| Author |
Message |
    
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3847
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | 
|
Cliff: While I am aware that Judge Pickering has stated during his hearings that he will "uphold the law" I am not comfortable with his involvememtn with the Mississippi Sovergnity Committee (which he later denied, although he voted for its formation while in the legislature), his views about totally banning abortion and his circumvention of the sentencing guidelines as respects a cross burner are very interesting, especially for a conservative who normally support those guidelines.
I stated earlier either in this thread or another one that if the Republicans want to change the fillibuster rules, then just do it.
Why is Bush holding out so strongly for Pickering. Lott? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
The Constitution simply does not say that they have to vote. If the Republicans at this point in history want to decide that there must be a vote for every nominee, how about if we bring back the Clinton nominees who were denied hearings and vote for them first?
At the risk of sounding folksy, this sudden interest in everybody getting their fair shake reminds me of something my younger brother did to me. Twice. He'd ask to go out in back and play wiffle ball, but he wanted to bat first. After he made his outs, he announced he was too tired. Some time later, he wanted to play again. Wanted to bat first, but promised promised promised that he'd let me bat too. OK, He made his outs, and then was too tired. There was no third time.
I don't see any reason why the Dems should believe anything presented to them about how things should and will be on these votes. Next time a Dem is elected president we'll see the exact same maneuverings from the other side of the aisle.
And I'll tell you exactly what I, and every other moderate-to-left person doesn't like about Pickering, is his out-of-school intervention on behalf of someone who burned a cross on someone's lawn.
Kenney -- there's no reason why a moderate has to be average. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 26
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:25 pm: |
|
sorry tom, middle is fine...my point was the parties have created an environment where only pc judges can be confirmed. i would prefer a court where the best minds battled it out--left, right, middle, up, down whatever...
|
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 129
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Ken Zeidner,
The specific case I was thinking about was Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 624-37 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), in which Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) advocated overruling Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869). Woodruff held that the Import-Export Clause of Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 7, applies only to foreign commerce, not interstate commerce. Not exactly Plessy v. Ferguson.
Your reasons for considering Dickerson v. U.S. "activistic" are unpersuasive:
"The Supreme Court had never before said Miranda was constitutionally required"
Well, it had never before held that Miranda was not constitutionally required either. That's why the Court took the case -- to decide an issue it had never before decided. So, according to your reasoning, any way the Court came out would have been "activistic."
"Congress had overturned Miranda by statute in the late '60's"
Pure question begging. If Miranda is constitutionally-based, then Congress had no power to "overturn[]" it. Again, the whole reason the Court took the case was to decide whether Miranda was constitutionally-based. If the Court is being "activistic" any time it overturns a federal statute, then it has been quite activistic indeed in holding many federal statutes in violation of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments in recent years.
"[Dickerson] said that the warnings were constitutionally required because it [sic] had been foisted upon the states, thus meaning it had to be constitutionally required (talk about circular reasoning)."
Not quite. The Dickerson Court reasoned that the Miranda Court itself must have thought it was articulating a constitutional rule, since it would have had no power otherwise to rule the way it did. The Court reasoned that, though Miranda itself did not expressly say its ruling was constitutionaly required, it is implicit in the decision that is was.
By the way, neither Miranda nor Dickerson requires that the police give warnings or obtain a waiver. They require only that any statement not preceded by warnings and a waiver be excluded from evidence. In other words, the Miranda rule is a restraint on prosecutors and the courts, not the police.
There's nothing like Being and Nothingness.
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 795
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Cliff, did you read Ballin? It actually only requires the votes of a majority of those present, assuming there is a quorum (which the Constitution defines as half the members of the house). The issue there was whether a vote of 138 to 3 was sufficient to pass a bill at a time when the House of Representatives had 330 members. I.e. it was a minority of the house that voted for the bill but a majority of the 212 member then present (which did constitute a quorum). The court found that such a vote did suffice.
This is totally irreleveant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with the unquestioned authority of either house to set its own rules, including the cloture rule which requires a vote of 60 to end debate. Indeed, the court in Ballin spent a lot of time noting the near absolute power of the legislautre to enact its own rules of proceeding (which I won't bother to recount here, the language of those old cases is a bit tedious. If you care the case is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=144&invol=1) Also, as I alluded to above, at the time Ballin was decided there was no limit on debate, would that be better? |
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 138
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 5:50 pm: |
|
What is becoming crystal is that politicians have expanded the reach and power of the Federal Government far beyond anything contemplated by our founding fathers, or set forth in our Constitution. (please review previous postings) If you struggle after doing that then try this.
