Posted on 04/29/2003 6:37:01 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
After several failed attempts by Senate Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster, it's starting to look as if Miguel Estrada may never make it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The controversial Bush nominee may have to settle for the strangest of consolation prizes: his name plastered on bumper stickers in the 2004 election.
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
Now I don't know about Ms. Rice - she lost me when she spoke with 'Black' journalist (I believe) and whined about racisim in this country. That was more than my weak stomach could take. A black woman who had/has a better life than 95% of the people in this country and she is still whining? She may be qualified - I have no opinion there.
I am sorry - that is just too funny.
You want to bring in a 'group' - as I have said -'groups' have group agendas. Do you think you are going to get them to suddenly just become good independent thinking Republicans and vote for an American agenda and not their 'group' agenda. It is never good to embrace anything on a 'group' basis in politics - not unless you want to spend much of you time continuing to kowtow to keep them under the tent, so to speak.
Now you know things don't work that way. You may get them to vote Republican, if the Republicans continue to give them everything they want. And yes, you have won - but what?
To nominate, vote, oppose, woo, hire, fire, etc. anyone on the basis of their ethnicity is racial politics and it is just wrong - just wrong and very destructive.
Almost every candidate for a political position has some quality that is played up.
Byrd played up his impoverished background. He even got involved in an "I grew up poorer than you" shouting match on the Senate floor.
Abe Lincoln's railsplitting and being born in a log cabin were touted. Did that particular PR campaign and its appeal to emotions take away from his performance in office?
By the way, the Democrats are unfairly applying the litmus test to several of the judicial candidates, even though most of them lie and say they aren't. The are also throwing a monkey wrench into the usual workings of the Senate by refusing to allow an up or down vote on the senate floor. They are in the minority but are trying to take control of the Senate.
The Democrats use the race card day in and day out. Maybe there would be fewer complaints if they didn't use it all the time. The Republicans, if they are using it, are using it with their backs to the wall.
When the enemy is storming your position you use the ammo you've got, even if you would not ordinarily use it.
Really?
You are acting as though Estrada's other personal and professional qualities have been neglected by those who support him. That is not the case.
Its very, very common to put out candidates that people can admire and/or identify with.
For years and years, in American politics, ethnicity has been one of the candidate's qualities that has been considered before nomination .
I was speaking plain English here - no spin - no fast talk.
Stick with me here - President Bush nominated the man - now I haven't heard him say anything as I don't listen to him, just read here what the papers and his supporters say. He was touted as 'the first Hispanic' on the bench. Stick with me. The supporters on this site have said it will bring more Hispanics? into the 'tent'. When the Democrats opposed him because he was too conservative - the Republicans began a campaign of calling them racists. Are you with me so far.
Now everyone tells me he is imminently qualified (I have no doubt) - so he was nominated because he is qualifed and because he is Hispanic. The Democrats are opposing him because he is qualified (conservative) and so everyone says because he is Hispanic. Now who has the high ground here. No one - no one - it is slimey, racist politics. I did not write the threads on here - I did not write the headline of this piece.
Don't jump on me because I point out the obvious.
But you know and I know you do, President Bush has been pushing for amnesty since day one - it was one of, if not the, biggest thing on his agenda. If 9/`11 had not occurred, it would have been a done deal. The supporters here have declared time after time that Bush is going to get the Hispanic vote and Republicans will control politics for the next century. I didn't make that up either.
Now do not try to pretend at this late date that the push is not on to get Hispanics into the Republican party as a group - that would just be too much of a stretch.
I don't make up any of this - just comment on what is happening and what others are saying. If you don't like it when it is pointed out - take it up with the ones who are saying it.
I'll bite - why is President Bush learning Spanish?
I have said he was nominated because he was Hispanic - he was. He is being touted as such. I didn't write that - those who are angry because he isn't being confirmed did. You can't deny that - at least his Hispanicness is the reason for such glee with most of the posters here. Most of the threads about him is how he is being denied a vote because of racism on the part of the Democrats.
