Now yes it is vile that, if the Democrats have not passed anyone based on anything but their character and ability to do the job. Bush is just as bad for nominating for that reason. But the statement, that they haven't "and Bush has some suprises in store" means he is going to nominate some based on things other than their character and ability to do the job.
You know you can't have it both ways - this should not be a anything to win situation. The Republican party needs to maintain some degree of integrity. How can anyone remark about the Democratic racial proclivities when we just had the Trent Lott debacle - supported by the President for his own agenda. The nomination and touting of 'the first Hispanic' for his own agenda and not see it as something horribly wrong.
We do not have the moral high ground here. Now if that doesn't matter - have the courage to say it doesn't. Don't pretend the Democrats are dastardly for doing the same thing we are doing.
Do not - just don't waste the space to try to say that Mr. Estrada was not nominated because he was Hispanic. That doesn't mean he is not qualified for the job - but he was nominated and touted because he was Hispanic - just plain wrong and you can't spin it fast enough to blur the truth.
Do not - just don't waste the space to try to say that Mr. Estrada was not nominated because he was Hispanic.
I take it by these two quotes you have some "inside" knowledge as to why Estrada was nominated. Despite your effort to TELL me what I can and can't do, here it is, and I could care less what you think about my ability to deny it. Miguel Estrada was nominated because he is an emminently qualified party (see ABA approval rating), NOT because he is Hispanic, Black, Indian, Hindu, Muslim or anything else.
but he was nominated and touted because he was Hispanic - just plain wrong and you can't spin it fast enough to blur the truth.
Again with your inside knowledge. Following your logic, that all nominations have a dastardly political motive, give us the benefit of your insider motive for Pickering, Owen and Sutton, just for starters.
We do not have the moral high ground here. Now if that doesn't matter - have the courage to say it doesn't. Don't pretend the Democrats are dastardly for doing the same thing we are doing.
Sorry, but we do have the moral high ground here. Remember the "activist judges" writing their own Florida law, against Florida law, remember the Ninth Circuit "activist" judges making the usage of God unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance? You want more of that? Having the moral courage to stand up for judges who believe our Constitution means something, is worth every knockdown dragout fight with the RATS we get in. We're talking about a country I happen to love and the nicey, lovey-dovey tactics you seem to espouse will get us run over every time. This, my friend, whether you see it that way or not, is political war on a grand scale and saying we have to fight "nice" is like saying we were mean to use overwhelming force in Iraq.