America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Isn't he the guy from CHIPS?

The democrats oppose him because he holds insanely conservative positions, totally out of step with the populace. Supporting affirmative action does not mean any minority at any position. There is still a question of fitness for the position.

Don't forget that this kind of stalling and denial of positions is a method perfected by the Republicans under Clinton. They denied almost all of his nominees.

Also: " If you arent in the Democratic minority, they dont want to hear your positions."

Democratic minority? Last time I checked, this 'minority' actually got the majority of votes in the presidential election! That ain't a minority.

John

With all due respect, that is b.s.

Mexican-Americans have long been divided politically, many voting republican. Things are different for African-Americans, but, hey, the republicans have been demonizing black people for decades...so you can't blame for being suspicious, right?

Estrada is being held up because he has extremist views. Why is that so hard to understand?

Funny that those who always oppose affirmative action suddenly call upon it when one of their nutjobs is up for nomination. One can say that there must be diversity in government (I say that), but that is not a blank check to bring in extremists under this good-spirited policy.

Bush has wacky friends. They are out of step with americans. Estrada is an excellent example of this. (Think here of drilling in Alaska...NO popular support whatsoever, but Bush's friends love the idea, and now it is probably going to be policy. Sick sick sick. That ain't democracy on anyone's account).

John

John,

With all due respect-That is not bull ****!! You liberals will oppose anything that doesn't fit into the stereotypical mold that is pre ordained by Liberal Leftist and that pre ordained mold is that all minorities have to vote Democrat or hold Democrat beliefs!

They carry their flags for equality, and mewl for justice, and yet GWB has more people of color or minorities in his cabinet than the last three Democrat Presidents combined! Colin Powell is not a "token appointee" nor is Congalesia Rice!

They would oppose Thurgood Marshall if he were appointed by George Bush!

Charlie

Charlie,I'm sure John knows it's BS as well but I doubt he'll never admit it.Excellent point Dyvnmyk and very true.

Where did you guys get the idea that judicial appointments are not political? Certainly not from your own party, a party that has practiced holding down nominees for ideological reasons. That is the nature of judicial appointments; they are political. I didn't have to make this point:

"The only reason Democrats have a problem with him is because he is pro-life and extremely right wing."

Yep. That is true. What is wrong with that? Do you not believe in the political process? Did you say the same thing when republicans held up Clinton's nominees? I doubt it. To be consistent, you'd should have been berating the republicans for holding up tons of Clinton nominees.

Are you recommending the democrats sell out their constituents by supporting this guy? That isn't politics. You should expect representatives to support their constituency with their power. Do you recommend they do otherwise? Like just support the president no matter what? Why didn't you demand the same of republicans when they did this stuff to Clinton's nominees? Are you hypocrites? Or have you just not thought through this particular issue? It is part of the political process, and, yes, it is hard when your team is on the receiving end. Damn, y'all! Toughen up!

People this radical have no place in a balanced judicial system. Read the link above. It is instructive (thanks for providing it).

John

John-

No disagreement from me. It is ALL political. Anyone who believes otherwise has refused to look deeper.
Yes the repub's have done the same thing but not by filibustering. Filibustering in this instance is unheard of. The only time it was done was 1967 and the President ended up withdrawing the nominee.

"Are you recommending the democrats sell out their constituents by supporting this guy?"

Not at all... We always hear about the dems wanting to help the minorities, help the minoriteis. Estrada IS one of their constituents. The dems should be holding Estrada over their heads and thanking GWB for nominating a minority but instead they say he isn't a minority because he didn't grow up in poverty.
That's hypocracy in action.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and actually I agree with you that there should be consistency in a persons ideas and beliefs. Therefore, looking at the non-partisan facts (i.e schooling, work, experience, etc.), anyone would believe Estrada is well suited for the position. Where the differences come in is when politics are brought into it.

"People this radical have no place in a balanced judicial system."

I disagree with you there. If we didn't have radicals we would have complacent, boring, sedintary lives. The judicial system is based on "Judgement". Judgment of the law, morals, best interests, etc. Think about this... without radicals, we would not have had men willing to lose their lives in order to establish a new country and break from the old.

By all means fight for your side... I fight for mine.
Michael

Uncleb
Sorry, I didn't make that very clear. My expression was that the democrat's constituents are usually minorities.
Yes, I believe everyone (democrats and republicans) wants to help bring people up to their highest potential.
Democratic platforms are usually based on helping people out of poverty by means of monitary programs. The people who are helped then follow the political party they see as helping them the most. As stereotypical as it may sound, the ones living in poverty are usually minorities.
The democrats cater to minorities. Estrada has been labeled a Latino and a minority, but many of the democrats have said that Estrada can not be a minority because he did not live in need.

Note to JD and Rick: this may come as a shock to you two moderates, but most Americans believe there is such a thing as radical LEFT! Last time I checked, George Bush, who would not have been my first or second choice for president, is still very popular with a majority of the American public you imagine you speak for.

Mario Cuomo once had a radio talk show for about 2 minutes and Phil Donohue's ratings are in the tank ---meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck are Energizer bunnies, thanks to the American public.

You guys have the American public confused with the Hollywood crowd.

The Republicans should have pulled this stuff instead of letting Ruth Ginzburg in. What you think Estrada is to the right, Ginzburg is to the left, and then some.

And while I am at it Rick, regarding Clarence Thomas- I am not a fan of Thomas, and think he was a poor choice --not because of his politics or race, either--but I squirmed just as much watching that degrading inquisition about a hair on a Coke can as I did when they were humiliating Clinton re Oval Sex. The Hollywood crowd thought a pube on a coke was a humongous deal, but a bj in the white house was no big deal. Double standard? No, of course you wouldn't think so.

eleltea

"humongous deal" would depend upon what you are the recipient of, the bj or the coke.