Again - read the headline of this piece - just read it - does that speak to qualifications or to race? I didn't write it - I just don't like it - and neither should you and anyone else that claims to be an American.
If you have a problem with the way this is being spun - take it up with the spinners - not me.
'We re nominating 'the first Hispanic on the bench', "this will signal all Hispanic (no minorities) that we have no prejudice' "the Democrats are not voting on him because he is Hispanic" "This will help bring the Hispanics into the Party' That is racial politics.
If I was Estrada, I would be so embarrassed and angry with all this, I would be sick.
Once again, if you don't like the way the rhetoric is going - take it up with the supporters and defenders - not me.
But boy, I can see I struck a nerve here - the truth hurts. Racial politics stinks - who ever is practicing it and there is no way you can spin that = it is just wrong.
That makes it right?
Yes, I know - it is despicable.
Maybe there would be fewer complaints if they didn't use it all the time.
Oh a little bit destructive is OK?
The Republicans, if they are using it, are using it with their backs to the wall.
That would have done the Clinton spin machine proud. That is such a vile thought - I don't know what to day.
When the enemy is storming your position you use the ammo you've got, even if you would not ordinarily use it.
Burn down the house to kill the roaches, huh? Anything goes as long as the Republicans win? Integrity, equality, honesty, dignity be darned. We gotta win!!!
You know we are not talking about just a little slanted TV slot here - or a little misdirection - we are talking about using the vilest and most destructive kind of politics - but it's OK, because we don't do it often and we just have to. That is really very sad.
Well, President Bush used it to get rid of Trent Lott - and you can't deny he is pandering to the Hispanic for political gain and that is racist politics - so how much is not much?
You know there is an old saying about being a little bit pregant? Well you can't be a little bit despicable -
But what is "ethnicity" in this Estrada case? He's from Honduras (I think) ---how many Hondurans are there to vote for him? Silvestre Reyes and the Hispanic Caucus in Congress are working against his nomination ---maybe someone should have asked them ahead of time? I think the Republicans made a fatal mistake in assuming most Hispanics even care ---I live in an 80% hispanic area (no Hondurans) and I haven't seen one bumper sticker for him, I have not heard one workplace conversation about the issue. To me it might be like nomination a French immigrant and expecting all Americans with any European ancestors to demand he be nominated because we felt part of the same ethnic group.
Good try - but won't wash. They are no more racist than someone who would nominate, tout and defend based on race.
Should Republicans turn a deaf ear to the slander that a successful, conservative person from a Spanish speaking country, is not Hispanic?
The Democratic slander is a glass ceiling, puposely designed to hold down conservative Hispanics.
It's a foregone conclusion that, in the future, plenty of hispanics will hold high federal positions.
This is a well-orchestrated plan by the Democrats, who hope to ensure that only liberal Hispanics will dare to aspire to those high positions.
*** Fitz is saying ethnicity plays no useful role in the Estrada nomination.***
That would probably mean that Bush (who certainly knows the same facts as Fitz), did not nominate Estrada because of his ethnicity.
***Nanny, on the other hand, thinks Estrada was chosen only because of his race.***
I think your arguments are really with each other.
Please tell me -- which of you two I am supposed to believe?
I wish the liberals would get this contradiction sorted out, too. They won't, though, because the tactic serves their purposes.
One minute liberals say Estrada was chosen only because of his "race." The next minute they argue that ethnicity is not an issue at all, because Estrada is not "Hispanic."
This is why I like the Republicans. Republican thinking is less extreme, more moderate.
Good point. This thread is centering on the "race" aspect, because that is what the article is about. But that is only a small part of the Estrada story. And the Democrats have made that small part into a big part, by saying that Estrada is "not Hispanic enough."
There is plenty of other information available on Estrada, for anyone who cares to read it (or to listen to Republican Senators on C-Span.)
