Because Senatel republicans would have voted for him; they can tolerate racism amongst their own as long as it's not politically damaging (Helms, Thurmond), and given the fact that most americans couldn't name a circuit judge if you put a gun to their head, this wouldn't be a big deal. I'm not sure why you find this confusing.
Yeah, Poor GWB, he didn't bring any of this on himself by sneakily appointing a segregationist to the 5th circuit the next day, it's just those mean old democrats making hay.... This is just another excellent example of what Gore highlighted the other day: the Orwellian doublespeak that this administration uses: the "Healthy Forests" plan is designed to open up thousands of acres of for logging. the "Clear Skies" initiative relaxes air pollution rules Iraq:WMD's and the reconstruction that will pay for itself; not. Budget: Say you're in favor of a balanced budget, then cut taxes, increase spending, create greatest deficit in history of mankind. Uniter, not a divider: then govern right of Hoover. Honor & Integrity: Lies about policy, dirty tricks ike Valerie Plame, the abortive investigation of Paul O'Neill (what did that one last, 12 hours -- whoops) Bush' various lies great (Iraq) and small (Ken Lay, etc) So I guess it's not surprising, wreath on MLK's grave, piss on it the next day. Business as usual in the Bush White House.
And it just so happens that the SC refused to take action on TX redistricting... this came out on... Friday.
Speaking of that, you know what Republicans called the plan to consign minorities to certain districts and ensure a disproportionate number of Republicans in the house from now until perpetuity? "Operation Ratfu ck" I kid you not.
That's an old Donald Segretti term... the more things change, the more they stay the same... with the exception of now, it's done accoring to the rule of law.
Joe Conason's Journal The harrowing past of a top Bush judicial nominee: Civil rights opposition, commie hunting and a partner who publicly decried "queers, quacks, quirks, political agitators." - - - - - - - - - - - - Jan. 9, 2003 | Still burning Now that we have revisited Mississippi in 1948 with Trent Lott, perhaps America will take another look at the Magnolia State during the '60s and '70s with Lott's judicial protégé, Charles W. Pickering Sr. Aspects of that era came up last year when the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Pickering's nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the details are again salient now that Bush has renominated him. Pickering's résumé displays many of the most unappetizing characteristics of the segregationist milieu from which he and so many other white Mississippi politicians have emerged. He did once testify against a Klan member, as his supporters incessantly repeat, but that single instance must be weighed against a long record of apparent hostility to equal rights for blacks. He and his supporters insist that he was a moderate, rather than a hardcore racist. But in the South of the Citizens Councils, a "moderate" was someone who defended segregation but didn't practice or advocate brutal violence to suppress the black freedom struggle. One thing in Pickering's long career is quite clear: He left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans in 1964 in protest against the Democrats' support for civil rights. Pickering's habit of whitewashing his past conduct has led him perilously close to lying under oath. When George H.W. Bush first named him to the federal bench in 1990 (two years after he chaired the Bush-Quayle campaign in Mississippi), Pickering told the Senate that he'd had no contact with the State Sovereignty Commission, his home state's notorious anti-black secret police apparatus. "I never had any contact with that agency," he testified. Not quite true, as the since-unsealed records of the Sovereignty Commission reveal. Actually, in January 1972, Pickering apparently asked [see last page of memo] a Commission employee to keep him apprised of its surveillance of an integrated union-organizing campaign among pulpwood workers in his hometown. Later, Pickering claimed that he had been worried about "Klan" infiltration of the pulpwood workers union, but the Commission documents show clearly that it was investigating left-wing integrationists, not the KKK. The Sovereignty Commission files, now available online, provide a primary-source perspective on the white reign of terror in Mississippi. Many of the documents mention Carroll Gartin, the former lieutenant governor who oversaw the Commission's spying, smearing and protection of thuggery -- and who also happened to have been Pickering's law partner. Perhaps Gartin was a "moderate" by Dixie standards, but it is hard to see how that description fits his role with the Sovereignty Commission. In a March 2, 1964 memo to Gartin and then-Gov. Paul Johnson, a staffer describes how the Sovereignty Commission helped local authorities to suppress civil rights demonstrations in Hattiesburg and Canton. Among other things, its spies made sure to take "motion pictures" of the "native Negroes" who showed up at the demonstrations. That same year, Gartin directed a campaign against Tougaloo College, a historically black institution that had been integrated and that served as a base for civil rights activity in northern Mississippi. Working closely with the Sovereignty Commission, which used secret informants at the college, Gartin sought to remove Tougaloo's accreditation and successfully drove its liberal white president to resign. Gartin called the school a haven of "queers, quacks, quirks, political agitators and possibly some communists." Considerable evidence exists to suggest that Pickering hasn't entirely discarded the prejudices once espoused by his late law partner. As a jurist he has been no friend of the downtrodden; to portray him as a lifelong racial moderate is ludicrous on its face. Pickering should stop covering up his past -- and start speaking candidly about what he did that was shameful, and when he changed his views, if ever.
