You must be speaking of the Democrats in Congress, right? After all, they had an opportunity to put Miguel Estrada on the D.C. US Court of Appeals in 2001. But, instead of allowing a simple up or down vote on his nomination, they chose to filibuster it. First time ever for a nominee to the Court of Appeals. Sounds like a kneejerk reaction to me.
I mean we're talking about a Latino who was born in the Honduras. Who came to the United States at the age of 17 with a limited command of the English language. Who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. Who received a unanimous "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. And the Democrats said "no". Huh? I wonder if race had anything to do with it.
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there.
Or inexperience and secrecy perhaps?
This kind of reminds me of a recently elected president.
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there.
Or inexperience and secrecy perhaps?
LOL! And if you believe that one, I have a house to sell you that is worth more now than it was before the real estate meltdown. Do you think that Democrats would willingly admit that they opposed him because he is a conservative?
There a famous examples of Supreme Court justices who had less experience than Estrada when they became federal judges. Earl Warren and Hugo Black are two.
Originally posted by Zindaihas Originally posted by popinjay
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there.
Or inexperience and secrecy perhaps?
LOL! And if you believe that one, I have a house to sell you that is worth more now than it was before the real estate meltdown. Do you think that Democrats would willingly admit that they opposed him because he is a conservative? There a famous examples of Supreme Court justices who had less experience than Estrada when they became federal judges. Earl Warren and Hugo Black are two.
And there is a famous example of Justice Alito making worse "racist comments" that you claim Sotomayor made, basing his legal judgements on just being Italian. So that doesn't excuse anything, does it?
Don't ask for the proof, because you'll be embarrased.
Originally posted by sepher You show me the same kind of vitriol out of a Democrat's mouth towards the past nominee you cited there and my conviction would be just the same.
With pleasure. I don't know of any Sotomayor critics who have said they hope she dies as Dr. Julianne Malveaux famously said of Clarence Thomas back in 1994.
And so now legitimate criticism of a nominee's record is considered vitriol, is it? Well then I guess we might as well just skip the nomination process and go straight to the swearing in.
And if you think mere criticism is worse than actually denying a nominee of the position, I question your priorites. I would much rather be criticized all day long and still get the job instead of being praised all over the place, but then being denied the position.
No, legitimate criticism of her record is fine. But it's vitriol when it isn't legitimate. And what I don't consider legitimate is clinging to two quotes taken out of context and used to try and discredit all of her achievements, all while labeling her a racist.
And yes, if all Republicans are going to do is make illegitimate criticisms, they might aswell opt out of the process, which seems to be their course of action towards that along with many other things right now.
I don't favor a one-party system, but so long as one-party continues to opt out at the behest of a myriad of leaders that neither hold currently office or are simply entertainers, what can you do?
And I agree; I'm all for criticism too. It's just that my criticism isn't so narrow that I cling to two lines of text and label a person racist and unfit. If the two lines of text are controversial; then debate the entire text each belongs to. So long as Republicans refuse to do that, and that's as far as their criticisms go, its probably their priorities you should be questioning.
As for that blurb about some lady and Clarence Thomas, what does that have to do with anything at ALL? You already diverted to 2001 with an irrelevant bit, now you're all the way back in 1994 with something totally irrelevant.
Again, its the LEADERS and probable 2012 presidential candidates (Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney) of the Republican Party that're setting the tone for their party right now.
As for that blurb about some lady and Clarence Thomas, what does that have to do with anything at ALL? You already diverted to 2001 with an irrelevant bit, now you're all the way back in 1994 with something totally irrelevant.
You started this debate by asking, "should America be proud of breaking new ground...?" OK, fine. Democrats had a chance to do that back in 2001. Estrada would have been the first Latino ever on the D.C. US Court of Appeals. But they wouldn't even allow a vote. Instead they held the first filibuster ever of an appeals court nominee. An unprecedented move against a minority nominee. And so you responded by claiming there have been vicious attacks on Sotomayor and challenged me to show you something similiar against Estrada, apparently not concerned that denying him the job with an unprecendent act is not that bad. I can't think of any verbal attacks against Estrada off-hand that were out of bounds, but I did remember one against Clarence Thomas, so I posted that one instead. So yes, I think I answered your questions with relevent information.