Try finding anything in the constitution that could be construed as allowing the federal government to punish a citizen of a state for a crime committed under the laws of that state, simply because of what the citizen was THINKING when he committed that crime. (starting to see the point) If you continue to struggle, sorry, read this one:
Can you find anything in our constitution that permits a local government to discriminate for, or against, a citizen on the basis of skin color? This is a practice that today's courts have embraced. So, what is going on here?
The point is that for decades now liberals have been unable to enact some of the more important parts of their LEFTIST agenda in the legislative arena. To enact their agenda they have had to rely solely upon activist judges who would IGNORE the Constitution with the intent to implement liberal goals. (Take almost any recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling as a prime example of this in action)
Liberal Democrats are saying that these candidates don't meet the approval of the American people. Right, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, whom Bush nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, received 76% of the vote from the LIBERAL voting population of California. Excuse me, how does that suggest that she's out of the mainstream?
If you think for one minute that George Bush has a nasty penchant to appoint federal judges who believe that our Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, consider instead Diane Feinstein. One of her objections to that very same Janice Rogers Brown is that she is very protective of property rights. Wow! Isn’t this an example of how LIBERAL Democrats must feel that an appreciation of property rights is "out of the mainstream." What gives?
Then there is the purloined response by far too many Left wing Democrats. (I am hoping that many MOL posters can see themselves in this one)
They say that they're not doing anything to George Bush's appointments that Republicans didn't do to Clinton's appointments. They're lying.
I could not find one instance in our history where either party conducted a filibuster in the Senate to prevent a vote on a judicial confirmation, where that judge had already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and where there were a majority of votes on the Senate floor to confirm. (Please feel free to provide a link to one if you can find one)
Our Constitution gives the Senate the right of advice and consent on judicial nominees. The full Senate is prepared to do just that. The full Senate sits ready to confirm these nominees, but Democrats are using “a Senate rule” to prevent that vote from taking place.
Bobk the Pickering intervention on behalf of someone who burned a cross on someone's else's lawn, are you at all familiar with the specifics? If not, I’d appreciate hearing from you once you have researched it. The prosecution cut a deal with the main culprit, a second was given favorable treatment due to mental incompetence, the third was then given what appeared to any casual observer to be a sentence that was particularly harsh. Pickering did what he thought was appropriate. What would you have done? Sorry, but even you aren’t perfect.
Ashear, I hunderstand that you are a trained lawyer. I am not, so please excuse me for not being able to cite chapter and verse. Admitedly I try, but alas... |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Much of the expansion of federal authority over the years can be traced to a number of catastrophic events in the history of the United States - The Civil War, The First World War, The Great Depression and The Second Word War. The response to these events was hardly leftist, but at each of these critical junctures, the power of the Federal Government grew enormously. And, governments being what they are, this power was never surrendered following these events. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2411
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Mr. Harris, I think everyone here is perfectly willing to conduct a (mostly) civil discussion.
But then you make up your own version of what people are saying, and then you write:
quote:Then there is the purloined response by far too many Left wing Democrats. (I am hoping that many MOL posters can see themselves in this one)
They say that they're not doing anything to George Bush's appointments that Republicans didn't do to Clinton's appointments. They're lying.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't appreciate being called a liar. The fact that you are the kind of person who ignores plain and simple facts, and continues to parrot arguments from whatever "talking points" you've been sent by HQ, merely compounds the insult.
Mr. Harris, you may distort, you may ignore simple facts, and you may even call names, to your heart's content. Just don't expect others to find any value in anything you write here.
Have a nice evening. |
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:08 pm: |
|
And I don't think it works well when our president is called a liar either.
Frustrated? Guess you couldn't find a link to disprove where either party had previously conducted a filibuster in the Senate to prevent a vote on a judicial confirmation.
Regardless, have a good weekend. I'm going home. |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 132
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:15 pm: |
|
"Try finding anything in the constitution that could be construed as allowing the federal government to punish a citizen of a state for a crime committed under the laws of that state, simply because of what the citizen was THINKING when he committed that crime."
What on earth are you talking about? Can you please specify what federal statute you are referring to.
"Can you find anything in our constitution that permits a local government to discriminate for, or against, a citizen on the basis of skin color?"
