Why do Democrats take the minority vote for granted?

[Tired of being used]

If anything the minorities would be better off voting for non Democrat office holders. All the dems do is play the race card whether it's about housing or immigration.This helps nobody except the developers and slumlords.

[right on]

They want power and don't care how they get it. :">
________
AMERICAN DAD! DICUSSION (http://www.tv-gossip.com/american-dad/)

[Real Democrat]

It's always funny when republicans try to pretend to be minorities on this board and trash the democrats. The argument is never "vote for x", but always "vote against the democrats". Who else is left?

If you are a minority, why vote for the democrats?

Five words: Trent Lott and Bob Jones

[Six words]

6 words: KKK Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton

Clintons use the "N" word and Bill Clinton was sued (and lost) for his discrimination practices while Gov.

[Woodrow]

Give me a break. Sure the pre-Civil Rights Dems like Thurmond and Lott were impossible, but now? Just look at Justice Thomas's votes this week! Appointed by Bush Sr.! So long as people like that are Republicans, and people like Powell get an occasional patronage plum (Rice is a true-blue right-winger), there's no reason for minorities NOT to vote Democratic. Who represents their interests better? How many black Republicans in Congress now?

[education]

One of the most important keys to the further advancement of minorities is their younger generation's getting a decent education, which many cannot get in today's public schools. Democrats are so dependent on teachers' unions that they cannot possibly offer vouchers, for example.

Some blacks, not all, are their own worst enemy. Such as belittling successful blacks like Powell, Rice, Thomas, etc. I do not undersand why. I don't see other minorities doing this.

Presidents Bush, the father, and George W. appointed the above blacks. I don't see Democrats appointing blacks to such a high office.

Democrats (not meaning the everyday people) are really very insincere.

[Woodrow]

Dear Education (or are you Rush?) -- Who named the first Black cabinet secretary, Supreme Court justice, desegrated the military, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's and the Voting Rights Acts, named a black as U.N. ambassador, Agriculture Secretary, Commerce Secretary, OMB director, etc. There's got to be a reason why Gore-Lieberman won 91% of the black vote (ad won the election, as you well know).

The Clarence Thomas crowd has a very limited appeal, deservedly so.

[Dade County]

Because they can, although I don't think it is deliberate.

You always take core supporters for granted, just like the republicans take the redneck and stupid/can't read a ballot votes for granted.

[Spike]

Some of you are idiots. The "n-word" allegation against the Clintons has never been proven, like most of the crap levelled against them. School voucher plans would not go to minority families - white kids go to private schools in the greatest numbers (because many conservative Republican families don't want their kids integrated), and the plans would not give the worst off children enough $ to go to private schools themselves.

Democrats no more take the black vote for granted than Republicans do for southern conservatives or mormons.

[education]

Woodrow,
I appreciate the compliment, but he's richer.

Gore/Lieberman received black votes because they were duped by Jesse Jackson and the NAACP which really do not help blacks; they get RICH by PRETENDING to help blacks (more and more blacks are realizing this).

What have Democrats done for minorities lately? They are fillibustering Estrada's nomination (a Hispanic man).

Spike,
Why do minorities want school vouchers then? Some minorities already DO send their children to private schools, including Catholic schools EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT CATHOLIC, because they know they will get a better education.

With school vouchers even more minorities would be able to send their children to a private school.

Plus, like any commodity, the more widespread it is, the lower the price would be.

Spike, the Democrats are in the back pockets of teachers' unions. Democrats care more about the unions than minorities' education. I like teachers; I don't like teachers' unions which keep kids from getting a good education.

[Woodrow]

Dear Education:

You really are Rush, aren't you? (Except Rush doesn't have kids of his own, but I guess his wife's from her previous marriages -- and remember that Clarence Thomas performed his latest ceremony!)

Dems are blocking Estrada because he simply refuses to make his record public. Meanwhile they are blocking my old college mate Judge Kuhl because her record, which at least is public, because she is obnoxious (if white).

