Dems: Minority Nominees "Dangerous"

[bodypilot90 0]

Dems: Minority Nominees "Dangerous"

November 17, 2003

Quote

The Washington Times: "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 Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois obtained by the Washington Times, Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada is singled out as 'especially dangerous because he is Latino.'" Democrats put this in writing, proving that they're a bunch of bigots who see minorities that think for themselves as a threat to be crushed!



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. These are the people calling us racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes for things as simple as mentioning the name "Donovan McNabb." In truth, they're the very sorts of people they describe us as being.

The GOP has done nothing to fight these Democrat filibusters - which have rewritten the Constitution to require 60 votes to confirm a judge instead of 51 - and as a result, more qualified judges are being "filibustered." These aren't even real filibusters, because the GOP Senate lacks the spine to force Democrats to stand out there on the floor and talk the whole time. These Republicans have basically told the Democrats, "All you need to do is say the magic word 'filibuster,' and we'll cave on judges you don't like."

The two new filibusters are against Californians Judge Carolyn Kuhl and Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown - an African-American. Open-minded, tolerant, nonjudgmental, colorblind liberals orchestrating these smears. In public, they're said that their problem with Estrada was that neither he nor the Department of Justice would turn over internal documents. But guess what? In private, the Democrat memo said nothing about Estrada not answering questions - which of course every senator had a chance to put to him though the ones screaming the loudest never did. No, all they write is that he's "dangerous" because he's a Latino. That's the Democrats today, folks: scared of any minority who dares think for himself or herself.

so much for "I have a dream"

[billvon 3,125]

>In one memo to Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois obtained by the
> Washington Times, Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada is singled out
> as 'especially dangerous because he is Latino.'" Democrats put this
> in writing, proving that they're a bunch of bigots who see minorities
> that think for themselves as a threat to be crushed!

Uh, no. From the original article, that quote was from a member of an outside special interest group in a meeting with Durbin, not from a democratic staffer or from a democratic politician.

In other words, if I go to a meeting with a republican senator, and mention that I support partial birth abortion, and that gets put in the minutes - does that mean republicans support partial birth abortions?

[lawrocket 3]

Here's my take on an article from the SFGate.com

My comments are in parentheses.

IN PICKING another doctrinaire candidate for the federal bench, the White House is prolonging the congressional standoff that has already stymied four other judicial nominees. (Doctrinaire? Law is controlled by doctrine.) By naming Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, President Bush has again chosen a contrarian with a judicial philosophy that lies well outside the bounds of the mainstream. (Mainstream? She is steadfastly in favor of individual rights over group rights, limited government, and collectivism).

As a California Supreme Court associate justice, Brown has been prolific and independent-minded. (Um, that is what a judge is suposed to do) But her opinions too often demonstrate callous disregard for the disabled, the environment, women and fundamental civil and privacy rights. (She follows the Consitution, and not some newfangled sociological doctrine. Since she is unwilling to write statutes, she is considered callous).

Brown, for example, is opposed to: an individual's right to sue for age discrimination (age is not a "suspect class" under well-settled constitutional principals), governmental housing assistance for the disabled and the elderly poor (again, these are not "suspect classes" under Constitutional jurisprudence), bans on selling guns on county fairgrounds (she seems to believe that the 2nd Amendment means something, and that a governmental zone should be the last place that Amendments are stifled) and restrictions on cigarette sales to minors (actually, the case was one of commercial speech, and whether there are prior restraints on free speech regarding tobacco advertising. I know, it looks bad to say that she favors free speech, but to spin it into "tobacco sales for minors" makes her sound REALLY evil."

She dissented from a majority opinion that admonished an employee who used racial slurs in the workplace and the employer who permitted it. (That is NOT what she said. In her dissent, she state that the injunction was so overbroad in its wording that it prevented employees, executives and customers from ever saying a perjorative anywhere at any time. In fact, the injunction could be read so that rap music, with the oft-used "Nigga" term could not be played in the rental cars by a customer. She agreed that the language in the workplace was inappropriate, but that the court order did too much, and constituted a prior restraint of free speech).

