Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 August
2007 July
2006 May
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
Courage Campaign
Ethnic Press
Right Wing Watch
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Bush, Republicans Create False Crisis |
| 11.19.03 (11:45 pm) [edit] |
[b]N[/b]ow that the dust has settled after the 40-hour talk marathon contrived by the republican leadership in the senate, we can take a countered look at the Bush judicial nominee situation, free from spin.
Since there is no clear way to avert the spin, we shall simply take a closer look or just debunk conservatives claims altogether.
[b]As a result of Democratic opposition to federal judicial nominees, there is a federal judical vacancy crisis.[/b]
The current vacancy rate on the court is 5%. This is the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. To date, 168 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, the same pace that prevailed during the first three years of the Clinton administration.
With Democrats lacking any majorities in Washington, all they have is the ultimate tool of the filibuster. And they haven't used it much at all. Apparently, filibusters are being used for only a handful of the most extreme, ultra-conservative nominees. Not all nominees, as have been exagerated by the gentlemen on the Right.
[b]The use of the filibuster is unprecedented for judicial nominees.[/b]
But filibusters have been used by both parties in judicial nominations for decades. They are an essential safety valve in our system of checks and balances. Senator Frist (R-TN) voted to continue a filibuster on a judicial nominee as recently as 2000 and Senator Hatch (R-UT) defended the use of the filibuster in the 1990's.
[b]Senators using the filibuster are obstructionists.[/b]
Well said, but they are within the bounds of the constitution and are performing their duties, albeit, through enormous pressure because G.W. wants to make this an election issue.
Now, let us examine the filibustered jurists that seemingly lie at the center of this entire debate.
Janice Rogers Brown is the lone African American member of the oddly conservative California Supreme Court. From Los Angeles Superior Court, we have Carolyn Kuhl, a Federalist Society member who once worked in the Reagan Justice Department. Can't forget, Priscilla Owen, another Federalist Society member currently serving on the Texas Supreme Court.
[b]If you oppose Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or Carolyn Kuhl, you're anti-woman.[/b]
Women's groups across the nation oppose these nominees because of their stands against reproductive choice and civil rights for minorities, women, and all Americans. A vast majority of Bush's female nominees have been confirmed. It appears that the confirmations of these nominees are being opposed because of their public records.
[b]If you oppose Janice Rogers Brown, you're racist. [/b]
The opposition to Justice Brown is based solely on her record, and has nothing to do with race. Hundreds of state, local and national groups, including many major African American organizations, oppose her confirmation. In fact, she was rated 'unqualified' by the California State Bar Association during her nomination process to the state Supreme Court. Despite the republican race card, the vast majority of Bush's African-American nominees have been confirmed.
Not to say the least of Miguel Estrada, a Honduran born immigrant who graduated from Harvard and went on to serve in the office of Solicitor General during the Clinton adminstration.
[b]Individuals who opposed Miguel Estrada are anti-Latino. [/b]
Hundreds of individuals and organizations, including several major Latino organizations, opposed Estrada based on what was known of his record, and his refusal to supply the Judiciary Committee with answers to questions and documents.
How about Charles Pickering Sr., a religious Mississippi District Court Judge with a segregationist background and friend of sentimental Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). There is also the deeply religious Alabama Attorney General, William Pryor.
[b]If you oppose Charles Pickering or William Pryor, you're anti-Christian. [/b]
But, men and women of deep faith oppose the nominations of Pickering and Pryor on the basis of their public records. Several Catholic senators voted against the nomination of Pryor, who is also Catholic, and they weathered unfair charges of 'anti-Catholic bias.' This debate should be about the nominee's qualifications and public record, not his or her faith.
Even with the degrading use of the race card, the religious card and the anti-feminist attempt, White House rubber stampers still could gain no traction with the American public. So they try to rile up their base with all they got left.
[b]Democratic Senators have applied an anti-abortion litmus test to Bush nominees.[/b]
Numerous Bush nominees who personally oppose abortion have been confirmed. Opposition to this small number of ultra-conservative nominees is based on their records and views on a wide range of civil and constitutional rights, including reproductive freedom.
On the other hand, the Bush administration has not identified a single pro-choice judicial nominee. Intersting choice for a president who was (s)elected by losing the popular vote, erroneous voter purging in Florida and conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
---Proletariat
|
|
|
| |
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 11.19.03 (11:48 pm)
excellent and well-balanced & informative blog ...
thanks
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 11.20.03 (1:17 am)
And yet, racist-hunting is exactly what the Republicans accuse the Democrats of doing...
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply)
post date: 11.20.03 (10:31 am)
Bush nominees are scary, scary creatures like Scalia & Thomas who are so extreme that we'd return to the days of the Puritans burning "witches" in Salem
|
|