I love the way celebrates MLK Day. Last year, Michigan. This year, Pickering. Message to the "base" both times: "wink, wink." White House files brief opposing 'flawed' affirmative action Move draws fire from Democrats, civil rights leaders Friday, January 17, 2003 WASHINGTON (CNN) --The Bush administration late Thursday filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court outlining its opposition to the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. President Bush had announced his opposition to the program Wednesday, calling it "fundamentally flawed." "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education," Bush said Wednesday at the White House. "But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed." The administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief -- a common practice for the White House in high-profile cases -- but is not a plaintiff in the matter. Bush's action immerses the administration in a politically and socially charged subject at a time when Republicans are trying to recover from a racially tinged firestorm in the Senate and reach out to minority voters. The move by the administration was closely watched on Capitol Hill by Democrats who say Republicans have failed to encourage racial diversity. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, called it "a watershed moment" for Republicans. Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt -- who has announced his intention to run for the White House in 2004 -- said he would file a court brief in support of the university's affirmative action program. Gephardt, D-Missouri, graduated from the University of Michigan Law School. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH coalition, called Bush's speech "a painful thing to be said by America's president." 'Impossible to square with the Constitution' In the University of Michigan case, white students opposed to the program filed suits against the school. One lawsuit challenged the affirmative action program at the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, and another lawsuit challenged admissions policies using race at the law school. The undergraduate admission process involves a point system where African-American, Hispanic and Native American applicants earn 20 points on the basis of race out of a 150-point system. Bush called the system "a quota system" that rejects or accepts students "based solely on race." "Quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution," Bush said. The Supreme Court's decision will be key in defining the role of affirmative action in America. Conservatives have been arguing that it is important for the administration to take a stand against racial preferences. But it is a politically sensitive issue for the president and Republicans who have been trying to reach out to minorities, especially in the wake of Sen. Trent Lott's comments praising Sen. Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential bid. Many civil rights activists also have been angered by the president's judicial nominees, most recently Charles Pickering, a Mississippi judge renominated to a federal appeals court. They've described Pickering as racially insensitive and questioned his commitment to civil rights. Republicans have countered by saying Pickering is being demonized for political purposes. Daschle suggested the administration's actions in the Michigan case did not match its stated support for diversity. "I think the burden of proof will be on the administration, I think the burden of proof will be on Republicans to show us how they can be for diversity and yet be against the laws that promulgate diversity," Daschle said. "That, I think, is a hard case to make, but I look forward to their response." At a White House briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer highlighted a program Bush spearheaded as governor of Texas. Bush opposed racial preferences at state universities, opting instead for a program he calls "affirmative access," under which the top 10 percent of all high school students are eligible for admission.
Even as we heed Dr. King's call to "never succumb to the temptation of bitterness," we must not let the president's deeds go unchallenged or our convictions go unsaid. Call President Bush and tell him that his action today only strengthens your resolve to oppose his court-packing plan. White House Comments Line: (202) 456-1111 White House Switchboard: (202) 456-1414 TTY/TDD Comments Line: (202) 456-6213
Call President Bush and tell him that his action today only strengthens your resolve to oppose his court-packing plan. This would be a waste of time, unless you a big $$$ GWB contributor in which case it would be a marginal waste of time.
Unfortunately for Pickering, public interest law suits forced the release of the commission's records in 1998. And those records plainly revealed that Pickering had lied under oath..." As a federal judge he can only be removed by impeahment if my increasingly old civics lessons are still remembered. I expect all the Republicans who always insisted that Clinton must be impeached for lying under oath to call for Pickering's impeachment and also condemn Bush for putting him office. Or are you Repubs, like the wmd, the Sadam-Al Qaeda connection, and other issues just going to belatedly say: "it really was impeachment over a blowjob" ?
Excerpt from Houston Chronicle: Democrats also raised questions about Pickering's contacts as a state senator in the 1970s with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, which worked to preserve segregation. Bush has called Pickering "an advocate of civil rights" and pointed to a large number of African-American leaders in Mississippi who came forward to declare their support for him. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2358069
There is precedent for this, witness an excerpt from the Houston Chronicle: Senate records show the power, usually exercised with lower-profile nominees, has been used to elevate judges only a handful of times in the past 30 years. Less than a month before leaving office, President Bill Clinton used the mechanism to install Roger Gregory as the first black judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Maryland and Virginia. Bush renominated Gregory, who was confirmed. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2358069
Bush has called Pickering "an advocate of civil rights" and pointed to a large number of African-American leaders in Mississippi who came forward to declare their support for him. We know Bush has claimed Sadam was an imminent threat to the US and his tax cuts weren't slanted toward the wealthy etc.. I'm sorry, but only the ditto heads can accept Bush's statements at face value. Is there any proof that this Bush's claim is not false or that the "large number" was not limited to 10 or 12 Americans throughout the whole state?