Actually, since legislative enactments enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is on you to show they are unconstitutional, not the other way around.
As for the Pickering cross-burner: the whole point of plea-bargaining (without which the criminal justice system would fall apart) is to make it attractive for defendants to plead guilty by offering a lower sentence than if they go to trial. Concomitantly, those who exercise their rights to go to trial and are found guilty are going to get higher sentences. So how does the fact that "the prosecution cut a deal with the main culprit" mean that the one who tied up government resources by demanding a trial should get similar leniency?
There's nothing like Being and Nothingness.
|
Winnie the Pooster
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 8:54 pm: |
|
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you sometimes find that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Why is it necessary to find a link citing a precedent for a filibuster of a judge? The fact that it hasn't happened before doesn't make it unconstitutional. Your argument isn't logical.
For example, I doubt that anyone has cleared the desks out of the Senate chamber and played a set of tennis there; I also doubt that a Senator has stood on his head and recited Homer, from memory, in the original Greek. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that either of those things would be held unconstitutional if they were to happen.
And the Democrats indeed are doing what the Republicans did: they are using procedural means to stop a candidate they disapprove of. I'm sorry you don't approve of the procedural means that is being used now, though I don't see how other procedural means are any more or less ethical or legal. It doesn't matter if you die by gunshot or by stabbing, you're still killed. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 241
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Cliff, the President lied about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, among other things. This makes him a liar.
His lies have led to the deaths of many hundreds of people (since the Iraqis killed by American bombs are also people whose lives count). |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10441
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:23 pm: |
|
The world is a safer place today thanks to President Bush. Every day without Hussein running Iraq is a day that the world is better off.
P.S. Joe Lieberman and many others on the Democratic side of the aisle must have lied too?
And what of Bill Clinton? Did he lie about WMD as well?
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Please check out Fringe's Excellent Website:
http://hometown.aol.com/njfabian
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5701
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:33 pm: |
|
Who really cares what happened or who lied about what. Silly blame games don't change the fact that there's a power vacuum in Iraq and we're making for the door. Or that opium production is booming in Afghanistan, where the Taliban seem to be growing strong again.
We have too short an attention span, know too little about other cultures and delude ourselves regularly about how secure we are. |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 796
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:51 am: |
|
The issue in the cross burning case is that one of the three involved chose to go to trial. He was convicted. Under the federal sentencing guidelines he faced a very harsh sentence, far higher than that received by his co-defendant who pled guilty. I happen to think the guidelines (championed by republicans and conservative dems) are way to harsh and inflexible. This kind of thing happens in drug cases all the time. What is troubling here is that Pickering apparently never had a problem with the guidelines before, just in this cross buring case in which he went way beyond what a judge should do in pressuring the Justice Dept to give the guy a lower sentence. Why this case? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3864
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 11:04 am: |
|
Cliff, Ashear kinda answered for me. But I will add that the gentleman who was convicted made the choice to go to trial and with that choice made himself subject to harsher penalties.
Isn't upholding the law as written part of the agenda of conservative judges? Texas had no problem in executing the getaway car driver in a case where the shooter plea bargained for life, a simlar situation I think. |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 193
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:53 am: |
|
If anyone has any doubts that the opposition to the nominees discussed here is purely political and being driven by the special interest groups to whom the Schumer/Kennedy/Leahy sect is beholden, check out these leaked (by a Democrat) "collusion" memos on this site:
http://fairjudiciary.campsol.com/cfj_contents/press/collusionmemos.shtml
To refer to anyone -- particularly the accomplished lawyers and judges who have been nominated -- as a "nazi" is pretty offensive. As is targeting Estrada for defeat because "he is Latino." I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the standard-bearers of fairness and political correctness. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 12:18 pm: |
|
You can't be serious.
Give me one reason why I should be confident that these aren't total forgeries? No letterhead, no signatures, no sources, only speculation: "suggests" this, "suggests" that.
Then, give me one reason why I should believe that the opinions of the writer mirror the opinions of the recipient.
And finally, read the Estrada stuff in context. Specifically, in context, what does "dangerous" mean? |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 196
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 3:52 pm: |
|
tom - I understand your doubt -- and in fact was wondering how to locate that guy in Phoenix who supposedly knows how to remove the blackouts from PDF documents -- he did it with a recent DOJ report about the lack of diversity in the DOJ and has a website of some sort where he puts this stuff up (which I can't find).
