Minty, you simply must learn to be more carerful in your word choice. A careless reading of your last post might move one to think that you are disparaging the reputation of that paragon of academic excellence, the Athens on the Brazos, glowingly renowned as Baylor University, the Cambridge of Waco.
Such disparagement would render any trust in your judgement impossible, of course, and under certain circumstances would compel me to administer a sound thrashing.
Thanks for the Freudian analysis. If December posts a comment that all people rally around and say he’s “spot on,” does that mean that all of his other comments are correct? You, dear reader , know the answer. Please don’t reveal it to the newcomers. :rolleyes:
Note also the sexism in the Nation article. Owen was a corporate lawyer, no doubt making big money. She chose to become a judge, which must have been quite a cut in pay. Maybe she wanted to perform public service. Maybe she wanted to impose her evil philosophy on the rest of us. The Nation says NO to both theories. She was a dupe of the evil Svengali, Karl Rove.
To make the sexism clearer, just imagine someone calling Hillary Clinton a mere dupe of James Carville and the far left. :eek:
Of course, the Nation strongly opposes sexism, but when dealing with conservatives, those principles go out the window.
Fine by me. I’ve found that no source is exempt from bad reporting.
First, it is an op-ed piece, not an academic journal article, so you’ll excuse the colorful language. It is nothing you won’t find in other editorial writing. Second, what of the examples of her conduct on the bench? A tidy hand-wave won’t make her deeds go away.
I’m sure there are people who think highly of her, and am equally sure that her pedigree is nothing to sneeze at. However, her credentials do nothing to amend the fact that she has engaged in some questionable decisions and taken her role as agent of the courts too far on occasion.
Oh please. There is nothing implicit in the article that suggests she is one horrid thing or another because she is a woman.
Actually, elucidator, Baylor does a pretty good job of training Texas litigators. I’d rather have somebody from Baylor Law on my side of a class action battle in the Valley than some schmuck from Yale who thinks there’s such a thing as a motion to dismiss under Texas law. But first in your class don’t mean shit twenty years on, and that’s especially true when you’re talking about the fourth best law school in the state.
Oh, and the Karl Rove thing in the Nation article is bullshit.
I’m looking at the OP, and I have to laugh it is so incompetent in making an argument. It uses a false analogy and then assassinate character of his political opponents.
Look. In the McCarthy Army hearings, the young man being spoken of was not part of the proceedings, but an assistant attorney to the fellow who was the Army’s counsel. He had nothing to do at all with the subject being discussed at the hearing. In a ham handed attempt to discredit the advocate for the accused, McCarthy started accusing the attorney of having hired this young fellow who had some tenuous connection with lefties/commies, while in college, dragging the young man’s name through the mud. It was cruel and vicious and so stupid it was political suicide.
That is not what went on here with this Texas judge. She was the actual subject of the hearing. The political body charged by the constitution with approving her appointment, or not, found by a majority vote that she did not meet their political criteria because she was a political extremist and someone who injected her own views into interpreting the law. In short, they found that she was unqualified, and have every legal and political right to do so. And if it was honestly their opinion, they had a moral obligation to do so too. I can’t say, because I haven’t reviewed the facts whether I would agree with the decision.
Next, to whine about this being a rejection based on her politics is to ignore the stated reasons that it was both politics and injecting her own views into cases. Deal with both arguments, not merely the one that you aren’t too lazy to address.
Is is politically acceptable to reject nominees because of their politics? Do both sides do it? Yes, without question. Democrats have done it for years (anyone remember Judge Haynesworth), Republicans have done it for years (anyone remember Gov. William Weld a Republican appointed to be ambassador to Mexico, or a dozen judicial nominees during the Clinton administration?). I do notice that Republicans prefer to do it by having the chairman refuse to grant a hearing in committee to the nominee, and Democrats prefer to do it by a party line partisan vote in the committee. Both have their pros and cons, which I won’t get into here.
But perhaps one of the reasons that this rubs the original poster the wrong way is because the decision was made for an ostensible reason neither he, nor the proponents of the nomination ever addressed: even if we are supposedly supposed to pretend that politics of judges doesn’t matter (an aversion to reality we should spot as a phony issue), we nonetheless must, if we are going to carry an argument, address the issue of the woman interjecting her personal views into cases. If you don’t address that issue, you concede it. And what is worse than conceding that a judicial candidate or nominee is going to grind a personal axe on company time? Personally I want judges who don’t go around looking for cases into which they can insert their personal opinions because it looks like a good opportunity to vindicate some old score that has nothing to do with the dispute in question.
But damnit, don’t waste our time with a supposedly serious debate if all you are going to do is use bad logic and name calling.
Next, we get to the unmentioned point in the OP, namely that the ABA had given her a “well qualified” rating, which the proponents of the nomination seemed to think that trumped all other arguments, but the people who nominated her had said a few months earlier that they thought the ABA ratings were partisan and of no value and credibility. Well sorry, you’ve already conceded that we need give that zero weight, and indeed, in politics, I give endorsements zero weight besides pointing me to information that I may want to review independently and make up my own mind about.
The OP seems to bemoan that the majority won and his/her side didn’t. I just can’t get behind that. That is preposterous. Now if the OP wants to just whine on about sour grapes, be my guest, by that is not a debate either. This was an undisputed majority vote, get the f*** over it.
