Why is the media ignoring the federal judge nominations now?

[mikemover]

Because the latest news in the saga is very "inconvenient" for the liberals blocking Bush's nominations:


-------------------------------------

You remember Michael Estrada, don't you? The Democrats successfully prevented a confirmation vote on his nomination so many times that Estrada finally got fed up and withdrew his name from consideration. The only reason the Democrats could come up with to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was that he refused to release some private memos he had written when he was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Bear in mind .. no previous nominee had ever been required to release such memos, but the Democrats did need some sort of excuse to block Estrada .. so the memos served that purpose quite well.

Now we know better. Someone has leaked some Democratic strategy memos from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Those memos discuss the necessity of blocking Estrada's nomination to the bench. So ... why were the Democrats blocking Estrada? Because, as the leaked memos said, "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

There you have it. Documentation from a Democratic staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that a nominee for an appeals court judgeship is being blocked because of his ethnicity. Can you just imagine what would be happening if this had been Republicans blocking a nomination because of the nominees ethnicity? Democrats would be calling for hearings, an investigation, and resignations. The New York Times and the Washington Compost would be hammering it on page one for days on end. Dan Rather would be absolutely beside himself. As it is, the story is being ignored. This may have been the first you heard about it.

Who is protecting whom out there?

[sfloriII]

This is the first I've heard of it, and it doesn't surprise me one bit.

Hypocrites in the media!

[Honus]

Originally posted by mikemover
So ... why were the Democrats blocking Estrada? Because, as the leaked memos said, "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

There you have it. Documentation from a Democratic staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that a nominee for an appeals court judgeship is being blocked because of his ethnicity.

Boloney. One out of context quote, not even a complete sentence, hardly proves that Democrats are biased against latinos. I stumbled across Mike Savage on the radio the other night. He was trying to peddle the same argument. He said that everyone knows that Senator Schumer (spelling?) is a bigot because he has opposed judicial nominees who are female and/or minority. And that is supposed to constitute proof? Democrats did not oppose Estrada simply because he would not give up those memos. As I recall, they opposed him because he refused to give any meaningful information, at all, about how he would approach important legal issues. To give consent to his nomination would be the same as rubber stamping Bush's nominees.

Fixing the judicial nomination process is not going to be easy. Whichever party happens to be out of the White House won't back down because that would mean that a raft of nominees from the other party would get lifetime appointments. I say shame on both parties. Everyone involved, but especially Orin Hatch, is completely disingenuous about the process.

As for Mike's statement, "Can you just imagine what would be happening if this had been Republicans blocking a nomination because of the nominees ethnicity? Democrats would be calling for hearings, an investigation, and resignations. The New York Times and the Washington Compost would be hammering it on page one for days on end." Are you saying that the Republicans, the New Times, and the Washingtion Post go easy on Democrats accused of foul play? Have you ever heard of Bill Clinton? He was President a few years back. The Republicans investigated every rumor they could find about him, and the Times and the Post were all too happy to chip in and help the effort to shut Clinton down and drive him from office.

Once again, Mike adopted the Bush-Cheney line without questioning its validity. Did it ever occur to you to ask why so many people thought that Judge Bork would have been a disaster on the Supreme Court? How about Orin Hatch's zealous opposition to Clinton's nominees? Does that mean anything? Maybe the Democrats oppose nominees like Estrada because they refuse to disclose any information that reflects on how they will decide cases once appointed to the bench. I can't read minds, but I don't think that a partial sentence, taken out of context proves that Schumer or others in the Democratic opposition don't like latinos.

[mikemover]

Originally posted by dculkin


As for Mike's statement, "Can you just imagine what would be happening if this had been Republicans blocking a nomination because of the nominees ethnicity? Democrats would be calling for hearings, an investigation, and resignations. The New York Times and the Washington Compost would be hammering it on page one for days on end." Are you saying that the Republicans, the New Times, and the Washingtion Post go easy on Democrats accused of foul play? Have you ever heard of Bill Clinton? He was President a few years back. The Republicans investigated every rumor they could find about him, and the Times and the Post were all too happy to chip in and help the effort to shut Clinton down and drive him from office.

Once again, Mike adopted the Bush-Cheney line without questioning its validity.

I didn't "adopt" anything...I found this bit of information, which supports suspicions I already had, and I wasn't surprised at all when I read it, because selfish motivations are common on both sides of the fence.

The memo is legit, and if one higher-up in the party wrote it, then you can count on it being representative of the viewpoint of MORE people in the party, since they tend to "march in lock-step". They didn't want him to get the position because they don't want the public to percieve Bush as showing any racial "diversity" or "sensitivity".

And YES, Democrats/liberals often get a "pass" on what would otherwise be called racist or sexist remarks and positions, because thier party is supposedly the "good guys" when it comes to diversity and equal rights.

Absolute crap.

Mike

[MTI]

Mike, both the Republicans and Dems have been blocking federal court appointments in recent administrations, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Confirmation of Clinton appointees were held hostage just as long as Bush's nominees are, if not longer. The political gridlock of recent years has made it virtually impossible to confirm any jurist who even has a whiff of right or left leanings. The sad part about this politcial battle is that we're not likely to have truly great legal minds on the bench, just a bunch of middle of the road political animals.

[savas]

The memo is legit, and if one higher-up in the party wrote it, then you can count on it being representative of the viewpoint of MORE people

who wrote the memo and where is it posted in it's entirety?

Thanks

[Honus]

Originally posted by MTI
The sad part about this politcial battle is that we're not likely to have truly great legal minds on the bench, just a bunch of middle of the road political animals.

That is probably true, but maybe it is not as bad as it seems. Given how polarized the country is right now, maybe we are better off putting some middle of the road types on the bench for now. Being a great legal mind does not necessarily qualify someone to be a Supreme Court Justice. Temperment enters in as well. Judge Bork is a good example. He was a highly accomplished law professor and judge before being nominated for the Supreme Court. No doubt, he qualifies as a great legal mind. The comments he has made since he was Borked by the Senate, however, show that he is not suited for the Supreme Court. The Bork hearings were unfortunate, but they did less harm than he would have done if he made it to the Supreme Court.

[Botnst]

Wait-a-minute, dculkin, about 50% of the population would disagree with your assessment as to his Supreme Court suitability. I think its a good idea to get strong-minded scholars on teh court, whether their right, left, up or down. For example, the Warren Court is often villified by people like me for being unanchored by the constitution--the Lawrence Tribe type. However Warren, because of his brilliance and persuasiveness, was able to put in place precedences that people like me also like--stronger guarantees on personal liberty, for example.

The same thing happens with people of other judicial philosophies. For example, a very conservative court (in the constitutional sense) struck down Texas' sodomy law. Whodda thunk it? Well, the conservative members are conservative about precedent as well as interpretation, so they were compelled to support the majority.

It makes good law to have brilliant folks, regardless of their particular political philosophy. I think its blindingly short-sighted to attack a nominee the way Bork was, Guinier was, Woods, was, Estrada was, etc, etc, etc. We are fighting tenaciously for mediocrity. We will get it.

[mikemover]

Originally posted by ilvanakis
who wrote the memo and where is it posted in it's entirety?

Thanks

http://www.arationaladvocate.com/memogate.htm
http://www.gopusa.com/bobby/bobby_1124.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/temp/democrat_memos.pdf
http://committeeforjustice.org/cgi-data/commentary/files/16.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200309/POL20030904c.shtml

[mikemover]

Originally posted by MTI
Mike, both the Republicans and Dems have been blocking federal court appointments in recent administrations, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

It is unprecedented, and is an attempt at undermining the whole nomination and approval process. There has NEVER been a case like this one, where the large majority has already voiced thier support for a nominee, and have committed to voting for that nominee, yet a small minority have been able to hold it up by filibuster until the point that the nominee withdrew himself.

If anything, the man was OVERQUALIFIED for the job, and his nomination was blocked using sleazy political tactics, for sleazy political reasons.

Mike

[mikemover]

Originally posted by Botnst
It makes good law to have brilliant folks, regardless of their particular political philosophy. I think its blindingly short-sighted to attack a nominee the way Bork was, Guinier was, Woods, was, Estrada was, etc, etc, etc.

We are fighting tenaciously for mediocrity. We will get it.

Hear, hear! Bullseye once again, bro.

Mike

[MTI]

Once again Mike, it's not unprecedented as you say. One could argue that Regan began this whole mess when he tried to get Judge Bork to the SC. The Regan "ideological litmus test" was designed to promote judicial policymaking" and is widely regarded as the turning point in politicizing the judicial selection process. While it is true that Clinton did get his nominees appointed initially, by 1997, the Republicans, with the aid of the conservative Judicial Selection Monitoring Project went on the offensive and began a six year stall and dodge campaign, which also included criticizing Republican senators for voting to support Clinton’s nominees in 1995 and 1996. Truth be known, it was John Ashcroft, now attorney general, who was the leader of the stall and dodge plan in the Senate.

In his 1997 year-end report to Congress on the federal judiciary, the Chief Justice pointed out that by the end of 1997, one in ten seats on the federal judiciary were vacant, twenty-six of them had been vacant for at least eighteen months, and a third of the seats on the Ninth Circuit were vacant. He rebuked his fellow conservatives for “serious delays in the appointment process,” a tactic that he said was threatening the nation’s “quality of justice.” “The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee,” Rehnquist wrote, “but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or down. In the latter case, the president can then send up another nominee.” Senate Republicans backed away from their stall tactics and the backlog of vacancies eased up in 1998.

Mike, please dazzle me with facts.

[Honus]

Originally posted by Botnst
It makes good law to have brilliant folks, regardless of their particular political philosophy.

Most of your post makes sense, and we certainly need to get the best and brightest judges we can, but I would rather have a judge with above average intellect and a good judicial temperment than one with a brilliant intellect and a bad temperment. Chief Justice Rehnquist, for example, has all the talent in the world, but he has a hard time resisting the urge to political activism in his decisions. I will give him credit, however, for writing the opinion reversing the ultra-right-wing, highly activist Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals when they tried to reverse the Miranda decision. He stood up for principles on that one, but on other cases he has been blatantly political. Judge Bork's writing since he got tossed out leads me to believe that he would have been an extreme judicial activist, which of course is the opposite of the picture he and his supporters paint of him.

[Botnst]

Originally posted by MTI
The Regan "ideological litmus test" was designed to promote judicial policymaking" and is widely regarded as the turning point in politicizing the judicial selection process. While it is true that Clinton did get his nominees appointed initially, by 1997, the Republicans,...
Mike, please dazzle me with facts.

SC policy making and packing has been going on at least since Jackson ("John Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it.") FDR did a fine job. But you are right that its not a Clinton invention. Most of us are so P.O.'d at that lying snake that we are willing to believe practically anything of him--like pardon rich folks for money or something. Oh wait....

If the Republicrats and Demopublicans can ever break out of their tit-for-tat game and put that wasted energy into something useful, those brainiacs could go against the tide of history and accomplish something of value.

Botnst

[mikemover]

Originally posted by MTI
Once again Mike, it's not unprecedented as you say.....


.....Mike, please dazzle me with facts.

I guess you missed it, so here it as again:

There has NEVER been a case like this one, where the large majority has already voiced thier support for a nominee, and have committed to voting for that nominee, yet a small minority have been able to hold it up by filibuster until the point that the nominee withdrew himself.


They are also asking for documents and information that have never been asked for from nominees prior to Bush's nominees.

Mike