Brown called it free speech, ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court that on several occasions has ruled precisely otherwise. (Actually, the white guy who joined her opinion wasn't hated. White guys can think what they want, not what they are told to think - only minorities must think what they are told to think. And, given that the dissent was joined by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Ronald George (who was appointed to the Superior Court by Pat Brown, but George is a white guy who can think what he wants)).

She opposed teenage abortions without parental consent (how dare she compare abortion to anything else where the age to contract is 18), argued to limit the right of the disabled to sue for job discrimination (I know, deaf-mutes should be allowed to be telemarketers) and called age discrimination an "unavoidable consequence." (We all know that any 65 year-old man can haul as much iron as a 25 year-old).

But her guiding judicial philosophy -- equating government with tyranny -- is especially troubling and makes her ill-suited for an appellate court that largely adjudicates federal regulatory cases. (We don't want someone on the court who would actually overturn the Patriot Act!!! Government is NEVER tyrannical, is it?! Make this known - she'd overturn many provisions of the Patriot Act in a heartbeat!)

"(W)here government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates . . . ," Brown said in a speech three years ago (She should have said, "More government now. More government forever. Cut me a check). The result is "unapologetic expropriation of property. . . decline in the rule of law . . . loss of civility.'' (She is wrong. it never happens that way. Government doesn't do any of those things. Ask the Native Americans. They'll set you straight)

That baffling rhetoric caused Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to ask, "Do you really believe that?" (Dianne Feinstein knows how trustworthy and woderful all politicians are, even on the smallest level. Dan White ring a bell, Dianne?)

Presidents typically shape the judiciary to reflect their own views. (They got something right) But with Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owens, William Pryor, Miguel Estrada and now Brown, Bush seems bent on stacking the bench with ideologues. (Strict Constructionist means idealogue. We don't want anybody saying that the Constitution means what it says it does.)

President Bush could end the judicial gridlock by offering candidates who are, at minimum, committed to fundamental constitutional principles and, unlike Brown, understand the role of government in protecting individual rights. (Fundamental Constitutional principals means "ideologue." It means levels of scrutiny. And funny, isn't it, how they end it with "understands individual rights" when the only thing the article mentioned before was group identities and government handouts)


This is the tripe that the left is sending out and writing, and it's a shame. My guess is that the en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit in the recall matter was also "out of the mainstream."

It's a shame when the liberal elite think that a minority should not be be allowed to think independently. Ronald George, the Chief Justice, didn't get hammered for his decision agreeing with Janice Brown. Why not??? Because he's allowed to make those decisions, but Brown isn't because she's an African Amercian Female. That is just plain wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freeflir29 0]

You're not by some chance an attorney are you?

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah, could be.

Actually, I got to appear before Judge Carolyn Kuhl. She ruled against me. But, she was courteous and insightful.

I just don't understand some of this stuff. It looks like it got worse after Bork, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

she was courteous and insightful.

Wow....that's not normal for a judge.

[b1jercat 0]

Oh goody, another troll from bodypilot90.

blues

jerry

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

only minorities must think what they are told to think.

That is definitely it! Minorities that don't tow the line are a big threat.

I saw an interview (on Fox News-Special Report with Brit Hume) of Juan Williams (a regular panel member on Fox and National Public Radio Correspondent) where he described the attacks on him for his views which did not always agree with the liberal agenda. My respect for Juan Williams went way up.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting, and true in its own way. Democrats depend on their scare tactics/lies convincing minorities to vote for them - extensively. Without relatively solid support from minorities they have no chance of winning elections. Period. What is truly disgusting is the manner in which they generate that support.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Oh goody, another troll from bodypilot90.

blues

jerry

Liberalism 101 - If you can't attack the message, attack the messanger.

never pull low......unless you are

[Muenkel 0]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Rick!

Just look at the knucklehead nine...all they do is attack eachother.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris