GOP playing Race Card on *'s judicial nominees

[Roland99]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/560nvtge.asp

The eminently qualified conservatives Democrats have quashed include Miguel Estrada, who is Hispanic, Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, Bill Pryor, a brilliant young Catholic, and two white women, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. By keeping these five nominees off the federal courts of appeals, Democrats seem to have blocked Bush from considering them for the Supreme Court.

<...>

Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women. The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.

When the first lie fails to take root, try another one!

[Toots]

1. But I thought it was because of "Faith"

It must be the WMD syndrone. If your first manipulations fails try another then another until eventually someone believes what you say....

[Rob H.]

2. I'm not surprised they're playing the race card, but...

they may want to consider this snippet from People for the American Way--

Miguel Estrada’s confirmation has been opposed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and a wide range of public interest organizations, including several leading Hispanic groups, in part because he has dismissed concerns about the continuing effects of discrimination and has demonstrated little concern for the impact of racial profiling or laws that have a disproportionate impact on minority groups.

Just as troubling was his refusal to answer several questions during his initial confirmation hearings (emphasis added by yours truly)--

Estrada’s silence on fundamental constitutional questions is part of an apparent strategy carefully calculated to prevent nominees’ extremist views from becoming known before they are confirmed for lifetime positions on our highest courts. Federalist Society members (like Estrada) have been advised not to answer such questions, and have been told that such a stonewalling strategy worked well for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (see "Judge Nominees Told to Speak Very Softly,” Legal Times, April 22, 2002). Administration officials have reportedly instructed nominees not to discuss any past or present court rulings about which they have not previously expressed their views in writing. (Legal Times, September 30, 2002)

...snippage...

The administration has also refused to give senators memos that Estrada wrote while working for the Solicitor General (Ted Olsen)’s office dealing with important issues that came before the Supreme Court. There is ample precedent for disclosure: for example, in 1987 the Senate was given access to memos Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork had prepared while he was Solicitor General. As the New York Times has editorialized, “The Senate should not be bullied into making this important decision in the dark....The administration has no legal basis for its refusal to supply these documents.” (September 25, 2002 Editorial)

For the rest, click here.

Edit: What the hell is "the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice," anyway? Someone completely unsuited for the job who, after a long series of bad decisions (at least one of which had dire consequences), is appointed to the Supreme Court despite having no prior experience as a judge? How would that make such a nominee harder to caricature?

[ComerPerro]

3. They have been trying this BS for a long time

My counter to this is usually along the lines of "Why is Bush making a point of mentioning the race, ethnicity or gender of his nominees? Why doesn't he look past that? Is he just trying to fill some quota?"

That usually upsets them quite a bit.

Sometimes I like to press further my listing judges complications or lack of qualifications (such as having been disBARred).

I then follow through with "Why is Bush making a mockery of race relations by appointing minority judges with such a terrible track record? Does he want us to think that these people are an accurate sample of all minorities?"

[Rob H.]

4. Nice!

I may be, um, "borrowing" that line of argument in the future. ;)

[ComerPerro]

7. 2 years ago in a politics calls

In discussion, some College Rethug tried to say that the reason we were blocking Bush's nominees is because we can't stand minorities that aren't Dem.

I piped up, "Who told you that, Hannity?" and went off on the guy until our TA cut us off...

[Roland99]

8. heh heh

[FinallyStartingToWin]

5. Hey, They Can't Forget

That we are also against the mentally retarded.......

......After all, none of us voted for *

[Disturbed]

6. Seeking the most conservative minority &/or female justices.

That is what the RW does. Then they play the race, gender game. If anyone is against these wak justices they must be bigots &/or mysoginists. Yup, the RW is quite crafty.