For instance, during the Democrats’ filibuster over Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the Court of Appeals, National Review published an article entitled "Democratic Racism," the first paragraph of which said this:
Given his record, why did these Democrats block Estrada's nomination? Put simply, because he is a Hispanic who broke from the party fold. Despite their inevitable protesting to the contrary, it is clear that Ted Kennedy's gang of 45 discriminated against Estrada because he is Hispanic . . . . Indeed, if Congress were an ordinary employer and a federal judgeship were treated as a job under federal antidiscrimination law, then Estrada would likely win on a claim of employment discrimination.
The accusation wasn’t confined to Republican magazines, as Jonathan Chait in the LA Times explained:
Republicans widely insinuated that Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada as a federal appellate judge was racist. Trent Lott — Trent Lott!, the man who was forced to step down as majority leader because he praised the segregationist candidacy of Strom Thurmond! — asserted, "They don't want Miguel Estrada because he's Hispanic."
This is how the dignified GOP Judiciary Committee member Charles Grassley put it:
"If we deny Mr. Estrada the position on the D.C. Circuit, it would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic-Americans everywhere."
Republicans also explained how Democratic opposition to conservative nominee William Pryor was due to the fact that Pryor is Catholic and Democrats are, of course, anti-Catholic bigots:
When Democrats opposed the nomination of extremely conservative Alabama Atty. Gen. William Pryor, Republicans insisted it was because Pryor is Catholic. (Democrats said they didn't even know Pryor is Catholic until a Republican brought it up in hearings.) The Committee for Justice, a group linked to the White House, ran TV advertisements portraying a locked courthouse with the sign, "Catholics need not apply."
The same National Review article said the anti-Hispanic Democratic bigots were blocking Estrada’s nomination just "like they discriminate against another nominee, William Pryor, for his devout Catholicism."
And here is the dignified and distinguished Republican Senator from Alabama, Jeff Sessions, during the Judiciary Committee's hearings on William Pryor:
Senator JEFF SESSIONS (Republican, Alabama): The ranking member protests that he is not anti-Catholic and he's offended that anyone suggested that he is. Well, let me tell you, the doctrine that abortion is not justified for rape and incest is Catholic doctrine. It is a position of the pope and it's a position of the Catholic Church in unity. So are we saying that if you believe in that principle, you can't be a federal judge? Is that what we're saying? And are we not saying then good Catholics need not apply?
Democrats don’t just hate Hispanics and Catholics, but women as well, which is, of course, why they have opposed the nomination of some of them to the federal court:
When Democrats opposed Priscilla Owen, another very conservative nominee, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft blustered, "Senate Democrats have indicated an unfortunate trend toward unfairness against qualified women nominated by this administration."
And then there were the accusations that Democrats opposed the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown because they were racists who wanted to keep black judges off of the court:
Virtually every time the Democrats objected to one of Bush's judicial nominees, the president's allies accused them of discrimination. Take, for instance, Janice Rogers Brown, the California Supreme Court justice who Bush nominated for a federal appeals court job. She speaks about government in the raving tones of a militia member and believes that the sort of government role in the economy most Americans have taken for granted since the New Deal is not just wrong but unconstitutional.Now, you would think that the Democratic opposition to Rogers as a federal judge is probably related to her desire to use the courts to impose her Dickensian vision upon an unwilling public. Instead, Republicans have insisted the Democrats must be motivated by bigotry.
Sometimes this argument has been subtle. ("I would hope that today the filibuster would not be used to deny an up-or-down vote on Janice Rogers Brown, because every parent deserves to dream for every child that they'll have a chance," argued one GOP senator.) Other times it has been more crude. ("Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?" asked one conservative black minister at an event with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist.)
So that's why Republicans are so offended by this questioning of Alito. They have declared the distasteful issues of race and bigotry off-limits in the confirmation process and they don't understand why Democrats won't do the same.
And unlike Alito’s wife, I’m sure that the wives of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee really love it when their husbands are attacked with these vicious, overt accusations of racism and bigotry. Maybe if one of them had cried in front of a camera over it we would have heard a little more about these "disgusting" and "shameful" accusations.
I'm about ready to put my fist through the television. These television reporters sit there listening to the GOP Senators talk about how upset they are over these accusations. And not one - not one - reminds any of them of this.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is the fault of the media, not Republicans. If they can scream Racist when they want, and then also protest others who do it, and get away with it, why not?