Right here, on Free Republic there is a trove of information, ....(almost all taken from published sources that almost anyone can read)
For example:Democrats Have No Good Reason for Blocking Estrada’s Confirmation
Estrada is the 42-year-old whom President Bush has selected for a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.An Ugly StallThe nominee was scrutinized by the American Bar Association and came out with the ABA’s highest possible grade—a unanimous rating of “well qualified.”
He is a former federal government attorney whose colleagues from that office have testified to Congress that Estrada would be an honest and fair judge.
On the personal side, Estrada has demonstrated a stunning ability to work hard and succeed. He came to the United States from Honduras at the age of 17, and later graduated with honors from Harvard Law School.
He clerked with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, then served as a federal prosecutor and eventually as an assistant to the solicitor general under Presidents Clinton and Bush.
In other words, this guy knows a thing or two about the law.
Then Estrada becomes a partner in a prestigious private law practice - yet finds the time to perform significant pro bono service, including some four hundred hours representing a death row inmate before the Supreme Court....Estrada delay just politicalAlso supporting him are numerous prominent Democrats, including President Clinton's solicitor general and Vice President Gore's counselor and chief of Staff.
Estrada immigrated to the United States at age 15 from Honduras. Jesuit educated, he was soon admitted to New York's Columbia College. Graduating with honors, he was accepted to Harvard Law School where he became the editor of the Law Review and again graduated with honors.A Fine Judicial Nominee
Estrada's litigation record is not that of a conservative ideologue. From 1992 to 1997 (three of those years during the first Clinton administration), Estrada was assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. For several years he represented the positions of a Democratic administration before the U.S. Supreme Court (including the United Mine Workers vs. Bagwell case, for which Acuña attempts to crucify him). During that time, Estrada also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Clinton administration's siding with the National Organization for Women in NOW vs. Scheidler where the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the government's position that a law prohibiting the use of violence to deny individuals their civil rights could be applied to anti-abortion protesters.CONFIRM ESTRADA (Detailing his excellent qualifications)
During Estrada's subsequent career as a partner in one of the nation's preeminent law firms, he has built a reputation as one of the best appellate lawyers in the country.There really is a lot of information out there on Estrada. Here is his resume, as posted at the Department of Justice. It has been posted on FR, too.
| Birth: | September 25, 1961 | Tegucigalpa, Honduras |
| Legal Residence: | Virginia | |
| Education: | 1979 - 1980 | State University of New York |
| 1980 - 1983 | Columbia College | |
| A.B. degree | ||
| 1983 - 1986 | Harvard Law School | |
| J.D. degree | ||
| Bar Admittance: | 1987 | New York |
| 1998 | District of Columbia | |
| Experience: | 1986 - 1987 | Law Clerk to Hon. Amalya L. Kearse |
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | ||
| 1987 - 1988 | Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz | |
| Associate | ||
| 1988 - 1989 | Law Clerk to Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy | |
| Supreme Court of the United States | ||
| 1989 - 1990 | Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz | |
| 1992 | Associate | |
| 1990 - 1992 | United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of New York | |
| Assistant U.S. Attorney | ||
| 1992 - 1997 | U.S. Department of Justice Solicitor General’s Office | |
| Assistant to the Solicitor General | ||
| 1997 - present | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | |
| Of Counsel Attorney, 1997-99 | ||
| Partner, 2000-present |
I also read the name of the specific author of this specific article...Ruben Navarette...he happens to write columns about Latino issues.
Such as this article by the same author in the Salt Lake Tribune
NAVARETTE: Survey Dispels Antiquated Assumptions About Latinos
Latinos see themselves as part of America. They just aren't so sure that America feels the same. In what should be a wake-up call to those in politics, and in the news media, who cannot shake the old habit of continually defining ethnic relations and racial equality within a now antiquated black-and-white paradigm, an overwhelming majority of Latinos (82 percent) say that discrimination is an obstacle.
I agree.
Schumer must think of himself as a very, very special guardian of the purity of the Federal Courts. Even the Washington Post says there should be a vote up or down.
It's interesting that the author of this particular article often writes on Latino issues...that could very easily explain his interest in Latino voters. (see post #139 for just one sample of another of his columns)
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.