But I wouldn't be too quick to denounce these as forgeries -- and not too quick on my own behalf to doubt the existence of such memos by the right-wing interest groups a few years ago. But if you can suspend your natural reaction to disbelieve, think about the implications. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Technically speaking, I don't think you'd have much luck. The guy in Phoenix was working with PDFs that had had blackouts applied over the text post-pdfing, so you could remove them in the PDF editor. These are scans of already blacked-out documents -- just an image. Nice if you could, though.
But whether or not they are forgeries, the interpretation of them is suspect. My reading is that the Estrada nomination was dangerous not because he is hispanic, but that it would be dangerous to oppose him because he is hispanic.
It's like a hot stove is dangerous, not because there's anything wrong with a hot stove, you just could get burned. |
Cliff Harris
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 140
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Last week The Wall Street Journal got its hands on some strategy memos from the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. These memos detail their plans and strategies for blocking Bush nominees to federal appeals courts. Amazing stuff really and I'll just leave it to your imagination to figure out what would happen if the media turned up a Republican memo which contained any hint that a judicial nominee should be opposed "because he is black."
One memo was to Democratic Senator Dick Durbin. The memo informed him of meetings on his schedule with the leaders of several civil rights organizations. The memo explained to Durbin what these so-called civil rights leaders wanted.
". . . The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."
This memo was dated November of 2001. The Democrats knew that Americans were united behind the President in the wake of the terrorist attacks, so just wait until next year when they'll tolerate our partisan tactics.
In case you missed this nuance, the memo makes it clear that the opposition to these judicial nominees is based on partisanship, nothing else.
Another memo to Dick Durban mentioned Miguel Estrada. That memo said that the civil rights groups felt that Estrada was "especially dangerous, because he is Latino..."
There you go! Civil rights leaders opposing a judicial nominee specifically because of his ethnicity.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Cliff,
That's really shocking. I'm so glad Republicans would never engage in dirty politics in pursuit of their interest. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 10:40 pm: |
|
quote:Immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Democrats feared and Republicans hoped that Mr. Bush's approval ratings--which jumped from 57% to 90%--would create political capital that would help the president advance his legislative agenda and elect more Republicans.
Both Republican hopes and Democratic fears went unfulfilled. On Nov. 6, only 56 days after Sept. 11, the GOP lost control of the governors' mansions in Virginia and New Jersey. President Bush made no progress on legislative priorities such as reforming Mexican immigration and giving Americans the option of investing part of their Social Security taxes.
--Grover Norquist in "Opinion Journal," August 23, 2002.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002129 |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 202
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 12:11 pm: |
|
From Wall Street Journal:
AT LAW
The Sound of Silence
Why is the press ignoring what the Democratic Judiciary memos say?
BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK
Tuesday, December 2, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
A young man in Washington is in danger of losing his job because of something The Wall Street Journal's editorial page published, which prompts me to say, in his defense: He didn't do it.
The young man works on the Republican staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where I hope Orrin Hatch is reading this. Sen. Hatch, the GOP chairman, is investigating the leak of Democratic strategy memos on President Bush's blocked nominees to the federal appeals courts. The staff memos document the extraordinary influence of liberal special-interest groups on Democratic members of Judiciary. The Journal published excerpts on Nov. 14. (The full memos are available on the Web site of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.)
Before I continue the tale of the unfortunate nonleaker, let me say a word about the memos themselves. If you haven't been reading this page, chances are you haven't heard of them. They are the talk of Capitol Hill, but virtually every mainstream media outfit--the Washington Times being an exception--has declined to inform readers about what's in them.
Somehow it's impossible to imagine such media nonchalance had the memos come from GOP staffers recounting, say, Pfizer's game plan for how senators could get a Medicare prescription drug benefit passed. Proof of GOP collusion with big business would lead the news for days.
But evidence of how liberal interest groups are colluding with Democrats to decide which judges get through and which don't doesn't qualify as "news." Instead, the press has been only too happy to help the Democrats change the subject from the substance of the memos to the nonissue of how they ended up on the editorial page of the Journal.
So let's review. The memos--from 2001-02 when the Democrats controlled Judiciary under the chairmanship of Sen. Patrick Leahy--show the senators took their marching orders from People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the NAACP. No surprise here, as anyone who's been following the course of Mr. Bush's stalled nominees knows full well. But the extent of the groups' micromanagement is eye-popping and exposes the opposition to Mr. Bush's judicial picks for what it really is: political maneuvering, not principled differences of opinion.