ReplyDeleteIt's the media's responsibility not to allow this sort of double standard.
Hugh Hewitt's feigned outrage over the tears of Martha Alito is laughable. In an interview on his radio show yesterday, Hewitt and his guest made it clear they were ecstatic that Martha Alito burst into tears:
ReplyDeleteJM: Well, they [the Democrats] just seemed inept to me, and very confused. I mean, I don't really understand what they're trying to do.
HH: But what about driving Mrs. Alito in tears from the room?
JM: Obviously, that was not planned, but it couldn't have happened better for Republicans, and Alito, because it came at the end of the day. It made all the national newscasts. And...
HH: And if there's a rule in politics, you don't make the nice ladies cry.
http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/01/about-mrs-alitos-tears.html
Ah, Glenn, you've got it all figured out! Too bad you think it's satire.
ReplyDeleteReal Values, Everyone except the stpuid pricks in the media know this was a staged event and the GOP pigs couldn't be happier that it happened even while they pretend to be so concerned about it.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing is a role-playing exercise that makes me increasingly sick.
All of those accusations from Republican senators about their Democrat colleagues were just that -- politicking among senators. The idea that opposition to Estrada or Pryor was driven by racial or anti-Catholic aniumus is stupid, and everybody knows it. But that kind of thing is wholly unremarkable among politicians.
ReplyDeleteJudicial nominees to a federal appointment are generally not politicians. I strongly object to how poisonous the confirmation process has become since the Bork era, and if Mrs. Alito's tears help show how sick that now is, good.
Judicial nominees to a federal appointment are generally not politicians. I strongly object to how poisonous the confirmation process has become since the Bork era, and if Mrs. Alito's tears help show how sick that now is, good.
ReplyDeleteThat makes a lot sense. It's all just fine and dandy to scream RACIST and BIGOT at Senators who don't vote for your judicial nominees. Why, that's just good old-fashioned politics.
But asking a judicial nominee about his membership in a group with revolting viewpoints is totally out-of-bounds, because it might make his wife cry.
After all, poor little judicial nominees are much more fragile and dignified creatures then Senators, and while it's perfectly fine to smear Senators as racists and bigots, it is "one of the most shameful epsiodes in U.S. history" to do exactly the same thing to a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
That makes a lot of sense. Good to see you have no double standards.
And all of this is independent of the fact that nobody actually accused Alito of being a racist, in rather stark contrast to the tidal wave of disgusting invective which spews forth from Republicans whenever they don't get their way on all of their nominees.
Amanda, it may be the media's responsibility, but sadly, that's not its job anymore. They are now just another profit-making arm of major corporations, and so have the same impulse of racing towards the bottom that you see in other industries. Less effort on reporting, less energy to fight lies, and just less real news being put out there.
ReplyDeleteAnd the corporations all side with the Republicans because they believe in as small a government as possible.
Should be involved in the business of business. They want a system with no sense of social justice, because that means they would have to have their bottom lines affected by caring for the people they employ.
That makes a lot of sense. Good to see you have no double standards.
ReplyDeleteAnd good that you see I don't, because it is the truth. I would have been disgusted if they had tried to depict Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a bigot or any other wholly cynical, crass accusation.
I object to the way judicial nominees have been treated beginning with Bork, and the reality is that, by far, the sins have been Democratic ones. In other contexts, where they merit it, I can be quite harsh on Repbublicans, but I'm not going to pretend they are equal sinners here, just to impress anyone of my even-handedness when it isn't justified. The politics of personal destruction are (unfortunately) known by politicians for themselves, and they and their families had better accept that reality going in.
I'd prefer that it not extend to hearings on court nominees, but if you think crude, vulgar and utterly cynical campaigns against a nominee to the federal bench are no offense, then just say so. Then we can simply disagree.
I'd prefer that it not extend to hearings on court nominees, but if you think crude, vulgar and utterly cynical campaigns against a nominee to the federal bench are no offense, then just say so. Then we can simply disagree.
ReplyDeleteI just think Republicans are in no position to complain about the tone of anything. After all, these are the same people who spent the 1990s talking about how Hillary had Vince Foster murdered to keep their affair quiet and how Bill Clinton is a serial rapist, followed up by how all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are secret KKK members trying to keep blacks, Hispanics and women off the judiciary.
