Wake up People!! The Senate is set to confirm a judge who 1) thinks the N-Word is not a slur; and

[beaconess]

2) being gay is a "choice" that leads to consequences, such as having your children taken away from you.

The Senate Democrats are trying to mount a filibuster, scheduled for tomorrow morning and need support!

Where's the outrage over this? Have the people who have contributed to the countless posts screaming about Obama and the minister lifted a finger to try to stop this confirmation? Have they called their Senators and demanded they support the filibuster?

Or do people here limit their activism to posting online screeds about a campaign event?

Someone started a post on the issue of this nomination that just flat out died. Why aren't people interested in this issue? It's certainly more critical - and likely to affect all of our lives than who shows up to sing at an Obama event!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Who is the judge? Which district will that judge represent?

Please provide information, for this important appointment.

TIA. MKJ

[Rowdyboy]

6. Leslie Southwick of Mississippi...Here's the basic story...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-target-red-state-dems-on-judge-southwick-2007-10-24.html

Sadly, because of Diane Fienstein's treachery this bastard likely gets a federal court seat for life.

Thanks, senator, for nothing.

[EffieBlack]

19. FYI - to anyone tempted to beat up on any of the Dem. Senators who are running for pres

regarding this vote . . .

It makes no difference whether someone votes no or doesn't vote - the effect is the same. The Republicans need 60 votes to overcome the Democratic filibuster. If they don't get 60 votes, it doesn't matter how many Democrats voted to uphold the filibuster. Even if there's not a single vote in support of the filibuster, if the Republicans don't get 60 votes, the nomination dies.

The word is that Obama will come back for the vote but it's not clear whether Clinton, Biden or Dodd will come back to Washington to vote. But if they don't PLEASE do not beat them up over it. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE! The right action on this one is to vote no or to not vote at all - as long as they don't vote yes, they're doing the right thing, whether they show up to vote or not.

[Rowdyboy]

21. Thats an excellent point that people are too quick to forget....

[beaconess]

10. Sure

Leslie Southwick was nominated by Bush in January for the seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that he originally tried to give to Charles Pickering.

The Fifth Circuit - which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi - is an important and influential circuit. Although it has a large African-American population, only one of the 15 judges on the court is black (a Clinton appointee) and the majority of the judges are conservative Republican appointees.

This is a lifetime appointment that won't go away when the White House changes hands. If he's confirmed, he's there. Period. This is the court that will hear any federal appeals of the situation in Jena, Louisiana. This is the court that will hear federal appeals of Tom DeLay's case. This is the court that will hear federal appeals of all of those death penalty sentences they're so fond of giving out in Texas.

Bottom line, this is a critical appointment. Now take a look at this nominee and decide if this is the kind of judge you think should be meting out "justice."

Here's are excerpts from the Alliance for Justice's website:
www.afj.org

President Bush’s nomination of Leslie Southwick to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit is yet another example of the Bush administration’s campaign to make a lasting imprint on the federal courts. During a long tenure as a Mississippi State Court of Appeals judge, Judge Southwick compiled a stark and lengthy record of voting on the side of business interests against workers and consumers.
. . .
Judge Southwick received the highest rating of any judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals from a business advocacy group based on his votes in cases involving businesses. Indeed, in 180 published state employment law and torts cases in which at least one judge dissented, Judge Southwick voted against workers, consumers and other victims 89 percent of the time.

. . .
• Richmond v. Mississippi Dep’t of Human Services. Bonnie Richmond, a social worker
for the Mississippi Department of Human Services was fired when she referred to an
African American co-worker as a “good ole n*****” at a meeting that included top
agency executives. Judge Southwick joined a 5-4 decision that found that, taken in
context, this slur was an insufficient ground to terminate her employment in part because
it “was not motivated out of racial hatred or racial animosity directed toward a particular
co-worker or toward blacks in general.” As two of the dissenters, deeply troubled by the
majority’s preoccupation with context and its failure to acknowledge the “inherent
offensive” of the slur, observed: “The … majority opinion seem{s} to suggest that
absent evidence of a near race riot, the remark is too inconsequential to serve as a basis
of dismissal. Such a view requires a level of myopia inconsistent with facts and reason.”

