Gee, if the Dems had only outsourced their IT services and security issues to India like all the other corporate/political fat cats are they wouldn't have had this problem in the first place...uh...whatever.
No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts.
sure, but if estrada had been white, not latino, there's no way he would have gotten the same level of opposition. he was specifically targeted because of his race.
sure, but if estrada had been white, not latino, there's no way he would have gotten the same level of opposition. he was specifically targeted because of his race.
As SJ said, he was opposed because of his ideology and his unwillingness to talk. In reality, he was probably nominated because of his race, Clarence Thomas-style, and the Dems recognized in that memo that that would make it harder for them to oppose him:
Quote:
Other revelations from the memos include Democrats' race-based characterization of Estrada as "especially dangerous, because . . . he is Latino," which they feared would make him difficult to block from a later promotion to the Supreme Court.
sure, but if estrada had been white, not latino, there's no way he would have gotten the same level of opposition. he was specifically targeted because of his race.
Did the Congressional Hispanic Caucus target him because of his ethnicity?
Estrada wouldn't even talk about his idealogies... he was a black hole of information.
Try again...
Quote:
The Democrats have argued that Estrada has not been forthcoming in releasing information on his legal opinions. Senate Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush requesting legal memos Estrada wrote while serving as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office. This request has been denied by the Department of Justice. More importantly, the request is opposed by the seven former solicitors general still living (four Democrats and three Republicans), who all deem the request as "inappropriate."
4 Democrats, 3 Republicans... all saying it is inappropriate.
Pretty convincing to anyone who isn't insane with their partisanship or racist.
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
So we have not nice, and small wrong, but not illegal. I don't know what else you want.
Did the Congressional Hispanic Caucus target him because of his ethnicity?
Of course they did. All 20 Democrats on that Caucus certainly did.
Can you show how they targeted him regarding his fitness for the office?
First a list of some organizations that supported the Estrada nomination.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
The Hispanic National Bar Association
The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
The Hispanic Business Roundtable.
Here is a list of his credentials.
Quote:
Miguel A. Estrada was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and immigrated to the United States with his family as a teenager. He attended Columbia College in New York and graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1983. Estrada received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1986 and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
More...
Quote:
Estrada served as a law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amalya Kearse of the Second Circuit. Estrada then clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
From 1990 until 1992, Miguel Estrada served as assistant U.S. attorney and deputy chief of the Appellate Section for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York.
During the Clinton administration, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an assistant to the solicitor general. Estrada is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Lastly...
Quote:
Estrada has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has been given a unanimous rating of "well qualified" to be a federal judge by the American Bar Association.
So I'll tell you what Shawn. Look at the credentials, see where they are lacking and tell me that since they aren't, why was he targeted?
Look at the credentials, see where they are lacking and tell me that since they aren't, why was he targeted?
Is the Senate only supposed to look at a candidate's paper credentials, or are they supposed to ask questions too? You and your straw man arguments. They're so thin.
Itemize the process of getting the job and let us know what percentage of the process these credentials cover.
The senate doesn't have one black member... are they all racist?
get a grip.
Your post shows nothing. Did the solicitors say the senators were being racist? Of course not.
They shouldn't have to be making requests to the justice department to find out about a potential judge.
First time a potential judge put a gag order on himself.
Strawman. They didn't say it was racist. They said the request as inappropriate.
Now we can argue the intent behind making those inappropriate requests, but the point is that unanimously, according to both parties, they were inappropriate to make.
Pretty convincing to anyone who isn't insane with their partisanship or racist.
Nick
Dude! Get a grip! If you're reduced to arguing that the the Dems opposed Estrada because they have racial animosity toward hispanics, you've already lost the debate, if not your mind.
Someone was suspended from their job. Is that emotion rather than action? Or are you skirting the issue as usual?
You asked if I agreed with Hatch. Don't be pissed because I revealed he didn't take any action.
Would I agree with putting someone leave pending an investigation? Sure why not? It allows the investigation to occur unimpeded. It doesn't say who's office put him on leave and I would support the action be it from Frist or Hatch.
But you don't have to be so miffed that you were supporting a nonstatement from Hatch. You are smart enough to recognize them and so am I.
Is the Senate only supposed to look at a candidate's paper credentials, or are they supposed to ask questions too? You and your straw man arguments. They're so thin.
Itemize the process of getting the job and let us know what percentage of the process these credentials cover.
Well they would ask those questions during a... that's right boys and girls confirmation process before the entire Senate. That would be what happens AFTER you let it get out of committee and go before the Senate for a full questioning and vote.
But of course the Democrats won't allow that will they.
As for my "strawman" arguments, I've never heard of it being a "straw man" to consider the credentials of a person with regard to qualification for a job. Estrada's credentials are so very good that it becomes almost impossible to argue against them and that is why he was bottled up in committee. You can't argue against them or his views which means he would be confirmed.
You are also welcome to itemize which of the credentials I listed are not relevent to being a judge.
Comments
They just happened to be women and minorities... any Bush appointee would get the same scrutiny... no matter what.
And look who Bush appointed when he had the chance... Pickering.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No-no-no. The Democrats didn't oppose Estrada because of his ethnicity. Rather, they opposed him strictly because of his ideology. His ethnicity made him dangerous because it contributed to his moderate image and because Republicans would call Democrats racist for even opposing him. It's quite clear that that is what indeed happened with the later. With the former, remember that Estrada was largely a trojan-horse nominee with very little published literature to use against him. But, we all knew what he was from other accounts.
I think you nailed it.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but if estrada had been white, not latino, there's no way he would have gotten the same level of opposition. he was specifically targeted because of his race.
