Replies

The so-called civil rights movement has sunk to the point where it smears a true friend of civil rights, and stirs up racial hate and paranoia as a tactic to hold power. The fact is the democrats cannot be competitive in a national election without about 95% of the black vote, so they have quite cheerfully turned to the most unspeakable tactics imaginable. The fact that it works is evidence of the sorry state of black education in this country.

There is a Pickering endorsement article ("A Brave Judge's Name Besmirched") on the editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal. It's written by James Charles Evers, the brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, and it's a great read.

Can someone provide a link?

Boink.

This is why I curse the name of Jim Jeffords.

Au contraire....the Senate Judiciary Committee has been attacking the character and integrity of most Bush nominees with un-statesmanlike immaturity since the war against AG Ashcroft began before President Bush's inaugeration day.

"Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee appeared to be solidly against Scalia, who has criticized ergonomics and Clinton-era regulations as "quackery" and "junk science."

"Scalia was pressed by Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to admit he has represented just two workers in his 10-year labor law career, which has focused mostly on corporate clients."

"Edwards said he questioned whether Scalia has the "necessary empathy for workers in order to adequately and properly represent them." "

Edwards successes in his medical malpractice suits rely mainly on emotional manipulation of the jury, "quackery" and "junk science." (my comment (^:)
Link to original article.

bump

It's a pity Judge Pickering can't sue Ralph Neas and PFAW into financial oblivion for defamation.

The PFAW report criticizes Pickering for failing to take the opportunity to express moral outrage about the law.

Is that the standard? Behave like Barbara Boxer on a bad hair day whenever confronted with a racial issue or you aren't politically correct enough to pass muster with the Judiciary Committee?

A previous post to a thread on this subject yesterday--- As a lawyer usually representing plaintiffs, I can offer an opinion of Judge Pickering from personal experience. I appeared before him in a civil matter in which an ideologically driven trial judge likely would have been inclined to treat my case and legal theories with judicial hostility.

Irrespective of his personal political preference [At the time of my court appearance I did not have any idea of the judge's political orientation], he was everything an ethical and fair minded lawyer could hope for. From the Bench he listened with great courtesy and deference to the Florida attorney representing an out-of-state client against a significant Mississippi corporation. It was obvious that he had read both side's written arguments and the file before the hearing and was familiar with the theories advanced and their complexities, and, they were indeed complex. At no time did I get the all too common feeling for a "foreign" lawyer in a distant land of getting-- what the profession calls-- "home towned."

He gave both side ample time to present their legal arguments and asked if we wanted to submit post-hearing briefs. In due time, he authored and rendered an opinion and order regarding the hearing's subject matter. His opinion was a thoughtful and analytical summary of the legal issues in which he announced a reasonable and legally correct decision.

Whether my position prevailed is not important. The important thing is that the entire matter was heard and decided fairly and consistent with what trial judges should do. Both sides had an opportunity for a full exposition of their legal arguments and the judge, after taking the matter under advisement, did an excellent job of understanding and articulating the rationale' for an intelligent decision. There was not the slightest hint of any political ideology or orientation in his conduct on the Bench or in his decision.

That's all any lawyer or litigant can ask for from a trial judge, a fair hearing. That's what Judge Pickering did in my case and it was consistent with everything I heard about him from other lawyers around the federal courthouse during my two days in Hattiesburg, MS. for the hearing.

I abhor judges who allow their personal political predispositions and personal lifestyle preferences to interfere with their oath upon donning the judicial robe.

I would be here today describing my disappointment with the Presidential nomination if that had been the case. But, ethical consistency and intellectual honesty also requires that I let it be known when the contrary is true and the judge is suffering unfair treatment by the Senate, as is the fact here.

A nominee's personal politics, while of some interest, is something senators should ignore when the President of the other party has the power to nominate judges. As Governor Cuomo said in his book several years ago (to paraphrase)"...A President should be able to have his nominations confirmed unless there is some objectively confirmed and clearly defined impediment to a judicial nominee's character or ability to assume the Bench." That is a concept endorsed by the ABA and good, fair-minded lawyers everywhere. The Republicans did the same thing that's now happening to Judge Pickering --actually it was engineered by Jessie Helms--with repect to President Clinton's nomination to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal of a very fine black judge. That race driven conduct by Helms, and acquiesced in by the committee's GOP majority, was just as unwarranted and unfair in that instance as is the situation today.

That's just one lawyer's observations and opinion. However, it is based upon some specific empirical data gathered from first-hand experience. 12 posted on 2/7/02 9:40 PM Pacific by middie [ Post Reply