They're the same people who have made it a habit of routinely depicting their political opponents as being escapees from the insane asylum - from Al Gore to Howard Dean -- or suggesting that war heroes shot themselves on purpose in order to get their medals.
But by all means, let's hear some more from these Paragons of Civility about how extremely important it is that we maintain a decent and respectful tone, otherwise good people won't go into public service.
But why are the Democrats beating a dead horse? The Bar association report ‘clears’ him and rates him highly qualified. The Dem Senators are trying to appease the furthest left without accomplishing anything.
ReplyDeleteI just think Republicans are in no position to complain about the tone of anything. After all, these are the same people who spent the 1990s talking about how Hillary had Vince Foster murdered to keep their affair quiet and how Bill Clinton is a serial rapist,
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the Republicans. In general, Orrin Hatch won't go there. But I'm certainly not going to defend the obsessive nastiness that many conservatives adopted where the Clintons are concerned.
Indeed, I let lapse my subscription to The American Spectator because it had gone so over the top into Enquirer-level diatribes about the Clintons, even descending to such insightful political analysis as that Hillary had to beg Bill for sex.
But Bill and Hillary Clinton are seasoned political pros, and know that the game is often played down and dirty -- James Carville is not one to treat Republicans with all the dignity and respect Catholics give the Pope . I'd prefer that the judicial confirmation process had remained above all that garbage, but the Democrats are the ones who breached that wall, and did so egregiously.
If Mrs. Alito's tears now give the GOP fodder and a tidal wave of sympathy that backfires on the Democrats, that is all well-deserved. Maybe others in his party can now convince Ted Kennedy that Alito can and should be grilled about his jurisprudence, but not associated with and asked to defend bigoted comments from articles the man has not even read.
And good that you see I don't, because it is the truth. I would have been disgusted if they had tried to depict Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a bigot or any other wholly cynical, crass accusation.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why sexism and racism comes up now and not at Ginsburg's hearing has as much to do with Alito's judicial record as his Princeton affiliations. Even for a conservative justice, Alito has been remarkably allergic to the claims of women and minority plaintiffs. That said, I have no reason to believe that such a pattern results from some 'closet bigotry'. Instead, it derives from Alito's jurisprudence - perhaps most importantly, the narrowness with which he interprets anti-discrimination law. Whereas conservatives like Rehnquist or O'Connor have relaxed plaintiff burdens and even adopted disparate-impact models, Alito has consistently refused to broaden the statutory definition beyond intentional discrimination. Thus, his decisions rarely favor the interests of women and minority employees; indeed, he often acts directly against them, arguing for higher evidentiary burdens for plaintiffs or challenging the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act.
Just as Richard Epstein's opposition to Title VII isn't driven by racism, there's no reason to think that the problems in Alito's judicial record derive from anything other than his judicial philosophy. Still. its always easier to call someone a bigot than to try and rally around a principle. The Dems should try their best to resist this temptation, especially given the number of legitimate race/gender problems right there in Alito's record. Besides, as Hugo Black taught us, biographical niceties are overrated anyway.
Bill and Hillary were seasoned pros, yes. And Chelsea? I doubt Hypatia that you would approve of this sort of thing - but after years of such garbage (notice in particular the last two paragraphs), I don't see how anyone can argue that it's the Democrats who have set the ugly tone in Washington.
ReplyDeleteAs for the judicial hearings, the senators have in my view if anything been overly deferential. Yesterday, they weren't expressing "outrage" or "opposition," but instead used soft expressions: "I'm troubled by..."; "I'm worried by..." Some of them spent too much time rambling on about their own views, and would occasionally remember to ask the nominee a question. But when you have a guy who's been coached to reveal as little as possible, and you're trying to learn as much as you can, how do you get at the truth? It isn't plausible for example that Alito doesn't remember now his membership in a college organization that he boasted of on a job resume much later. So what are these senators supposed to do? Take these holes in his otherwise excellent memory at face value? The only way to even try to get him off script is to adopt a somewhat adversarial position and fire some hard questions at him - at which the Democrats seem singularly inept, in my view. But then if they say boo, they're attacked for being unfair and mean.