True, Rick. lol. But remember, there wasn't really a hair on the coke can. Old Clarence was simply accused of asking if there was one. He should have shown her his Vienna. No one would have thought it was nearly as big a deal.

Politics??? ... you bet it is ... and both sides play the game ...

And quite frankly, I'm damn glad to see "my" (read "conservative") side get a chance to make some of the nominations ... too conservative? ... not even a little bit, except by comparison to the too liberal bunch I'm more than a little bit tired of seeing way too many of ...

Mag, yes, I did read it. It seems that Montecristo #2 I sent you laced with leftist dust has yet to take effect...

I can't figure out why you are surprised or irked that the Democrats only support folks who are at least close to their basic values. What made you think otherwise? Who ever said that Democrats supported minorities, whatever their political views? Of course that isn't true. They are a political party with ideas, and support folks with those ideas.

"The Dems want it their way when they are the majority, and when the arent. It doesnt work that way."

Sure, Mike, you aren't ignoring that the Republicans did the exact same thing while in office. To not 'want it their way' would be to have some pretty weak ideas. People believe in things because they think they are right and good, after all.

My point about the electoral college was not that Bush shouldn't be president (though the Florida process, during voting and then during counting, was pretty shaky). My point was that you can't say the Democrats don't reflect mainstream views when they got over half the vote in 2000.

Plus, I do think the electoral college is bull****. It seems indefensible at this point. I mean, hey, look at the power it gives the Cuban wacko-expats in Miami. We have a standing embargo, something that will never be overturned, and it has ZERO support from the american people. But that's another issue. My point was only that the Democrats represent widely held views, whatever the reception of those views amongst you and your friends (just as I can't deny that Republicans hold some mainstream views as well).

Estrada is anything but mainstream. Read the link above. He is opposed by a pretty ideologically diverse group of organizations. The Heritage Foundation? Man, those guys are one step from goosestepping down Pennsylvania Avenue. That is a SCARY endorsement.

John

Mag - You're a great guy but I think you're off base on this. Look at it from a purely political view and the dems are doing the same thing that's been done in politics since the beginning, supporting their side. That's all there is to it, using the race issue when it's convenient dosen't work and race should not be considered for or against any candidate within the government or anywhere else. If anyone doesn't agree with Estrada's views then they have the right to oppose him, whether they are rep/dem, hisp/white, male/female. That's the system actually working for a change.

Now if people had similar views and they were still opposing him simply due to ethnicity then I would be right there with you arguing against it.

The Dems oppose Estradas nomination coming to a vote, because he hasn't answered key questions on his legal opinions. Would you hire someone who refused to answer your questions at a job interview??

When Estradas' nomination was in committee, the judicial committee, He was asked about his record and told them that it was irrelevant. He was backed by the republicans in the committee, and was never ordered to answer. That is why the Democrats are filabustering.
Later
Homebrew
P.S. I am not A Dem or Republican
I am a Libertarian

Whoa Man,
Don't get so emotional. There are a majority of republicans on the judicial sub committee. They just voted along party lines. You should do the research if you want a balanced arguement. If not your arguement just goes round in circles.
Later
Homebrew

Homrbrew, sorry if I seem too emotional to you. I dont think I was, but it's hard to say when its all in type.

About the judicial committee having more republicans than Democrats, I didnt say they didnt have that. I said they ALL arent Republicans. That means Democrats need to work at swaying a few republicans opinions to win a vote.

Just like President Bush had to get MANY Democrats to vote Republican to win the election. The Democrats dont seem to have confidence in their arguments to do the same. If there is a vote that runs down party lines, whats wrong with that? When you have the majority that is one of the perks, so to speak. Even if its by 1 vote. Democrats do the same!

When Ronald Reagan or Bush Sr. won the presidency, they both had to get many Democrats to vote Republican. Why do Republicans do this so well, when they are the minority? If Democrats had better ideas, they would win easily EVERY time, being they have the majority of registered voters. Democrats at this time are frustrated and a fillabuster is there way out.

John, it doesnt matter if the election was won by only 1 vote. The winner is in control, those ideas get first priority, possible nominees WILL be of the winners choosing. If your party won the election, you would expect them to put into effect people with your views. Just my opinion. I'm trying too not be too emotional for you guys! :>)

Mag

Mag,

Your description, while accurate, is actually an interesting indictment of our form of democracy. 'Winner-take-all' is really problematic. You win by one vote and you get to set the whole agenda? That is wacky. We need better forms of representation, and your description shows it. But that is a big issue...

Further, Estrada does not represent mainstream republican views. He is so insanely conservative that most republicans, who are very moderate as a bunch, would find him alienating.

Lastly, funny again that you say 'if you won by just one vote'...Bush did NOT win by a vote. He lost the vote count.

Yes, I know all about the electoral college and all that...I don't need that lecture. But doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable that you could win the electoral college and not get the majority of votes? I honestly don't think that sits well with anyone, even if it benefits you in an election. It just doesn't seem right that a president could be elected without the majority of people behind him. And then to enact some wacky conservative policy/nominations that don't even represent the mainstream of his party...? (Think here of restricting humanitarian aid to groups that counsel on abortion).

Hmmmm...seems like our democratic system needs some fixing up.

Thank god for the filibuster. Yes, it is part of democratic governance.

John

eleltea

consider your break given.

consider your given a break.

a given break is a consideration

a consideration is a break given.

i'm getting new brakes on the caddy and am considering diferent quotes.


a rabbi, a minister, and a priest walk into a bar