LOL, Well, since President Bush called him "an advocate of civil rights" he must be one....to bad his intervention in favor of cross burners, history of being a segregationist, etc, etc, etc. indicates that Bush was just dong what he always does: He was lying, again. You obviously didn't read my next post, but I'll do you the favor of recapping it for you. If you read it closely, what happened was that a New York Times story said that blacks supported Pickering. If you actually read the story, which neither you (nor, I'm guessing, basso) what it said was that 4 out of 5 black city council members in Laurel Mississippi (population: 18,893) said they supported Pickering. That's it. Four people. Now, these four people were extrapolated and exaggerated, via the right wing propaganda machine, into, as basso put it "Overwhelmingly supported by blacks in his home state", of course, this "overwhelming support" ignores the fact that the MIssissipi NAACP was vigorously opposed to his nomination, as were many other predominantly black interest groups in Missisippi. So in sum, you're wrong, basso's wrong, the president is wrong, and now a segregationist (not to mention a liar) is on the 5th circuit the day after the president laid a wreath on MLK's grave. But anyway, thanks for that Chronicle tidbit, quite helpful.
SF, I would say your statement is bit misleading in that it was not an intervention made "in favor of cross burners", but rather made so due to disproportionate sentencing recommended by the government for a less guilty defendant. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york021102.shtml So, the Mississippi NAACP opposed Pickering's appointment? Am I to have expected otherwise? Since you've questioned the veracity of practically everything from Foxnews that any conservative has dared post, may I have the same pleasure with that bastion of integrity / objectivity, The New York Times?
Sure, you can question it all you want, but, you'd be undermining your own cause if you did, the New York Times article was favorable to Pickering. Again, that's explained on the first page. What was ridiculous was that the Republican bullsh-t machine, including the President and the talk show hosts, blogosphere, and dutiful BBS posters, have exaggerated a few blacks who support Pickering ("some of his best friends are black!) and blown it up into "overwhelming support", despite the fact that reality seems to show the exact opposite.
Republican bullsh-t machine??? ...the Atlanta Journal-Constitution analyzed Judge Pickering’s record and reported that there is no evidence of racism in his record. ...Mississippi’s Democratic governor and three others from his party who hold statewide office wrote to the Senate, saying: “Mississippi has made tremendous progress in race relations since the 1960s and Charles Pickering has been part of that progress. We ask that the United States Senate stand up to those that malign the character of Charles Pickering, and give him an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.” When he was nominated to the federal district court, the Senate Judiciary Committee supported him unanimously. Among those who voted for him were current committee members Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden, and Herb Kohl. His nomination went on to the full Senate, where he was confirmed. Unanimously. http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2003/030926JN.asp Judge Pickering’s nomination is also supported by the current and 13 former presidents of the Mississippi Bar, in addition to the Federal Bar Association of Mississippi, the Mississippi Trial Lawyers, and others who know him personally or have practiced before him for years. http://www.freecongress.org/media/020124.asp Judge Pickering has the highest seal of approval from the American Bar Association. But the key objection advanced by senators opposed to Judge Pickering's nomination is that, in the words of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., as a judge, he would "roll back civil rights." Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP's board of directors, has said Judge Pickering uses "a racial lens to look at America." But according to an article earlier this year in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, black Mississippians ranging from lawyers to politicians to civic activists to community leaders in the judge's hometown of Laurel praise Judge Pickering as a champion of individual rights and of good relations with the black community. http://www.charleston.net/stories/103003/edi_30edit2.shtml
LOL, Dark Rhino, repeatedly posting articles that mention the one article that I mentioned doesn't really help your cause much, but anyway, here's the case against Pickering, that doesn't even include his past as a white supremacist: By bullsh-t propaganda machine, btw, I meant the absolute fallacy that Pickering is overwhelmingly supported by African Americans from the state of Mississippi. This theory (actually, it's too generous to call it a theory, let's call it what it is: a lie) was propounded by basso, and is being endorsed by you, and has been spread by various shameless right wing hacks. Thus far, the "overwhelming support" breaks down to: 4 people. Is it your position that 4 black people in Mississipi constitutes "overwhelming support" among african americans, in the face of oppostion from various state and national african american interest groups? If so, I suggest you consult one of these for the definition of "overwhelming"
but democrats are always the advocates of peace and justice. why does this surprise any of you? i agree entirely with those who feel there's a double standard here if this guy lied under oath. welcome to politics! how many times do we see posts here where on side points out the other's hypocrisy? happens ALL THE TIME. it sucks.
