exactly, which is why opposing a nomination because they're "outside the mainstream" is so patently ridiculous.
There is a difference between outside the main stream, and extreme activists. Though the term 'outside the mainstream' would include both.
Basso, SHOW ME THE MAJORITY! Get the 60 votes, your so called MANDATE, and there need be no changing of the Senate rules. I'm not trying to be an ass, but you have yet to answer this. The problem is that both sides are Crusaders now--every issue has a grave moral consequence for one side or the other. Basso, I'm a moderate, you strike ME as a moderate--why can't we(dems and reps) just play by the rules or reach a workable compromise? 10 out 200...JEEZ Ya know, my Aunt worked for Senator Tower during Nixon's second administration. She recalls a time when there was a problem with a nominee and the Senate could work it out like gentleman. If Benson and the Democaratic Delegation had strong reservations with a nominee, He could call Tower and they could try and flesh out a deal on someone else. NOBODY had to kow-tow or loose face or make it a holy crusade against evil doers or change the friggin' rules!
I think Madison's views are relevant to contemporary discussions but his views in this regard didn't get written into the Constitution which left it up to the Senate to decide the rules. Anyway reading this then the idea of bottling up appointments in committees would also go against Madison's views because the nominee would never even get to the floor.
Undermining civil rights remedies. In 1999's Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the defendant employer had violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act by creating a hostile work environment through the use of racial slurs directed at Latino employees. The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's remedy that prohibited the use of racial slurs. In her dissent, Brown argued that the First Amendment protects the use of such slurs in the workplace, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination. This conclusion by Justice Brown virtually ignored several Supreme Court precedents.
so 134,646* votes is your mandate for stripping away minority rights? *Bush's winning margin in NM + IA + OH total
What a load of BS, basso. Thomas was opposed because he was not qualified. Brown is being opposed because she is exactly what Republicans have always claimed Democrats nominated... an activist judge who has a history of ignoring precedent and legislating from the bench. More than a little hypocritical, in my opinion. What the hell does Brown being Black have to do with anything?? I could care less, and so should you. True equality in this country will occur when no one thinks about a person's race, creed or color. What complete crap. Lets move beyond this, please. I have. I wish everyone else would. Keep D&D Civil!!
You could at least bother reading my post. It's what they have claimed Democrats have done. Geez... do you argue with your wife this way?? Keep D&D Civil!!
i agree, i just democrats would practice what they preach. blacks have been taken for granted by democrats as a constituency for a long time. as i wrote earlier, the democratic parties greatest legacy has always been the promotion of equal rights and opportunities for all, particularly minorities and women. as such, i find their opposition to a black womanjudge, particularly on such flimsy grounds, to be deeply ironic.
They aren't judging her because of her color or gender. They are judging her because in part because of her rulings on such, and the fact that she has ignored supreme court rulings in writing her own decisions. Regardless of what her own color and gender are her writings on cases are activist, and extreme, thus she is being filibustered. She isn't being voted on or against because of her skin color. She is being excluded because of her judicial leanings. There may be Democrats who would give her a break because she was a minority if she were equally qualified with others, but her record is one that is unsound, extremist and activist so it doesn't even get to the point where Affirmitive action would come into play. Contrary to what some would paint affirmitive action it isn't quotas. People still have to meet certain qualifications and Justice brown doesn't meet them. Now hopefully that has been cleared up enough that we don't have to pretend like Dems are being hypocritical in regards to affirmitive and supporting the minority community.
so she's qualified enough for the california supreme court, highest court for the most populous state in the union, but somehow unqualified for circuit court? that makes zero sense, so one can only conclude that there are other factors at play in opposing her nomination. it seems fairly clear what those other factors are.