• S.B. v. L.W. In this case, Judge Southwick joined a concurrence marked by its
homophobia. It stated that the “choice” to engage in homosexuality comes with
consequences, up to and including the consideration of “the homosexual lifestyle” as a
determining factor in child custody cases.
-------------------------
There is a chance of stopping this judge - but people have to act quickly. Call your Senators tonight or first thing in the morning and tell them to filibuster this nomination! The vote is scheduled for 11:00 Wednesday morning.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. Thank you and I will call.

MKJ

[beaconess]

16. Great! Thanks!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Thank you for publicizing this.

(criticizing people for their priorities won't motivate near as much as linking to the senate email/phone roster)

[beaconess]

5. I'm glad to post this information again - but it's already been posted and ignored

which leads me to, justifiably, question people's motivations.

Everyone can reach their Senator by calling 202-224-3121

[ruggerson]

3. Want to get a litte more specific?

As in the name of this guy and the court he's been nominated to?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Maybe you can link to the earlier post you mentioned, or kick it? Thanks.

[beaconess]

20. I already kicked it

here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3637894

[JeffR]

7. K & R!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[AtomicKitten]

8. Do you ever get the idea that this country has turned -

into an enormous pile of sh*t and that outrages de jour are just dismissed as the status quo?

I have this horrible feeling there will be a racial implosion in America and that the civil rights battle will be waged all over again.

It is flat-out unacceptable to have a bigot presiding over a court of law.

[beaconess]

15. I agree - that's why it's extremely frustrating to see smart people fighting on message boards

about whether Barack Obama is a bigot, while they either don't know or aren't interested in the fact that a REAL, PROVEN bigot is one step away from a lifetime appointment as a federal court of appeals judge in the deep South. This nomination can be stopped, but people have to get on the stick!

[TwilightGardener]

9. Not going to bother. I have Mr. Gang of Fourteen and Mr. Crazed Conservative as my Senators--

I'll save my time and money. But good luck to the rest of you.

[beaconess]

11. Are you serious? CALL ANYWAY!!! You can bet they're hearing from the other side

Why let them off the hook?!

[TwilightGardener]

13. Won't do any good. Trust me.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Call. They won't change their vote, I know. But at least they will know that you know.

Call!

[Ninja Jordan]

12. How did he ever get out of committee?

[beaconess]

17. Feinstein voted for him in committee!

[truedelphi]

18. WhenIthink of CaLifornia and myself and all the people

I know here I cannot figure how the Feinstein represents anyone here.

[Ninja Jordan]

24. I hope the next Dem president takes a more conscious and agressive stance re: judicial nominations

For example, implement a "no nominee may have been born before 1960" policy. The next Democratic president MUST ensure that a progeny of moderate judges are represented in the federal judiciary. Republicans have been appointing young, conservative talent to the federal bench for years, and its starting to have an effect. Clinton dropped the ball IMO. Many of his appointments were older. For example Justice Ginsburg, nominated in '95, is actually several years older than Scalia, who was nominated almost 10 years before her. Ginsburg will accordingly retire well before Scalia ever will.

[truedelphi]

25. I agree with your opinion on this but I do want to mention

that Bill Clinton TRIED to appoint younger Supreme Court Justices but one turned out to be an ex-stripper (Which I thought was cool) and several others got trapped in Nanny gate so he ended up needing to go to an age bracket that would not involve those particular career de-railers.

[EffieBlack]

28. I think you're talking about his AG nominees not the S.C. nominees

But I don't want our federal judiciary filled with a bunch of people in their mid-40s. I want a broad range of people of different ages with lots of experience - both real-world and judicial. While there are certainly some people in their mid-40s with that kind of experience, it's more likely you'll find that in people in their 50s and older.