As SJ said, he was opposed because of his ideology and his unwillingness to talk. In reality, he was probably nominated because of his race, Clarence Thomas-style, and the Dems recognized in that memo that that would make it harder for them to oppose him:
Other revelations from the memos include Democrats' race-based characterization of Estrada as "especially dangerous, because . . . he is Latino," which they feared would make him difficult to block from a later promotion to the Supreme Court.
Estrada wouldn't even talk about his idealogies... he was a black hole of information.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but if estrada had been white, not latino, there's no way he would have gotten the same level of opposition. he was specifically targeted because of his race.
Did the Congressional Hispanic Caucus target him because of his ethnicity?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Nick, you didn't respond to my comment at all.
I posted the actual comments from the memo. That is response enough.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The Dems opposed appointees based on idealogy... not race... nice try.
They just happened to be women and minorities... any Bush appointee would get the same scrutiny... no matter what.
And look who Bush appointed when he had the chance... Pickering.
Sure that is why all the other nominees were mentioned in the memo as being dangerous because of their ethnicity.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Pickering is white.
Estrada wouldn't even talk about his idealogies... he was a black hole of information.
Try again...
The Democrats have argued that Estrada has not been forthcoming in releasing information on his legal opinions. Senate Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush requesting legal memos Estrada wrote while serving as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office. This request has been denied by the Department of Justice. More importantly, the request is opposed by the seven former solicitors general still living (four Democrats and three Republicans), who all deem the request as "inappropriate."
4 Democrats, 3 Republicans... all saying it is inappropriate.
Pretty convincing to anyone who isn't insane with their partisanship or racist.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I believe if you check, I said it wasn't nice, but wasn't illegal. I said it was likely a case of a small wrong being committed to try to prevent or uncover much larger wrongs. (Racism and judge tampering)
So we have not nice, and small wrong, but not illegal. I don't know what else you want.
Nick
You know like invading Iraq!
The end justifies the means.
Guys there's a word for this it's called denial.
get a grip.
Your post shows nothing. Did the solicitors say the senators were being racist? Of course not.
They shouldn't have to be making requests to the justice department to find out about a potential judge.
First time a potential judge put a gag order on himself.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Did the Congressional Hispanic Caucus target him because of his ethnicity?
Of course they did. All 20 Democrats on that Caucus certainly did.
Can you show how they targeted him regarding his fitness for the office?
First a list of some organizations that supported the Estrada nomination.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
The Hispanic National Bar Association
The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
The Hispanic Business Roundtable.
Here is a list of his credentials.
Miguel A. Estrada was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and immigrated to the United States with his family as a teenager. He attended Columbia College in New York and graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1983. Estrada received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1986 and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
More...
Estrada served as a law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amalya Kearse of the Second Circuit. Estrada then clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
From 1990 until 1992, Miguel Estrada served as assistant U.S. attorney and deputy chief of the Appellate Section for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York.
During the Clinton administration, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an assistant to the solicitor general. Estrada is currently a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Lastly...
Estrada has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has been given a unanimous rating of "well qualified" to be a federal judge by the American Bar Association.
So I'll tell you what Shawn. Look at the credentials, see where they are lacking and tell me that since they aren't, why was he targeted?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No actions...
Someone was suspended from their job. Is that emotion rather than action? Or are you skirting the issue as usual?
Originally posted by trumptman
Look at the credentials, see where they are lacking and tell me that since they aren't, why was he targeted?
Is the Senate only supposed to look at a candidate's paper credentials, or are they supposed to ask questions too? You and your straw man arguments. They're so thin.
Itemize the process of getting the job and let us know what percentage of the process these credentials cover.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The senate doesn't have one black member... are they all racist?
get a grip.
Your post shows nothing. Did the solicitors say the senators were being racist? Of course not.
They shouldn't have to be making requests to the justice department to find out about a potential judge.
First time a potential judge put a gag order on himself.
Strawman. They didn't say it was racist. They said the request as inappropriate.
Now we can argue the intent behind making those inappropriate requests, but the point is that unanimously, according to both parties, they were inappropriate to make.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Pretty convincing to anyone who isn't insane with their partisanship or racist.
Nick
Dude! Get a grip! If you're reduced to arguing that the the Dems opposed Estrada because they have racial animosity toward hispanics, you've already lost the debate, if not your mind.
Originally posted by bunge
Someone was suspended from their job. Is that emotion rather than action? Or are you skirting the issue as usual?
You asked if I agreed with Hatch. Don't be pissed because I revealed he didn't take any action.
Would I agree with putting someone leave pending an investigation? Sure why not? It allows the investigation to occur unimpeded. It doesn't say who's office put him on leave and I would support the action be it from Frist or Hatch.
But you don't have to be so miffed that you were supporting a nonstatement from Hatch. You are smart enough to recognize them and so am I.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Is the Senate only supposed to look at a candidate's paper credentials, or are they supposed to ask questions too? You and your straw man arguments. They're so thin.
Itemize the process of getting the job and let us know what percentage of the process these credentials cover.
Well they would ask those questions during a... that's right boys and girls confirmation process before the entire Senate. That would be what happens AFTER you let it get out of committee and go before the Senate for a full questioning and vote.
But of course the Democrats won't allow that will they.
As for my "strawman" arguments, I've never heard of it being a "straw man" to consider the credentials of a person with regard to qualification for a job. Estrada's credentials are so very good that it becomes almost impossible to argue against them and that is why he was bottled up in committee. You can't argue against them or his views which means he would be confirmed.
You are also welcome to itemize which of the credentials I listed are not relevent to being a judge.
Nick