Maybe he already tried, but couldn’t. Personally, I always found the timing of december’s disappearance from the SDMB and Rush’s departure from the airwaves highly suspicious … 
The reason is that this would be the equivalent of unilateral disarmament. Surely, during the Cold War, you didn’t favor a policy of the U.S. unilaterally destroying its nuclear weapons. Why should the Dems unilaterally allow votes on nominees they find particularly poor choices when one of the reasons that there are so many judicial vacancies in the first place is that the Republicans did the same sort of thing to a much greater extent during the previous Administration. (As Ravenman noted, it was even worse in that some nominations were blocked not by having to get 40 Senators to agree that the nominee was ideologically extreme but being having one person, the most ideological right-winger in the Senate, decide that the nominee was ideologically extreme.) This is a recipe for the Republicans to be able to pack the judiciary even if the Presidency is split evenly between the two parties over the years.
I fail to understand why this amuses you so much. Did you believe that the role of NAACP and NOW is to blindly back people because they are Blacks or women? These groups are formed to push for a society in which the roles of minorities and women in general are advanced and are protected from discrimination. If they believe that these goals will be ill-served by having people with the views that these nominees hold on the federal bench then they very well ought to oppose them!
Ravingman My point is that these nominees are being discriminated against because of there gender or ethnicity. Such discrimination is currently illegal in this country. I think it is worth noting that the democrat party does not believe that such discrimination is wrong as long as it keeps abortion legal in all 50 states. It is interesting as to their view of the hierarchy of their interest groups.
As opposed to being rejected on their lack of merit ? No one has shown that discrimination is happening here. What do you want, some sort of affirmative action program for asshole right-wingers ?
Do you actually believe that Democrats are simply saying to themselves, “We must not vote for Judge So-and-so, because s/he is black/Hispanic/a woman”?
Do you really think that the political views of the nominees simply does not enter into the calculations of those who oppose Bush’s nominees?
And the name is Ravenman," thank you very much.
There is prima facia evidence that these nominees are being discriminated against in that over nominees with similar qualifications have been approved. Their gender or ethnicity is not the only factor in their being blocked, but it is a factor. Obviously if they were pro-abortion they would not be blocked, but also if they were not persons of color or gender they would not be blocked.
The democrats are saying to themselves that if Bush were to nominate this judge for the supreme court it would be much harder to Bork the judge because of their gender or ethnicity. Therefore they had better block this judge now before they are in a position to be nominated. Sen. Kennedy has said “We can’t repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.”
Notice he did not say the mistake we made with Scalia or Rehnquist or Kennedy.
So the equation for democrats is
conservative + white = OK
conservative + minority = not Ok
There is no other word for this than discrimination.
Please cite this prima facie evidence.
Cite please.
While I’m not sure what exactly it means to “Bork” a nominee, I think that this probably is a more supportable assertion based on the language in the memo.
Could please elaborate on what Kennedy thinks those mistakes were?
Cite please.
Forgive me if my stats are incorrect, but I thought I read somewhere that 33 of Bush’s judicial nominees have been minorities. Since the democrats have only blocked 3 of those 33, how does a 3% blockage rate equal a prima facie case of discrimination?
Thats because Right have never held up Scalia or Rehnquist or Kennedy as proof that they are champions of minority causes. The never claim that “anyone can succeed over racial discrimination and thus affirmative action, Head Start and other programs ought to be disconintued” using Scalia, Rehnquist or Kennnedy as proof. They never us Scalia, Rehnquist or Kennedy to accuse the Left of racism simply because they do not support every thing a minority says.
You cannot deny that Clarence Thomas has been used and used hard by the Right in many arguements- far more often that Scalia, Rehnquist or Kennedy. The Left does not want to provide them with this kind of ammo again, especially at a time when the Latino demographic is critical and in some degree of flux. This is pure politics (you can’t really expect anything else- both parties are looking towards forwarding themselves in the long term) and they don’t call it politics for nothing.
:eek: 
How many pro-abortion judges has the senate confirmed this year ? How many has Bush nominated ? Are you just making this shit up ?
For those who cannot be bothered to read the link I provided earlier here is the prima facia evidence for discrimination against Miguel Estrada:
Cmason You are forgiven.
None of the judges in question have been “rejected.” Their nominations have not been acted upon by the full Senate.
Further, Estrada withdrew his name from consideration by his own action.
- Federal judicial nominations are not private employers.
- There is no evidence Title VII was ever intended to apply to judicial nominations.
- You don’t apply for a judicial position, you are appointed.
- Estrada was not rejected, nor have any of the others. There has been no vote.
Republicans crying about discimination against minorities is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Why? Are you assuming that 'Pubbies are the only people whose actions can be called “discrimination”? You will never belive that Demmies can discriminate, can ye? Sheesh.
No. But considering the Southern Strategy, opposition to gay marriage, opposition to things such a MLK holiday, it just seems a little strange that all of a sudden republicans are imminently concerned about discrimination.
- It’s entirely possible that the Democratic Senators didn’t see Estrada as qualified.
It’s not at all clear that he wasn’t the preferred Dem candidate for the position because of his race. AFAICT, most of the objections were on the basis of ideology.
Wanna try again pg
Judicial ideology is a qualification that the individual Senators have every right to take into account. Traditionally, the Senate has allowed the President considerable latitude to choose people compatible with his ideology but that latitude has never been unlimited. During the Clinton era, even that broke down, with a good fraction of Clinton’s nominees opposed even when they apparently were not very far out on the ideological spectrum. The Senate Democrats, by contrast, have gone back to allowing Bush wide, but not unlimited, latitude, having opposed only a few percent of Bush’s nominations. And, yet the 'Pubbies still whine and carry on like there’s no tomorrow.
This is so disingenuous as to verge on the dishonest.
Estrada withdrew his name because Democrats blocked his confirmation for something like fourteen months. They made it abundantly clear that they would never allow a Hispanic to be confirmed, if that Hispanic had been nominated by a Republican. They had no intention of risking their position as champions of Hispanic rights.
It was an act of partisan politics. The Democrats hate conservatives. They especially hate minority conservatives, because they feel that all minorities are morally obligated to vote liberal, and a conservative minority is a recurring disproof of this.
They are also annoyed by the effort involved in talking about minorities without using the term they would most like to use.
Which is “uppity”.
Regards,
Shodan
shodan, are you saying that Estrada is the only Hispanic judge that Bush has nominated? Bush has made over 190+ nominations, I can’t believe that he was the only one. If so, what does it say about Bush that he has less than a 1% nomination rate for Hispanics?