The bottom line is, liberal minorities = good, conservative minorities = bad.
As for that blurb about some lady and Clarence Thomas, what does that have to do with anything at ALL? You already diverted to 2001 with an irrelevant bit, now you're all the way back in 1994 with something totally irrelevant.
You started this debate by asking, "should America be proud of breaking new ground...?" OK, fine. Democrats had a chance to do that back in 2001. Estrada would have been the first Latino ever on the D.C. US Court of Appeals. But they wouldn't even allow a vote. Instead they held the first filibuster ever of an appeals court nominee. An unprecedented move against a minority nominee. And so you responded by claiming there have been vicious attacks on Sotomayor and challenged me to show you something similiar against Estrada, apparently not concerned that denying him the job with an unprecendent act is not that bad. I can't think of any verbal attacks against Estrada off-hand that were out of bounds, but I did remember one against Clarence Thomas, so I posted that one instead. So yes, I think I answered your questions with relevent information.
The bottom line is, liberal minorities = good, conservative minorities = bad.
Yes I asked "should America be proud of breaking new ground", but when its of no CONSEQUENCE to anything else. Meaning the candidate is first exceedingly qualified, and obviously Democrats didn't find Estrada qualified and they've gone on record saying as much.
If Republicans start bringing up holes in Sotomayor's record; let it be debated. If the Administration withholds accessible information that the Republicans want first, let them attempt to filibuster the decision. After all that's one circumstance when debate shouldn't end; when the debate that's needed isn't appropriately facilitated in the first place.
None of the above is happening though, so the situations aren't at all alike. And yes some lady saying something about Clarence Thomas is irrelevant; because it didn't involve a leader within either party. The 2001 nominee you brought up is irrelevant, because there's actual reasons why he was blocked more substantive than "he's a racist" as aforementioned.
I mean, if what you're looking for is a sample of actual Democrat leaders attempting to destroy a justice nominee based on racism charges, bring up what Durbin, Biden and Kennedy did to Alito over his once self-admitted, but later disproven membership into Princeton's defunct CAP. Though you'd earn my agreement on most of the points.
And no, it's more qualified person = good, unqualified person = bad. Breaking ground in America with a qualified person = good too.
Has anybody figured out what the halflife of Obama Koolaid is yet,I mean I thought radiation from "operation crossroads" lasted a long time but geesh.Hehe.
Comments
Or inexperience and secrecy perhaps?
This kind of reminds me of a recently elected president.
Sorry, I had to. You kind folks carry on.
DarkFall FAQ - Read then Question with Boldness
Or inexperience and secrecy perhaps?
LOL! And if you believe that one, I have a house to sell you that is worth more now than it was before the real estate meltdown. Do you think that Democrats would willingly admit that they opposed him because he is a conservative?
There a famous examples of Supreme Court justices who had less experience than Estrada when they became federal judges. Earl Warren and Hugo Black are two.
Or inexperience and secrecy perhaps?
LOL! And if you believe that one, I have a house to sell you that is worth more now than it was before the real estate meltdown. Do you think that Democrats would willingly admit that they opposed him because he is a conservative?
There a famous examples of Supreme Court justices who had less experience than Estrada when they became federal judges. Earl Warren and Hugo Black are two.
And there is a famous example of Justice Alito making worse "racist comments" that you claim Sotomayor made, basing his legal judgements on just being Italian. So that doesn't excuse anything, does it?
Don't ask for the proof, because you'll be embarrased.
"TO MICHAEL!"
With pleasure. I don't know of any Sotomayor critics who have said they hope she dies as Dr. Julianne Malveaux famously said of Clarence Thomas back in 1994.
And so now legitimate criticism of a nominee's record is considered vitriol, is it? Well then I guess we might as well just skip the nomination process and go straight to the swearing in.
And if you think mere criticism is worse than actually denying a nominee of the position, I question your priorites. I would much rather be criticized all day long and still get the job instead of being praised all over the place, but then being denied the position.