Vouchers are a panacea invented by the Manhattan Institute crowd and are a sham. That's why they are going nowhere. At the same time, Education, you are right that there needs to be school reform that improves education, makes the unions accountable for their members' performance, etc. But we don't need the "segregation academies" that are all over the South under the general names of "Christian Schools." It's interesting that the latest flux over the Regents exams may show something about levels of teaching and prep that are for professionals to analyze.

I also find it interesting that Alberto Gonzales in the White House NOW lauds the Supreme Court diversity decision. That's a way to try to be inclusive and is laudable but still, the Republicans have to do more than nominate Clarence Thomas and people with his mindset to public office.

[education]

Parents (black, brown, yellow, red, white) should decide where they want to send their children, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It's their children and they pay the taxes. No matter what kind of spin the Dems put on it, they know what's best for their children.

NOT TRUE: "Dems are blocking Estrada because he simply refuses to make his record public."

Dems keep saying this over and over. This is another spin. Estrada gave everything that the law allowed. Can you name a judicial nominee that give more information than Estrada gave?

Regards,

Rush

[Woodrow]

Education: I hope you're home-schooling the kids, or using your vast wealth to send them to Friends, Portledge, a parochial school....or one of the prep schools that the Bushes use.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl, whose obnoxious record is being criticized now, furnished her state court decisions as well as her stuff from service in the Solictor General's office, where she backed Bob Jones University's segregation policy. This is the same office where Estrada worked and he's refused to turn over his documents. That's a direct precedent. Previous Solictors General such as Kenneth Starr (My God) and Thurgood Marshall turned over volumes of their stuff before they were confirmed for federal judgeships. Judges who were rejected like Carswell, Haynsworth and Bork had miserable records on their courts which were available to all to read (and Carswell also had signed a restricted covenant for his house).

The point is, Estrada, now in private practice, wants to shift to public service and the public has a right to know how he performed in his prior service on the public payroll. What has he done? What's he written? What opinions did he write for his bosses that were used by such luminaries as Ed Meese? The guy is no dummy -- that's not the point -- but how the Senate can advise and consent to a nomination of a stealth candidate is beyond me. John Adams and Th. Jefferson would side with me and you know it!

[education]

This letter from Gonzalez should answer all doubts you might have about Estrada PROVIDED YOU ARE SINCERE. Gonzalez is not a favorite of strong conservatives, because he is not conservative enough and is not pro-life, but he did a great job with this letter.

White House to Schumer: You’re Wrong.
The White House defends Miguel Estrada — again.

With the Democratic filibuster of the appeals-court nomination of Miguel Estrada continuing today in the Senate, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has responded to comments made over the weekend by Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader of the opposition to Estrada. In an appearance on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Schumer claimed, among other things, that Estrada "answered no questions" at his confirmation hearing; that "no judicial nominee that I'm aware of for such a high court has ever had so little of a record"; that "there is no legal precedent" against turning over Justice Department documents Estrada wrote while working in the Solicitor General's office; and that Democrats "are not filibustering" the nomination. In his letter to Schumer, seen in its entirety below, Gonzales responds to each of those points, as well as some others. — Byron York

February 24, 2003

Dear Senator Schumer:

Based on your public comments yesterday, I am concerned that you may have inaccurate and incomplete information about Miguel Estrada's qualifications and about the historical practice with respect to judicial confirmations. Therefore, I write to respectfully reiterate and explain our conclusion that you and certain other Senators are applying an unfair double standard — indeed, a series of unfair double standards — to Miguel Estrada.