On a personal level, Alito seems like an okay human being. In different times, like Roberts, maybe he'd be a reasonable addition to the court. Either one of them (but not both) would be valuable to have on a court with nine strong voices. But this court is not in balance. Like most readers on this site, I'm worried about an overly powerful and irresponsible executive branch. I used to have a kind of naive confidence that if things went seriously wrong in this country, the Supreme Court could be counted on. Along with several lawyer friends (I am not one), I was disabused of my belief in their general quality and integrity oh, about 61 months ago.
Also, nobody is willing to say this, apparently, out loud, but aren't four judges of the same religion enough? Do we really need a majority of the same religion on the Supreme Court? Indeed, at the moment we have Judge Aldisert arguing for him on the grounds that he is an Italian-American. He is talking about how Italian-Americans used to be discriminated against. Well, not any more! Clearly, no one group or belief system should have majority representation on the Supreme Court. What, they couldn't find a qualified Moslem? A Buddhist? How about a Quaker? How about - quake - an atheist - or an agnostic, at least?
But back on topic, what was said that was rude? Except perhaps for the exchange between Kennedy and Specter, which was angry on both sides, and directed at each other, not Alito.
Oh, dear, Leahy just declined to ask any question of these appeal court judges. And now Durbin too. Yes, the Democrats are just regular attack dogs!
Brambling: John Derbyshire is a true freak, but I hold a sort of sick fascination with him because of his odd mixture of views. But in any event, Rush Limbaugh, back when Chelsea was a mere adolescent, said some really foul things about her appearance. I was deeply offended by it.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats got hoist on the petard of their past performance in nomination hearings. Only a profoundly retarded human being could not know just exactly what it was that Ted Kennedy was planning to do with the CAP thing, but then Mrs. Alito cried. And that ended that. He didn't have to go that far for everyone not to understand exactly how low he would have gone, if the wife's tear glands hadn't interfered.
By all reports, the CAP records reveal little to no involvement by Sam Alito in that organization. It seems he signed up over the ROTC issue, but was not active in the affairs of the organization. So he could truthfully claim membership on a job application, but it is also true there is little for him to recall about involvement with the group, because he seems to have done virtually nothing with them.
CAP was not the organization it has been falsely portrayed as being. CAP had minority and women presidents and board members.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite likely that the one single piece out of decades worth of stuff that Kennedy quoted from was in fact a PARODY and SATIRE of other's beliefs. Its likely Kennedy and his staff even know this fact.
Rusher says he has no memory of such an essay, and that those quotes well could have been cut from a piece of parody. He also said that sometimes college newsletters can contain sophomoric essays written by college sophomores. Yet the democraps led by that Bloated Carcas surrounded by a sphincter muscle did their level best imitation of McCarthy trying to slime a good man with the false light of bigotry.
The panel of appeals court judges put the final nails in the dem coffins this afternoon.
Says the "Dog"
Brambling's views on this nomination are mine exactly. Under ordinary circumstances, I could live with Alito. But the threat of George Bush's overreaching and stomping on basic constitutional protections is so glaring and severe that, to me, little else matters in comparison.
ReplyDeleteAnd on the issue of executive power, it seems clear (although there is no definitive proof) that Alito is on the far fringe. I have very little doubt that he will embrace theories of virtually absolute Executive powers in a time of even an undeclared "war," and on that basis alone, I thought it was urgent that he be kept off the court.
If it took a few cynical theatrics from Teddy Kennedy to accomplish that, fine with me. In the repulsive climate which the Republicans (largely) have created in Washington, the gentle questions about CAP do not even begin to register on the radar of offensiveness or impropriety.
If it took a few cynical theatrics from Teddy Kennedy to accomplish that, fine with me.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: It is fine with me if Ted Kennedy depicts a decent, and well-respected human being and jurist as a Klansman, as long as we win.
So let's say a Democratic president nominated someone to the Supreme Court who had been a member in college of some equivalent organization on the other side of the spectrum. SDS perhaps. Would Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham refrain from asking him questions about it?
ReplyDeleteBrambling,
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding or what? Clinton did far worse than nominate a member of SDS. He nominated a card carrying radical member of the whacko fringe far left, hates america first, last, and always ACLU.
The SDS couldn't carry the ACLU's water when it comes to hating america's hearland, culture, and values.