[truedelphi]

38. Oops - you are right - I was remembering the AG apptments.

What you are saying points out to the HUGE discrepancy ebtween a Clinton-style
executive and the Republicans.

The Repugs would rather have someone younger so they can mold them - they are going to be "yes" men anyway to a large extent. Certainly Clarence Thomas was lacking in experience - qand came with a particularly unflattering amount of baggage but they backed tis guy knowing he would owe the Party for life.

[EffieBlack]

26. Actually, most of Clinton's appointees were fairly young - around the same age as Republican

appointees.

And I don't think it's a good idea to only appoint judges who are under 50 - which would be the case with a no pre-1960 judges rule.

Age is not the problem. Clinton worked his tail off to appoint outstanding, diverse judges. But the Republican Senate held them up and kept the seats open until Bush came in to office.

FYI, Ginsberg is only 3 years older than Scalia - hardly a gaping age difference. And Clinton's other S.C. appointment - Stephen Breyer - is two years YOUNGER than Scalia. So much for the "Clinton dropped the ball" argument. :-)

[Ninja Jordan]

34. He did drop the ball. Ginsburg is about to RETIRE.

Got it? She was appointed in the mid-90s, and is now about to retire. Should a republican win in '08, that will be another right-wing seat.

[2rth2pwr]

29. A little age discrimination never hurt anyone. nt

[Ninja Jordan]

35. Like some cheese with your wine?

I'd rather have a progressive judge on the bench for 25 years if the only downer is that it upsets you because he/she is young.

[Gregorian]

22. Booooo! That sucks.

Feinstein is starting to look like Frankenstein to me. That does not represent me. I live in California. It doesn't represent most of the people who live here. How much more pissed off do they think we can get?

Sorry. I just had to post a reply. I know it's just screaming and yelling at this point. :)

[EffieBlack]

23. Call her anyway and tell her to support the filibuster

Even if she doesn't do it, she needs to hear from people who have a different view! Her constituents need to weigh in with her - don't let her off the hook!

[Gregorian]

33. I will.

And thanks for pointing this out.

[incapsulated]

27. Will do

Thanks for the heads up.

[2rth2pwr]

30. People have given up on the Dems being able to do anything

in the Senate or Congress, so it's better not to get your hopes up too high.

[EffieBlack]

31. One reason they don't do what they should is that they aren't hearing from us

You can bet the other side is bombarding them with letters, calls, faxes and emails. But Democrats get so frustrated, they don't bother letting their reps hear from them, which only makes it seem like there aren't as many people on our side of the issue.

I don't care if my representative listens to me or not. I call them anyway. And I call them again. And again. And again! I can't make them always do what I want them to do, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let them off the hook by not hearing from me!

[2rth2pwr]

32. They've heard from us and have chosen not to listen. Look at how Pelosi

treats the activists outside her home.

[2rth2pwr]

40. Here is the result

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led Senate on Wednesday confirmed a Mississippi judge to a federal appeals court, giving President George W. Bush a rare victory this year in his drive to put more conservatives on the appellate bench.
ADVERTISEMENT

By a vote of 59-38, the Senate approved Bush's long-stalled nomination of Mississippi Judge Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071024/pl_nm/usa_congress_judges_dc_1

[bliss_eternal]

36. Kicking...

:kick:

...and thank you for creating such an important thread! :thumbsup:

[Karenina]

37. again!

:kick:

[ecstatic]

39. "Or do people here limit their activism to posting online screeds about a campaign event?"

Correct.

[Karenina]

41. Southwick. IN Like FLYNN!!!

:puke:

[cyberpj]

43. Outrage Overload. Must...... not....... give....... up.......

I can't even keep track of all the things I'm outraged about.

But getting really tired of the emotional drain of outrage and continuous fighting without help from my party's majority elected officials.

Hard....... to....... keep....... going...........