First, your request for confidential attorney-client memoranda Mr. Estrada wrote in the Office of Solicitor General seeks information that, based on our review, has not been demanded from past nominees to the federal courts of appeals. We are informed that the Senate has not requested memoranda such as these for any of the 67 appeals court nominees since 1977 who had previously worked in the Justice Department — including the seven nominees who had previously worked in the Solicitor General's office. Nor have such memoranda been demanded from nominees in similar attorney-client situations: The Senate has not demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had served as Senate lawyers, such as memoranda written by Stephen Breyer as a Senate counsel before Justice Breyer was confirmed to the First Circuit in 1980. Nor has the Senate demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had served as law clerks to Supreme Court Justices or other federal or state judges. Nor has the Senate demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had worked for private clients.
The very few isolated examples you have cited were not nominees for federal appeals courts. Moreover, those situations involved Executive Branch accommodations of targeted requests for particular documents about specific issues that were primarily related to allegations of malfeasance or misconduct in a federal office. We respectfully do not believe these examples support your request. Our conclusion about the general lack of support and precedent for your position is buttressed by the fact that every living former Solicitor General (four Democrats and three Republicans) has strongly opposed your request and stated that it would sacrifice and compromise the ability of the Justice Department to effectively represent the United States in court. In short, the traditional practice of the Senate and the Executive Branch with respect to federal appeals court nominations stands in contrast to your request here and supports our conclusion that an unfair double standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada. (Also, contrary to your suggestion yesterday, please note that no one in the Executive Branch has reviewed these memoranda since President Bush took office in January 2001.)

Second, you suggested that "no judicial nominee that I'm aware of, for such a high court, has ever had so little of a record." I respectfully disagree. Miguel Estrada has been a very accomplished lawyer, trying cases before federal juries, briefing and arguing numerous appeals before federal and state appeals courts, and arguing 15 cases before the Supreme Court, among his other significant work. His record and breadth of experience exceeds that of many judicial nominees, which is no doubt why the American Bar Association — which you have labeled the "gold standard" — unanimously rated him "well-qualified." In noting yesterday that Mr. Estrada's career had been devoted to "arguing for a client," you appeared to imply that only those with prior judicial service (or perhaps "a lot of [law review] articles") may serve on the federal appeals courts. But five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit had no prior judicial service at the time of their appointments. Indeed, Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, White, and Powell — to name three of the most recent — had not served as judges before being confirmed to the Supreme Court. And like Mr. Estrada, two appointees of President Clinton to the D.C. Circuit (Judge David Tatel and Judge Merrick Garland) had similarly spent their careers "arguing for a client," but were nonetheless confirmed.

As the Chief Justice noted in his 2001 Year-End Report, moreover, "[t]he federal Judiciary has traditionally drawn from a wide diversity of professional backgrounds." The Chief Justice cited Justice Louis Brandeis, Justice John Harlan, Justice Byron White, Judge Thurgood Marshall (as nominee to the Second Circuit), Judge Learned Hand, and Judge John Minor Wisdom as just a few examples of great judges who had spent virtually their entire careers "arguing for a client" before becoming Supreme Court Justices or federal appeals court judges. As these examples show, had the "arguing for a client" standard been applied in the past, it would have deprived the American people of many of our most notable appellate judges. Based on our understanding, this standard has not been applied in the past. This further explains why we have concluded that an unfair double standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada.

Third, you stated that "when you went to those hearings, Mr. Estrada answered no questions." The record demonstrates otherwise. Mr. Estrada answered more than 100 questions at his hearing (and another 25 in follow-up written answers). He explained in some detail his approach to judging on many issues, and did so appropriately without providing his personal views on specific legal or policy questions that could come before him — which is how previous judicial nominees of Presidents of both parties have appropriately answered questions. Indeed, at his hearing, Mr. Estrada was asked and answered more questions, and did so more fully, than did President Clinton's appointees to this same court. Judge David Tatel was asked a total of three questions at his hearing. Judges Judith Rogers and Merrick Garland were each asked fewer than 20 questions. The three appointees of President Clinton — combined — thus answered fewer than half the number of questions at their hearings that Mr. Estrada answered at his hearing. What is more, like Mr. Estrada, both Judge Rogers and Judge Garland declined to give their personal views on disputed legal and policy questions at the hearing. Judge Rogers refused to give her views when asked about the notion of an evolving Constitution. And Mr. Garland did not answer questions about his personal views on the death penalty, stating that he would follow precedent. In short, we believe that your criticism of Mr. Estrada's answers at his hearing reveals that another unfair double standard is being applied to Mr. Estrada.