The most blatant example is Miguel Estrada, Mr. Bush's former nominee for the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. "The groups" object to Mr. Estrada "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment," a Nov. 7, 2001, memo to Sen. Dick Durbin explains. Or, as talking points prepared for Sen. Ted Kennedy put it: "We can't repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas." Mr. Estrada withdrew his name from consideration in September, after seven attempts to bring his name to a floor vote failed.
And then there's the Sixth Circuit, where Democrats were asked to delay nominees not because they weren't qualified but because their confirmation might influence the outcome of a particular case. Talk about politicalization of the judiciary.
Five nominations--all for slots designated judicial emergencies--were pending on April 17, 2002, when a memo explained that Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund wanted Sen. Kennedy to "hold off" on any nominee until the Sixth Circuit voted on the U-Michigan affirmative action case. To quote: "The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
Now back to the accused staffer. The excerpts from the memos appeared in the Journal on a Friday. By Monday, Democrats had succeeded in turning the spotlight away from the memos and onto the leaks. In this, they had the help of two unlikely allies: Chairman Hatch and Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist. Sen. Frist knew the Medicare bill was coming up for debate that week and, as one Republican insider explains, he wanted "to keep the partisanship down." Remember--this is the GOP leadership's response to Democratic memos containing such niceties as "most of Bush's nominees are nazis."
By Sunday night, Nov. 16, the two GOP leaders authorized the Capitol Police to secure the committee's server room and obtain backup copies of the computer tapes on which staffers' files were kept. Over the next week two federal prosecutors conducted interviews of 50 committee staffers. Then, just before Thanksgiving, Mr. Hatch announced that he was putting an unnamed GOP staffer on administrative leave "pending the outcome of the full investigation." The next step is for forensic computer experts to evaluate the tapes. The total cost of placating the Democrats is expected to add up to $500,000.
A statement put out last week by Mr. Hatch's office says that the accused staffer "improperly accessed at least some of the documents referenced in the media reports." That accusation bears scrutiny in light of how the committee's computer system is organized: Until Nov. 16, all Judiciary staffers used the same computer server and had access to a shared drive, a system put in place when Sen. Leahy took over as chairman in 2001 and hired his own IT staff.
The Leahy techies neglected to put up a firewall between the GOP and Democratic staff, making it possible for all staffers to read everything posted on the shared drive. No one hacked into anyone's private files. These are, in effect, Leahy leaks.
So why is the hapless staffer being hounded? And why is no one reporting the much bigger story of the memos?
Ms. Kirkpatrick is The Wall Street Journal's associate editorial page editor.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 2:15 pm: |
|
quote:"The groups" object to Mr. Estrada "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment,"
Note how the phrase "object to Mr. Estrada" is not within the quotation marks. That tells the entire spin story.
In fact, and I alluded to this above (while being off-the-mark on their authenticity) that they DO NOT OBJECT TO HIM because he's Latino. What they do find is that OPPOSITION TO HIM IS DANGEROUS because he's Latino.
But why argue, these are the same people who think we're stupid enough to believe that Ted Kennedy opposed another nominee because he's Catholic. Why, oh why, can't they argue the facts? |
Robert Lilly
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 162
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Why is the Mainstream Media IGNORING the memos?
The Democratic Party attempts to prevent George Bush from putting any conservative judges in prominent positions in Federal Appeals Courts. Yet, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was easily allowed to be appointed to the Supreme Court in the Land.
You remember Michael Estrada, don't you? The Democrats successfully prevented a confirmation vote on his nomination so many times that Estrada finally got fed up and withdrew his name from consideration. The only reason the Democrats could come up with to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was that he refused to release some private memos he had written when he was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Bear in mind no previous nominee had ever been required to release such memos, but the Democrats did need some sort of excuse to block Estrada, so the memos served that purpose quite well.
Now we know better. Someone has leaked some Democratic strategy memos from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Those memos discuss the necessity of blocking Estrada's nomination to the bench. Why exactly were the Democrats blocking Estrada? Because, as the leaked memos said, "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
There you have it, documentation from a Democratic staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that a nominee for an appeals court judgeship is being blocked simply because of his ethnicity!
Can you just imagine what would be happening if this had been Republicans blocking a nomination because of the nominees ethnicity?
