My good friend Shodan, apparently you missed my statistics above from Albert Hunt on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 14):
In case you were confused by the wording, what I meant was that with Hispanics the numbers were also 1 nomination blocked and 13 confirmed. Allowing 13 Hispanics to be confirmed is, to put it mildly, not a very effective way of “[making] it abundantly clear that they would never allow a Hispanic to be confirmed, if that Hispanic had been nominated by a Republican.”
[By the way, as a consolation prize, I will grant you the fact that Estrada’s withdrawal of his name from consideration was prompted by the Dem’s intention to block his confirmation.]
Democrats have voted to confirm 12 of Bush’s Hispanic judicial nominees. They have also voted for 2 out of 3 Hispanic nominees for appellate courts (the position for which Estrada was nominated).
Here’s an excerpt from a letter by Jorge Rangel, a Hispanic judicial nominee from the Clinton era, in which he discusses the Estrada controversy: “Where was the outrage from your Republican colleagues when Enrique Moreno and I were denied the courtesy of a hearing on our nominations? Where was their disappointment and cry for diversity on the bench when I was compelled to…[withdraw] my nomination to the Fifth Circuit? The American people deserve better.”
From his letter asking Clinton not to renominate him: “Even if you were to decide to renominate me, I have no reason to believe that the Senate would act promptly on the nomination. I am not willing to prolong the continued uncertainty and state of limbo in which I find myself.”
So, while Republicans may be correct that Estrada withdrew his nomination because of attempts by Democrats to block his nomination, they have done the same thing to other Hispanic nominees.
On preview (jshore’s post), it appears that the number of confirmed Hispanic nominees may be 13, not 12 as I state in this post. My data is from an article dated a month earlier than his.
No, what they hate is the Republican’s deliberate attempts to go searching for minorities with archconservative credentials with the hope that these people will be more difficult for Democrats to oppose than white males with the same ideological extremism. The partisan political game is played by both sides.
That bit you quote me on is in specific response to puddleglum’s point about “(iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected.”
Well, he was not rejected. That’s a point of fact. One could say his nomination was “blocked” or “stymied” or “filibustered,” but to say he was rejected is just out-and-out false.
Mr. Estrada chose not to wait out the filibuster on his nomination. Did he have a choice?
Yes. Richard Paez, a Clinton nominee, waited four years before the Republican opposition to his nomination fell apart and cloture was invoked in 2000.
Paez, like Estrada, is Hispanic, and back then some left-wingers accused Republicans of subtle racism. And they were wrong, just like right-wingers are wrong to accuse Democrats of racism now. There are plenty of good, substantive reasons for which one can oppose either of these nominees.
Let’s take, for example, the fact that Estrada refused to name a Supreme Court case in the last forty years that he disagreed with. The White House refused to release his papers during his time at the Solicitor General’s office. The Senate has a right to know something more about a nominees views before blessing their lifetime appointment to the bench.
I see that someone already demonstarted the disingenuousness of this claim.
Fair enough.
Wow! What a claim. Could you please provide a citation for this broad blanket generalization?
Could you please provide a citation for this as well? It sounds like another canard.
Please provide a citation for this as well. This seems incredible on the face of it. It also seems like empty rhetoric and yet another canard.
Preesh,
SimonX
Nonetheless, the implication that Estrada withdrew his name on his own initiative is equally false.
Estrada was widely considered to be on the fast track to the Supreme Court, so he was the target of special attention from the Dems.
See the treatment of Robert Bork during his confirmation hearings, especially by Ted Kennedy.
See also Democratic columnists Julienne Malvaux’s comment that she hoped Clarence Thomas would die.
Also see anything ever posted by Reeder, rjung, Evil Captor, ElvisL1ves, Stoid, elucidator, Homebrew, et al.
Certainly. Contrast the treatment of Clarence Thomas with the treatment of Bill Clinton.
Both accused of sexual harassment. In Thomas’ case, falsely; in Clinton’s case, accurately.
The Anita Hill accusations were met with outrage and cries of “believe the woman”. The Paula Jones (and Juanita Broaderrick and Kathleen Willey) accusations were met with accusations of Jones being trailer trash, allegations that a politician’s private life was private, claims that oral sex was not sex, etc… etc.
See also the automatic assumption by liberals that everything Clarence Thomas ever got in life was due to affirmative action, and that he was an Uncle Tom for being a Republican. Thurgood Marshall, for instance, referred to Thomas as a “gddm black sellout”.
Thomas’ grades and academic record (he graduated ninth in his class, with honors) were good enough to get him into Yale without any affirmative action program, and he has spoken in public about the stigma of the liberal assumptions underlying affirmative action - that no black deserves anything but what Big Massa Democrat gave him. (He did not use those words - they are my interpretation).
Gotta get some work done. Amuse yourselves in the interim by imagining that Trent Lott had referred to blacks as “dangerous”. What would your reaction have been?
Also, assuming this is just partisan politics, is it OK for Democrats to do it, but not Republicans, only Republicans, or neither? Or both?
My word…You mean Democrats opposed a far-right judicial nominee. How dare they!!! Republicans never did that to…well, more than a substantial fraction…of Clinton’s judicial nominees. (Not to any of his Supreme Court nominees admittedly, but then he didn’t nominate any Brennans or Marshals to that court. He definitely played it very safe with moderate to mildly liberal nominees.)
Just as a point of order, would you care to enlightnen us as to how you know for a fact that the accusations were false in the case of Thomas?
The MOST this could logically prove is that SOME Democrats hate conservatives, and it doesn’t NECESSARILY prove that. I have lots of conservative friends and relatives that I’m quite fond of. Closer to the point would be that I hate CONSERVATISM, or more specifically some tenets of conservatism. In fact, my ire is more directed at the present Republican leadership’s approach to politics, which I feel is vile, evil and putrid in the extreme.
Make of that what you will. I do think it’s fair that people examine my posts and those of others cited and make their own judgements, though many of my posts have little to do with politics.
Having confirmed 168 out of 172 judicial nominees, I think the Dems have bent over WAAAAAY too much for Bush as it. They oughtta be fighting harder. I’m sure we’ve let a bunch of Neanderthal weasels of all races, sexes and so forths into the judiciary at that rate.
I think all this protest will backfire for the Pubbies. All the Dems have to do is cite the numbers, and the Pubbies look like snotty little idiots.
What’s the point of even having the senate consider judicial nominees, if all they’re going to do is rubber stamp the president’s choices ? I suppose it does preserve the illusion of adherence to constitutional principles, but wouldn’t some sort of blanket resolution covering all the nominees be a more efficient way of handling things ? It’d make for powerful political theatre of a sort that’s not often seen in the United States. Maybe Frist was right, and it is time for a constitutional ammendment.
Whereas, of course, you are an impeccably unbiased arbitrator of political discourse, I’m sure. Why, you’re so even-handed and objective, we should just tattoo “Fair and Balanced” on your forehead. :rolleyes:
According to puddleglum, if a minority conservative is nominated to a judicial position by a Republican, the law requires that Democrats must approve the nomination in order to avoid racism. But the same is not true for white nominees. :rolleyes:
What I resent most about this thread is not the whining about blocking the nominations. That’s not going to change on either side and, as far as I can see, it hasn’t gotten out of hand. What irks me is the ascribing of base motives of racial prejudice. In one of the memos presented, it was for the purpose of maintaining affirmative action at the University of Michigan that the nomination was blocked at the time. (It’s in the original link.)
Oh, it HAS gotten out of hand, Zoe. 168 approved out of 172 nominated, and the Pubbies are holding marathon “anti-filibusters” to protest the tiny fig leaf the Dems have put up to keep them from being acccused of being so many sold-out rubber stamps? It’s RIDICULOUS, and I hereby ridicule it, long and loudly. The Pubbies are behaving like a bunch of spoiled, snotty children, throwing a tantrum because they don’t get every little thing done their way.
As honored as I am to be nominated for friend Shodan’s list of Haters of Conservatives, I fear I must decline. While I do quite rightly despise bigotry, jingoism, and authoritarianism (as well as smarmy self-righteousness disguised as religious committment) these attributes are not universally shared by “conservatives”.
There are honorable conservatives. I know, I was one. In 1964, I worked for Barry Goldwater’s campaign, when Lyndon Johnson was the “peace candidate”. I even fell victim to a virulent strain of Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s Disease). Were it not for an intense theraupeutic regimen of sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll…I shudder to think.
Take, for instance, Barry G.'s stand on gays in the military, when he famously pointed out that one need hardly be straight to pull a trigger. Or John McCain’s well known friendship with an anti-war (the other ill-considered war) activist, standing as godfather for his children and eulogizing him at his funeral.
These are conservatives: men who agree with me on general broad principles of justice and freedom, but may well disagree as to methods and timing. They counsel prudence and caution. They can be engaged in useful and enlightening debate, and are an honorable counterbalance. No man can be 100% correct, if it were possible, we wouldn’t need a Jesus. As much as I admired and respected Paul Wellstone, I wouldn’t accept him as sole arbiter and autocrat, and neither would he.
Honorable conservatives are a necessary counterbalance. But such men as Tom DeLay are a seeping pustule on the Body Politic. They stain the term “conservative” with thier intolerant and spiteful rhetoric, as they stain the flag they wrap themselves in. They do not deserve to be included in the company of such men as Mr. Goldwater and Mr. McCain. That I would never vote for John McCain does not mean I do not admire and respect him. There is nothing dishonorable about sincere error.
So I must decline the honor, even though placed in estimable company (though I often suspect friend Reeder has perhaps just a bit too much wheat germ in his granola…)
(Note to self: that little bitch Diogenes didn’t make the cut! Gloat and lord it over at my first opportunity…)