All but 3 republicans voted for this radical who believes that unelected priests in black robes should define the nature of marriage and not elected representatives of the people. That judges should abridge the free association and free expression and free exercise rights of private clubs like the evil boy scouts of america; and that unelected judges and not the ballot box should enforce legalized prostitution on every community in the USA.
3 Republicans voted against this crazy whacko bitch. That was it. They deferred to her when she set a record for refusing to answer questions. Republicans believe in a much more civil process; they believe elections matter, and they proved that with their votes.
Ginsburg replaced a moderate to conservative. She should have NEVER made it to the court. The democrats would have stopped Alito, who is FAR MORE MAINSTREAM and in the center than Ginsburg ever thought of being, had they been in the majority. Republicans don't behave in such a crude and demogogic manner.
Says the "Dog"
Dog --
ReplyDeleteClinton nominated Ginsburg on the advice of Orrin Hatch, Republican leader at the time. He recommended her because she had a moderate voting record and often voted with Republican appointees, as in fact she still does to this day. Clinton, unlike Bush/Rove, wanted a nominee who would be genuinely acceptable to both parties. Ginsburg was nominated because she was considered a moderate; Alito was nominated because he wasn't.
But you know all that, and are lying because you care only about what's good for your party. Call us when you start caring about your country.
Translation: It is fine with me if Ted Kennedy depicts a decent, and well-respected human being and jurist as a Klansman, as long as we win.
ReplyDeleteYOU'RE MISSING THE POINT.
Sure, in a perfect world, there would be no theatrics or insinuation or "partisan politics", as its often called. This would be a world in which Judge Alito would openly discuss his views on executive power, on abortion, on worker's rights, and every other topic he and his congressional allies have kept out of the debate.
Isn't it telling that the only thing Alito-defenders want to talk about today is Ted Kennedy? Kennedy isn't campaigning or being nominated for anything. This is Alito's nomination and we should be talking about Alito. SO PLEASE, why don't you all just save the Kennedy-sucks talk for those townhall meetings in Lowell when it actually matters, and try defending Alito's record for a while instead.
[and don't come back at me with that advise-and-consent, elections have consequences crap. remember that you're the ones who are always crying about the "unaccountable judiciary". honestly discussing one's judicial record is what accountability is all about.]
To m.a.
ReplyDeleteGinsburg is no moderate. Kennedy and O'Connor are moderate to liberal. Ginsburg is way out there in whacko land with Stevens.
Yes, Orin Hatch gave Clinton her name. Hatch didn't waste his time giving Clinton names of conservatives like the Dems give names of liberals when asked. Hatch believed Clinton had a right to appoint a liberal, since he won the election. Dems don't share such faith in elections.
If you compare ginsburgs beliefs and writings on prostitution, definition of marriage, boy scouts, etc. Her view of America is FAR LEFT of mainstream, whereas Alito's views ARE the mainstream.
To Silverbird5000:
You stated honestly discussing one's judicial record is what accountability is all about
Agreed. Please let us all know when the Dems choose to begin doing this. So far they haven't.
Says the "Dog"
[and don't come back at me with that advise-and-consent, elections have consequences crap. remember that you're the ones who are always crying about the "unaccountable judiciary". honestly discussing one's judicial record is what accountability is all about.]
ReplyDeleteWhoever it is you are describing, it isn't me. While I do think the judiciary has been over-reaching in a number of areas, that is not a particular war cry of mine. The kinds of "arguments" set forth by this Dog creature are not mine.
All over the Internet the right has been shrieking that the ACLU endorses pedophilia because it is defending NAMBLA in a lawsuit -- I can't recall where, but I've seen Ruth Ginsburg linked to that via her past ACLU association. I often strongly agree with the ACLU, and do in their First Amendment defense of NAMBLA. It totally annoys me when people misunderstand that case, and outrages me when it is exploited by people who actually do understand why the ACLU takes the position it does, and yet use that case to demonize the ACLU.
Ginsburg is way out there in whacko land with Stevens.
ReplyDeleteNow that's a real nugget. It is one of the most pristine examples of right-wing reasoning I've ever seen.
Lord Limbaugh must be so proud of all his little minions.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteLimbaugh isn't a leader of conservative political thought. He validates the conservative thoughts that people ALREADY HELD.
Hence his strong and continued popularity. Conservatives aren't the result of Limbaugh. Limbaugh is the result of there being so many conservatives.
Says the "Dog"