If the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would be calling for hearings, an investigation, and resignations. The New York Times and the Washington Post would be hammering it on page one for days on end. Dan Rather would be absolutely beside himself. As it is, the story is being ignored.
Who is protecting whom out there?
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3966
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 2:51 pm: |
|
What is the difference between "liberal" groups providing position papers to the Dems and big business doing the same for the GOP?
I love the WSJ, their mainframe reporting is truly excellent and balanced. However, I never bother to read the editorial page. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Robert, read the memo itself and not the conservative commentary on it. It's smart to read the original sources when they're available. What you're saying is false. |
Robert Lilly
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 163
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Please excuse me, but I am unaware of what I said that is false. Won't you be helpful and lay it out for me.
The leaked memos said, "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
Are you saying this is not true?
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Yes, it's true; Put a capital "H" at the beginning and call it a complete sentence. Then tell me what's the fuss with the Dems saying it. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2498
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Tom, why bother with the discussion. If Mr. Lilly (formerly known as Mr. Harris) wants to rely on sentence fragments and out-of-context quotes, there's really no point in continuing the conversation. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 319
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Bob Lilly kicked butt. Just don't change your handle to Roger Staubach. That would be wretch-inducing. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 7:46 am: |
|
Even though Nohero is absolutely right, I'm going to give him one more chance.
He writes, "The only reason the Democrats could come up with to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was that he refused to release some private memos he had written when he was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. "
On the other hand, the National Review (please note, a conservative source) states:
quote: The two main Democratic objections to Estrada are that he has not fully answered questions about his legal views and that the Bush administration has refused to release internal Justice Department memos he wrote while he served in the Solicitor General's office — memos that Democrats contend might contain insights into Estrada's legal thinking
The article goes on in some length with quotations and further details.
Big difference, Supreme Court vs. Justice Dept. work product. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 508
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
Estrada isn't a real latino anyway, if Hernandez is correct. We all know real Hispanics are poor and can't possibly rise to that level of expertise without being from a rich family with dubious means of acquiring their wealth or help from a govt program that elevates them above what they'd normally be able to accomplish. You put Estrada in there, and you'll give Hispanics the idea they too can rise to the highest levels -- and that's dangerous. Same as Clarence Thomas. Or Janice Rogers Brown.
When will the democrats nominate a black candidate for president? I'll bet republicans do it first, even though they're racist. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2500
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 9:56 am: |
|
Actually, Cjc, the argument you describe, that "real Hispanics are poor and can't possibly rise to that level of expertise without being from a rich family with dubious means of acquiring their wealth", was utilized by Republican governor Rick Perry in last year's gubernatorial election in Texas. His opponent was a wealthy Hispanic businessman, Tony Sanchez. As described by "fair and balanced" Fox News:
quote:Perry responded [to adds blaming him for high utility bills] with an ad that slammed Sanchez about questionable dealings at a bank owned by the Sanchez family. Allegations have flown that in the early 1980s, drug lords used the bank to stash $25 million. As federal courts investigated, money was transferred out of the country.
"A federal judge confirmed Sanchez' bank wired millions in drug money to Manuel Noriega's Panama," a Perry ad says, linking Sanchez to the former dictator who is currently imprisoned in Miami for drug trafficking and money laundering.
The judge referred to in the ad, made public statements that his rulings had been taken out of context, and he had not made any finding that Sanchez was connected to drug money:
quote:The judge referred to in the ad, U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth of Austin, said on Tuesday he only briefly mentioned the Tesoro matter as backup material in an unrelated court case about an El Paso bank, at which drug dealers had deposited profits.
In his ruling in that case, Hudspeth said, "there is nothing ... that criticizes any bank or any banker at all for anything whatsoever."
The judge also said "the opinion does not mention Gen. Noriega top, bottom or sideways."
Any suggestion, he said, that he was attempting to paint Tesoro officials as being accomplices to Noriega or to drug trafficking is "stretching it beyond all boundaries."
Cite.
In conclusion, what we have here is a simple case of projection. That is, blame opponents, for a tactic your side has already utilized. As always, though, thanks for playing! |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 548
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 10:05 am: |
|
Hmm... Let's see... Colin Powell, Condelleza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown. What is/was the equivalent in the Democratic party? With a group this diverse you would think Maplewoodians (or maybe Boroughwoodians) would love it but I don't think so. Dems need to step up to the plate with more than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page