Fourth, you stated that the Founding Fathers "came to the conclusion that the Senate ought to ask a whole lot of questions" of judicial nominees. We respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process, and we agree that the Senate should make an informed judgment consistent with its traditional role and practices. But your characterization of the Senate's role with respect to judicial nominations is not consistent with our reading of historical or traditional practice. Alexander Hamilton explained that the purpose of Senate confirmation is to prevent appointment of "unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity." The Federalist 76. The Framers anticipated that the Senate's approval would not often be refused unless there were "special and strong reasons for the refusal." Id. Moreover, the Senate did not hold hearings on judicial nominees for much of American history, and the hearings for lower-court nominees in modern times traditionally have not included the examination of personal views that you have advocated. (My letter of February 12, 2003, to Senators Daschle and Leahy contains more detail on this point.) Indeed, just a few years ago, Senator Biden made clear, consistent with the traditional practice, that he would vote to confirm an appeals court judge if he were convinced that the nominee would follow precedent and otherwise was of high ability and integrity.

In short, it appears that you are seeking to change the Senate's traditional standard for assessing judicial nominees. We respect your right to advocate a change, but we do not believe that the standard you seek to apply is consistent with the Framers' vision, the traditional Senate practice, or the Senate's treatment of President Clinton's nominees. Rather, we believe a new standard is being devised and applied to Miguel Estrada.

Fifth, you stated yesterday that a "filibuster" is not an appropriate term to describe what has been occurring in the Senate. We respectfully disagree. Democrat Senators have objected to unanimous consent motions to schedule a vote, and they have indicated that they will continue to do so. That tactic is historically and commonly known as a filibuster, and is a dramatic escalation of the tactics used to oppose judicial nominees. Indeed, in 1998, Senator Leahy stated: "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators." 144 Cong. Rec. S6522 (June 18, 199 . In our judgment, the tactics now being employed again show that Miguel Estrada is receiving differential treatment.

* * *

As I have said before, I appreciate and respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process. You have expressed concern that you do not know enough about Mr. Estrada's views, but you have not submitted any follow-up questions to him. We respectfully submit that the Senate has ample information and has had more than enough time to consider questions about the qualifications and suitability of a nominee submitted more than 21 months ago. Most important, we believe that a majority of Senators have now concluded that they possess sufficient information on Mr. Estrada and would vote to confirm him. We believe it is past time for the Senate to vote on this nominee, and we urge your support.

Sincerely,
/s/
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President

Copy: The Honorable Bill Frist
The Honorable Thomas A. Daschle
The Honorable Orrin Hatch
The Honorable Patrick Leahy

[Now That's What I call an]

Schumer has a duty to prevent the Judiciary from being filled with right-wing hacks, which is what the Bush administration wants to do. Someone needs to protect the COnstitution from racists, anti-gay bigots, and right wing thugs. The only racism is on the GOP side. Schumer has supported plenty of Hispanic judges, including ones nominated by Dubya. Republicans blocked a number of minority judges, like Ronnie White. Even I wouldn't call Republican Senators racist for opposing minority judge nominees; there's no reason to believe that. Of course, right wingers here and elsewhere cry racism, as they do when it suits them. The level of hypocrisy is sad. Neither Gonzalez nor any right wing hack is getting on the SC, and Miguel Estrada is thankfully going nowhere. When a real President comes into office in 2005, qualified judges will finally come before the Senate. We'll see what right wingers in the Senate do then; will they block minority nominees? Let's see the same people here call them racists.

[education]

Christian, pro-life, conservative Hispanics are excluded from diversity it seems.

Here's a chance for the "minority-loving" liberal Democrats to give a Hispanic a chance at a really great job, but they are lying and cheating to stop him. Schumer is using every dirty trick in the book to stop Estrada.

Schumer is wasting time that he could spend on helping NYS by doing everything he can to hurt Estrada, and while I'm on the subject, SCHUMER HAS WASTED TIME RAISING $15 MILLION FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.

[waitasec]

His anti Bush sentiments run deep and illogical. Unfortunately most Americans have to put up with the intolerant radical left wing of the Democratic Party destroying what little civility was left in the political process.