MORE:
Since then, more has come to light. Not just the memo, but also about Roberts' criticism of affirmative action and support for a Texas law – later declared unconstitutional – that prohibited undocumented immigrant children from attending public schools.
All of this convinces Flores that the nominee lacks the "real world experience" of dealing with Hispanics and other minorities.
"Roberts flunks the civil rights test," Flores told me this week.
LULAC opposes the Roberts nomination, as do a number of other Hispanic organizations.
You can't blame them. With demographics changing and the minds of Americans slamming shut, with vigilantes on the U.S.-Mexican border and Congress diving back into the insulting debate over English-only laws, these are perilous times for the nation's largest minority – times when it pays to know who your amigos are.
This guy is a chip looking for a shoulder to be on...............
Wow..."illegal amigos"!
Yup...that proves he's a "bigot".
The author writes like a fool.
BINGO!!
"What's worse is what New York Sen. Charles Schumer called the "inartful" way in which Roberts phrased his assumption, telling White House Counsel Fred Fielding: "I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
What's wrong with amigos? Or amis? Or Landsmen? Or Paisanos? Or anyother word meaning "friends" when referring to friends in another langauge?
Chuckie should get a life.
"Inartful" is hardly the same as arrogant. The Wicked Witch of the West, Bader-Ginsberg, was absolutely arrogant in responding to questioning before her appointmant, and considering the fact that she approves of polygamy and sexual consent at 13, perhaps the Senate Repubs who voted for her should have a reality check. (Has anyone ever thrown water on Bader-Ginsberg?? Just curious. I wonder if she would melt.)
I wonder how this guy would define his own biases? Sounds like he may have some of his own. Like maybe he's quick to ipugn the integrity of White males he happens to disagree with? Sounds he's the one who insists on giving definition to what was very arguably an innocent attempt at humor.
This writer needs to take a breath and take a sip of his coffee or whatever.
I think Roberts is unfortunately representative of the thinking in Washington with regard to immigration as a way of appealing to hispanic voters.
I agree with his anti-affirmative action views, but he was wrong to assume that American hispanics consider illegals to be our "amigos", or that letting more of them into the country would please us.
It is not a foregone conclusion. Who knows what the Dems will try to pull before the final vote.
We may be ahead in the fourth quarter, but it's not over until the final buzzer. I'll breathe a huge sigh of relief after I've heard the 51st Senator vote to confirm. Until then, anything could happen. When is the vote scheduled for anyway?
Let me get this straight. He's disappointed that Robert's had over two decades to come up with a convincing lie and just settled for the truth. Okay, it makes sense to me now. When is Robert's goint to learn? Never tell the truth when a lie will do.
"I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
This is what he's upset about?
Twenty years ago he gave an opinion that he thought the majority of legal hispanic residents of the US would support the idea of granting amnesty to illegal hispanics.
It's one sentence. From this one freakin sentence the author determines that Roberts doesn't understand the diversity of the hispanic population.
While that is likely true, you don't need to understand the full diversity of the hispanic population to form a reasonable opinion on if the majority will support certain legislation or now. You will never have complete support for anything among a large group of people.
He's getting upset about the use of the work "amigo" in what he considers a sophmoric way? That's childish. There's no intent to demean. Roberts response about it seems appropriate to me. This was and is no big deal, and the only people who were offended would have found a way to be offended regardless of what Roberts said.
These are the kinds of issues the left have with Roberts. Nothing of substance. Just a bunch of childish complaints about a snetence in a twenty year old memo here or there.
Wonderful writing by the author. Taking one sentence and running with it to a whole article. I assume that he has done the same for others and has a virtual encyclopedia of articles on statements by Robert Byrd.
Oh, Byrd is allowed to be racist because he's a Democrat. Sorry, my mistake.