party - These are from memos as well… it’s in writing. I guarantee, that if this memo came from a republican’s office, it’d be the number one news story right now - and his career would be near death. > **[Memos of special interest on Hill](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/nov/15/20031115-121140-2918r/)** > > Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have worked in close concert with outside special-interest groups to defeat President Bush’s judicial nominees, according to internal Democratic staff memos. > [@](#): > > \*\*“In one memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois obtained by The Washington Times, Washington lawyer Miguel A. Estrada is singled out as “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino.” Mr. Estrada, born in Honduras, withdrew his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in September after being filibustered for eight months.” \*\* Again… Liberals are generally the exact opposite of what they say they are. Yet another example of their blatant hypocrisy on display. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/2 "2003-11-19T00:51:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Liberals are generally the exact opposite of what they say they are. So, in this case they’re prototypically racist conservatives ? Shouldn’t that make you _happy_? In which case, why the rant ? ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/3 "2003-11-19T00:55:53Z")
Spare me the fake outrage. From your own article: \_“_That’s a list of what the groups saw as dangerous positives_,” Mr. Shoemaker said. “_In their opinion, Miguel Estrada was especially dangerous from a political standpoint for Democrats because they wouldn’t want to vote against him for those very reasons_.” There is a difference in stating someone is dangerous because they are latino and noting that opposing a latino may be politcally dangerous. However, the main objection with Estrada is that he has no paper trail, something your quote omitted. Further, how is it that these democratic memos keep ending up in Republican hands? Might there be some unethical conduct going on? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/4 "2003-11-19T01:22:41Z")
Nice attempt at outrage, EG. Dick Durbin is my Senator and only a complete fool would think that he would oppose someone for the federal bench because “he is Latino”. Estrada’s race had nothing to do with his rejection; it was his far-right political views.:wally ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/5 "2003-11-19T01:31:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmason32 \* > Further, how is it that these democratic memos keep ending up in Republican hands? Might there be some unethical conduct going on? [Capitol cops open a probe into leak](http://www.hillnews.com/news/111803/leak.aspx) > [@](#): > > A complaint filed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) with the Senate sergeant at arms caused the Capitol Police to confiscate computer records of the Senate Judiciary Committee after sealing off the room. > Durbin’s complaint … focused on memos written by Durbin’s staff in late 2001 about the opposition of liberal groups to President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal bench. > The memos were cited last Friday in an editorial that ran in The Wall Street Journal and in The Washington Times. In more amusing confirmation news: > [@](#): > > The Senate is blocking another of President Bush’s judicial nominees — but this time it’s Republicans and not Democrats playing the role of obstructionists. GOP blocks Bush judicial nominee ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/6 "2003-11-19T01:47:35Z")
**Squink** , I’d like to read your second link but it doesn’t work. Mind posting it again? ---
**Author:** ![cheddarsnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/7 "2003-11-19T02:40:57Z")
> [@](#): > > …just as they’re not making a big deal over Kennedy smearing Bush’s female, Hispanic and black nominees as “Neanderthals” Did he call them neanderthals _because_ of their gender, race, or ethnicity? Who, specifically, was Kennedy referring to? Were there any white males in the group? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/8 "2003-11-19T02:42:00Z")
:smack: That’d be because I forgot to paste in the link. [In twist, GOP blocks Bush nominee](http://www.hillnews.com/news/111903/nominee.aspx) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/9 "2003-11-19T03:49:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Frostillicus \* > ]Nice attempt at outrage, EG. Dick Durbin is my Senator and only a complete fool would think that he would oppose someone for the federal bench because “he is Latino”. Estrada’s race had nothing to do with his rejection; it was his far-right political views.:wally I would also point out that, although I don’t claim to have any proof of this, I think it is not hard to envision that the Bush Administration might have gone looking for minorities and women who are extremely far right out of the hope that they would be more difficult politically for the Dems to oppose than far righters who were white males. Here are some fun figures from Albert R. Hunt, the only regular voice of sanity on the Wall Street Journal OpEd page [Nov. 13, 2003]: Number of African Americans Bush judicial nominations blocked by the Senate: 1, Number confirmed: 13. The numbers for Hispanics are exactly the same. The numbers for women are 3 and 33, respectively. Another point in that article: Democrats are filibustering or threatening a filibuster on 6 nominations. During Clinton’s 8 years, Republicans blocked over 60 nominations who didn’t even get a floor vote. And, the Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush’s judicial nominations which is one more than was confirmed under Clinton at this point in his term. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/10 "2003-11-19T07:46:01Z")
Slight hijack: Am I the only person who read the OP and got a **december** flashback? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/11 "2003-11-19T14:25:32Z")
