Skip to comments.Latinos bitterly debate Estrada nomination: Liberal racists on parade
Posted on 02/15/2003 7:25:12 AM PST by rfaceEdited on 04/13/2004 2:09:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ASHINGTON -- President Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada for a federal judgeship has exposed sharp divisions among Latinos, who are weighing the possibility of having one of their own on a fast track to the US Supreme Court against a fear that the minority group's interests could be harmed if the Senate confirms the conservative lawyer of Honduran descent.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The Republicans know that come next election, they could be in the minority again. Heck, all it would take is one car accident and they could be in the minority again. Memories are long in the world's most exclusive club, and they know that what goes around comes around.
Yes, he's Honduran. And if you think that a Mexican or a Puerto Rican or a Cuban-American all think that he and they are the same ethnic group, you're mistaken.
Apparently, the definition of Hispanic is:"poor, disadvantaged, and non-productive". Nice.
As I've said on other threads, this reminds me of the Hermann Goering quote: "I decide who is a Jew and who is not a Jew."
Actually, the Constitution states:
... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:
Federal Appeals judges being an "other officer of the United States". Note that nowhere in this does it say on what basis the Senate shall make its advice or grant or withhold it's consent.
Your premise that the Senate is supposed to advise the President and grant or withhold it's consent based on whether or not the candidate is qualified is not backed up by the wording of the Constitution. There are no limits or guidelines in the Constitituion regarding the basis on which the Senate can exercise this power.
There are legitimate reasons for opposing the Senate's actions regarding this man, but none that I can see that are based on the Constitution.
Their behavior is similar to the way chickens will behave if you feed them one kernel of corn at a time.
The Republicans were fools
not to require them to filibuster all weekend.
Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Hondurans and Cubans are like Jamaicans, Canadians, Autralians and Yanks. You can gather the latter under the umbrella of "The English-Speaking World" but, beyond a very broad category such as that, they certainly don't consider themselves as part of the same ethnic group.
I must admit that I had never noticed that New Jersey Democrat Congressman Bob Menendez was of Cuban ethnicity. Since Menendez likes to play such games, I guess the rest of us Cuban Americans will have to claim that he is not "a real Cuban American".
Cuban American equivalents for the Southern term "scalawag" would be "infiltrado", "Comunista" and "Fidelista". So, Menendez is not "a real Cuban American" as he is simply a "Comunista infiltrado". There. I feel much better now.
But "real" or not, if Menendez were ever nominated for any high Court position, I would bitterly oppose him.
I would not care if he were "Latino", Hispanic", "Cuban American", my first cousin or my brother. I would oppose him because of his politics. Everything else is demogougic window dressing.
When it comes to politics, I don't vote color, religion, gender or ethnicity. I vote for who can best serve America.
This could be a problem for Estrada and what they mean by him not being "hispanic" enough. I think the GOP should drop the race part, quit thinking that Estrada will get them sure elections and just get him in on his qualifications ---- they should turn it around on the democrats and emphasize that his race or ethnic background isn't a factor. They're letting the democrats get the upper hand when the democrats can say he's not hispanic enough and the GOP tries to prove he is ---instead they should say that is not a factor.
Not only that, the procedures that created the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and that provide for filling vacancies, is not even in the Constitution, but are in 28 USC. The Constitution recites that "[the President] ... shall appoint ... all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and for which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." (Article II, Section 2). The appointment of judges for the courts of appeal is not directly provided for in the Constitution.
Congress has the power "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court" (Article I, Section 8). 28 USC 44(a) describes the procedure for appointing circuit judges, and happens to mirror the language of the Constitution. "The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, circuit judges for the several circuits as follows: [list of circuit courts of appeal and the number of judges in each]
Implicit in the Constitution however, is that the default mode for the existence of Congressional consent is majority, i.e. 50% plus one vote. Some decisions require more than that (e.g., two thirds vote required to expel a member, or to over-ride a Presidential veto) and some require less (recording of yeas and nays requires one fifth of members present).
Without preparing a reasoned justification, my initial impression is that the Democrats in the Senate are abusing their procedural prerogative, by effectively asserting that 60% of the members are required in order to conclude that "consent" exists. I expect a court would find the matter non-justiciable, as being a political question.
The people have the power to choose Congress.
For the record, "La Raza" is not a "Latino" group. It is strictly a Mexican group.
Our guys are in the center of Rat country, surrounded by powerful leftist activists and a WH press corp as cruel and biased as we've ever had and yet OUR side dumps on those who are brave enough to run and serve in DC?
If we took half of the criticisms we directed at our own, and used that energy to help get our message out to the public, our guys in DC might find that they aren't so outnumbered while THEY fight the enemy on the front lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.