No, legitimate criticism of her record is fine. But it's vitriol when it isn't legitimate. And what I don't consider legitimate is clinging to two quotes taken out of context and used to try and discredit all of her achievements, all while labeling her a racist.
And yes, if all Republicans are going to do is make illegitimate criticisms, they might aswell opt out of the process, which seems to be their course of action towards that along with many other things right now.
I don't favor a one-party system, but so long as one-party continues to opt out at the behest of a myriad of leaders that neither hold currently office or are simply entertainers, what can you do?
And I agree; I'm all for criticism too. It's just that my criticism isn't so narrow that I cling to two lines of text and label a person racist and unfit. If the two lines of text are controversial; then debate the entire text each belongs to. So long as Republicans refuse to do that, and that's as far as their criticisms go, its probably their priorities you should be questioning.
As for that blurb about some lady and Clarence Thomas, what does that have to do with anything at ALL? You already diverted to 2001 with an irrelevant bit, now you're all the way back in 1994 with something totally irrelevant.
Again, its the LEADERS and probable 2012 presidential candidates (Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney) of the Republican Party that're setting the tone for their party right now.
You started this debate by asking, "should America be proud of breaking new ground...?" OK, fine. Democrats had a chance to do that back in 2001. Estrada would have been the first Latino ever on the D.C. US Court of Appeals. But they wouldn't even allow a vote. Instead they held the first filibuster ever of an appeals court nominee. An unprecedented move against a minority nominee. And so you responded by claiming there have been vicious attacks on Sotomayor and challenged me to show you something similiar against Estrada, apparently not concerned that denying him the job with an unprecendent act is not that bad. I can't think of any verbal attacks against Estrada off-hand that were out of bounds, but I did remember one against Clarence Thomas, so I posted that one instead. So yes, I think I answered your questions with relevent information.
The bottom line is, liberal minorities = good, conservative minorities = bad.
NICE! Tautology spotted! Score!
Don't see those much anymore. People are usually smart enough to stay away from those.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You started this debate by asking, "should America be proud of breaking new ground...?" OK, fine. Democrats had a chance to do that back in 2001. Estrada would have been the first Latino ever on the D.C. US Court of Appeals. But they wouldn't even allow a vote. Instead they held the first filibuster ever of an appeals court nominee. An unprecedented move against a minority nominee. And so you responded by claiming there have been vicious attacks on Sotomayor and challenged me to show you something similiar against Estrada, apparently not concerned that denying him the job with an unprecendent act is not that bad. I can't think of any verbal attacks against Estrada off-hand that were out of bounds, but I did remember one against Clarence Thomas, so I posted that one instead. So yes, I think I answered your questions with relevent information.
The bottom line is, liberal minorities = good, conservative minorities = bad.
Yes I asked "should America be proud of breaking new ground", but when its of no CONSEQUENCE to anything else. Meaning the candidate is first exceedingly qualified, and obviously Democrats didn't find Estrada qualified and they've gone on record saying as much.
If Republicans start bringing up holes in Sotomayor's record; let it be debated. If the Administration withholds accessible information that the Republicans want first, let them attempt to filibuster the decision. After all that's one circumstance when debate shouldn't end; when the debate that's needed isn't appropriately facilitated in the first place.
None of the above is happening though, so the situations aren't at all alike. And yes some lady saying something about Clarence Thomas is irrelevant; because it didn't involve a leader within either party. The 2001 nominee you brought up is irrelevant, because there's actual reasons why he was blocked more substantive than "he's a racist" as aforementioned.
I mean, if what you're looking for is a sample of actual Democrat leaders attempting to destroy a justice nominee based on racism charges, bring up what Durbin, Biden and Kennedy did to Alito over his once self-admitted, but later disproven membership into Princeton's defunct CAP. Though you'd earn my agreement on most of the points.
And no, it's more qualified person = good, unqualified person = bad. Breaking ground in America with a qualified person = good too.
Has anybody figured out what the halflife of Obama Koolaid is yet,I mean I thought radiation from "operation crossroads" lasted a long time but geesh.Hehe.