Exactly. Yet we still hear braying about “borking” from the right side as if it is somehow unjustifiable, irresponsible partisanship. The lack of concern from the RW posters on this thread over Owen’s judicial activism, and over Bush’s making a nomination of someone who engages in it after vowing not to, is quite prominent, too, wouldn’t ya say?
Principle, hypocrisy, partisanship, citizenship, responsibility … just words to some.
My own little wrap-up.
It is not wrong to consider political-ideological factors in nominating and approving judges. It’s part of democracy. Plus: They’ll do it anyway.
But let’s tone down the overt campaigning and overheated rhetoric. If that was your main point, Dec, I agree.
Sen. Leahy’s comment was neither slanderous nor McCarthyesque. His phraseology could have benefitted from a second massage.
Judge Owen was not so spectacularly well-qualified for the post that her turn-down was a tragedy for the republic. In truth, it was probably a “test probe” anyway by Mr. Bush, knowing that even a rejection could be politically useful.
No one wants to focus on the big issue here, which is that the central symbol of the “culture war,” Roe v. Wade, is in play whenever there is a judicial nomination these days. For better or worse, no Republican can ignore the pressure to support only those nominees who have at least a bit of a pro-life paper trail, and no Democrat can afford to be seen voting for anyone not credibly pro-choice. And now we know that the middle range is very narrow indeed: only credible ciphers need apply.
Speaking of Senator Joseph McCarthy, his god-child is currently running for an important office. Who is it?
Well-summarized, Scott.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, candidate for Governor of Maryland, is Joseph McCarthy’s god-daughter.
Good God, december… this has already been discredited, but allow me to elaborate on how ridiculous your little invention is.
I put “* conservative * extremist” into google and this is what I got:
An editorial on this very topic, which also included the following:
Liberal ** extremist ** groups like * People for the American Way, Now and Naral? * I’m liberal, and if that’s extremism, I wear the label proudly.
An opinion piece referring to Jim Jeffords (!) as an extremist!
Again, if Jim Jeffords is an extremist, I’ll take that label!
A page called, yes “The Republican Menace” where the term appeared as:
Again…
The ADL homepage, which refers to hardcore extremism like Neo Nazis.
A Guardian colum called “The Extremist”
Chuck Morse’s homepage, including an advertisment for his book " Why I’m A Right Wing Extremist"
A page discussing Owen, calling her an activist and extremist, with examples:
http://www.tpj.org/reports/owen/page2.html
Those are the things I found in the first 10 main links off Google. Exactly ONE example of hate group references, and several proudly self-identifying conservative extremists.
All this to say, your characterization of the term “conservative extremist” as some horrifying smear on a level with calling her a Nazi, and your assertion that this would be the common understanding of the term, is ludicrous.
stoid, you seem to be saying that the word “extremist” is not a pejorative. I don’t agree. If someone on this Board called you an extremist, you would feel insulted, and rightly so.
I disagree with your post on two grounds. First of all, the fact that the word is sometimes used non-pejoratively doesn’t prove that poeple wouldn’t associate it with something bad. Have you ever taken a vacation with a friend or relative? If so, you were a fellow traveler. However, when Joseph McCarthy used that term in 1952, it was a vicious epithet.
Secondly, your cites are unconvincing. I’m unimpressed that some people named Chuck Morse and Pete Celano used the term differently. Who the dickens are they?
In fact, several of your cites used the word pejoratively. You didn’t supply links, but I’d be willing to bet that the site that called NOW, NARAL, and PAW extremist groups meant it badly. I understand that you approve of these groups, but they meant it pejoratively.
Obviously the ADL reference to Neo-Nazis supports the idea that extremist is a pejorative.
Like you, I wouldn’t call Jim Jeffords an extremist, but the people who used that term meant something bad.
Your Guardian cite begins
So, they were using “extremist” to mean “terrorist.”
I rest my case.
** december, ** be honest. Your assertion was that Leahy was making a horrendous slur against Owen by using the term “extremist”. Then you did a Google search to “prove” :rolleyes: that the generally understood meaning of the word “extremist” is something along the lines of Timothy McVeigh.
I responded in kind, with a more * pertinent * google search, since you seem to find Google searches to be the ultimate proof, showing that it was NOT so.
The term “extremist” can mean many different things to many different people, it is ** * NOT * ** “automatically understood” to be a slanderous accusation on the order of calling someone a terrorist, period.
And I rest MY case.
I rest mine, too…
hoping, December, that you did notice some degree of support even from those who don’t buy the notion that ‘extremist’, admittedly a term of criticism and thus pejorative, descends to the level of Joe McCarthy.
Thanks for the compliment, Andros.
Political scuttlebutt in Austin is that if the Republicans take back the Senate this fall, Owen will be renominated (and cruise to confirmation, obviously).
Would that Bush had had the decency to do that with Ronnie White.
I do too. In fairness to Bush, IIRC he did renominate some Clinton nominees who hadn’t been acted on, but unfortunately not White.
I recall one judicial nominee (district court, I think) who was a moderate Democrat, but no previous Clinton nominees. Could you be bothered to dig up a cite?
Bush nominated Roger Gregory, despite quite a bit of opposition from the right wing. E.g. Democrat Gregory had been given a recess appointment by Clinton.
Here’s a telling quote by Sen. Leahy. Rather than give credit to Bush’s decency for the unusual act of appointing Clinton’s choice, Leahy boasted about how well the Democrats had treated Bush by acting to confirm their own party’s selection!