\>Further, how is it that these democratic memos keep ending up \>in Republican hands? Might there be some unethical conduct \>going on? Funny, isn’t it, that the Dems are more interested in stopping information from getting out than actually justifying their positions? Does anyone have any information on the stated reason that the Clintoners were blocked? Because these four are blocked for purely ideological reasons. As for Bush nominating “far-right” minorities…_shrug_. If they’re qualified, there’s no reason they can’t get a proper vote. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be opposing the minority/women with particular vigor. Maybe they’re afraid that their monopoly on minorities is being broken? (I’m also amused by the fact that the NAACP is blocking the advancement of JRB, as is NOW. Gone from race/gender-based advancement groups to ideological/policy group.) ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/12 "2003-11-19T14:27:25Z")
\>Does anyone have any information on the stated reason that the Clintoners were blocked? Asked in earnest, not sarcasming. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/13 "2003-11-19T16:33:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by athelas \* > \*\*\>Does anyone have any information on the stated reason that the Clintoners were blocked? \*\* After Republicans gained the majority in Congress in 1994, Senator Hatch – as the new Chairman of the Judificary Committee – revived a practice of requiring that both Senators representing a state to which a judge would be appointed must approve of the nomination. This is often called the “blue slip” policy. Refusals by Republican Senators to approve of Clinton nominees to their states meant that those nominees would not be given hearings. For example, according to this [site,](http://charleston.net/stories/012403/wor_24judges.shtml) Senator Helms did not approve of any Clinton appointees. In effect, it was one Senator blocking a hearing on a nomination, as opposed to 45 (or so) blocking a vote on a nomination. As the article linked above notes, in 2001, Hatch changed his blue slip policy to say that he would give “great weight” to whether there was home-state opposition to a judge, but would not let a single Senator’s opposition to a nominee block a hearing. At least one of the judges now being blocked – Judge Kuhl – does not have the approval of both Senators of her state, which would have torpedoed the nomination in the period from 1994 to 2001. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/14 "2003-11-19T16:53:45Z")
The reference was to “neanderthal conservatives”, which is hardly a new term. It was not a comment on the race or ethnicity of the nominees. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/15 "2003-11-19T16:58:06Z")
The democrats are not opposing the nominees because they are minorities they are opposing them because they are minorities who may be nominated to the Supreme Court. This is why the memo calls the Hispanic nominee dangerous. White males are less dangerous because they would be easier to vote against . Apparently Democrats think that discrimination against people of color or gender is okay as long as it serves to keep abortion legal in all 50 states. This type of discrimination is illegal in the private sector > [@](#): > > . See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m): “[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” For a longer discussion about the legality of this type of discrimination see: [http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003\_11\_01\_stuartbuck\_archive.html#106796407351384917](http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_stuartbuck_archive.html#106796407351384917) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/16 "2003-11-19T17:06:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*Apparently Democrats think that discrimination against people of color or gender is okay as long as it serves to keep abortion legal in all 50 states. \*\* What the devil is your point here? Are you saying that it is racist to oppose the nomination of an anti-choice person to a lifetime post, if that person is also a minority? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/17 "2003-11-19T17:14:29Z")
It’s only a racist statement if one takes it out of context and applies a new, unintended meaning to it. Rush doesn’t have to defend his silly sayings. Rush wouldn’t last two weeks on the SDMB GD. ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/18 "2003-11-19T18:18:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by athelas \* > \*\*\>Further, how is it that these democratic memos keep ending up \>in Republican hands? Might there be some unethical conduct > \>going on? > > Funny, isn’t it, that the Dems are more interested in stopping information from getting out than actually justifying their positions? > \*\* Perhaps if you had read my entire post you would have noticed that I had already explained that the memo referred to the political danger that might happen should the democrats filibuster Estrada. However, considering you chose only to quote a certain part of my post, should I assume that you are less interested in a real answer and are more interested in partisan sniping? If you have a real disagreement with my points, that is fine. But to only take one part of my post and then claim I’m unresponsive while completely ignoring the rest of my post is not only intellectually dishonest, but it’s petty as well. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/19 "2003-11-19T18:29:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*Slight hijack: Am I the only person who read the OP and got a **december** flashback? :eek: \*\* Rush is back. I hear most of his show yesterday. This was one of his talking points. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996/20 "2003-11-19T18:40:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*Slight hijack: Am I the only person who read the OP and got a **december** flashback? :eek: \*\* Nope, I got that also. I was almost afraid that he had been allowed back in with a different user name. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-minority-nominees-dangerous/213996.md?page=2)