Miguel Estrada

[Guest Ace309]

... All humour aside, though, it's come to my attention that I'm grossly misinformed on Miguel Estrada's qualifications.

 

- He has never heard so much as a traffic case, ie, he has no experience as a judge at any level.

-- Counterpoint: As a lawyer, he has more experience than Ruth Bader-Ginsberg at the time of her nomination, which (obviously) was not blocked by the Republican Senate under Clinton.

 

- He claimed 'no opinion' on several important cases, particularly Roe v. Wade.

-- Counterpoint: This seems to be common practice. Personally, I know that Clarence Thomas did the same thing with Roe v. Wade, but have no knowledge of other justices' claims under these circumstances. Is this one of those 'fifth-amendment dealies' (technical term) that allow justices to avoid controversial positions? Have recent liberal candidates for judgeships done the same thing?

 

- Dude, he's an ultraconservative Latino. I didn't even know they existed.

-- Counterpoint: I am white male scum and should be castrated.

 

But seriously. I'm interested in opinions on and defenses or indictments of Estrada generally or the positions above.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Latinos are more conservative than one may think -- hell, a lot of minorites are. Problem is the GOP does a pisspoor job of attracting them, imo...

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Latinos are more conservative than one may think -- hell, a lot of minorites are. Problem is the GOP does a pisspoor job of attracting them, imo...

Actually I would say liberals just do a BETTER job of luring them over.

[Guest Dangerous A]

The Estrada situation is going to hurt the democrats somewhat. A lot of latinos lean left just because they are a minority but it will look bad if the democratic party stops the first latino up for the supreme court. There was a lot of feedback on talk radio yesterday (and I keep in mind talk radio is dominated by the right) from latino's who were outraged that the democrats would do this. It could get ugly with race relations and the democrats. They also have Al Sharpton attempting to run as a democrat for president in 2004. That can also turn ugly because the democrats know he isn't the right man, but Sharpton comes off very charismatic and if the democrats don't handle him with kid gloves when they oust him, he could make a big stink and take a lot of the Black votes with him.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That's rather bullshit that there is an uprising in the Latin community over the democrats' disapproval of Estrada's nomination.

 

It's really not a WHITEBOY~! vs. Latin situation. We'd vote against Jesus Christ being a justice if he was a conservative.

[Guest Ace309]

Who here was paying attention during Bader-Ginsburg's hearing? I understand she was nearly blocked. Can anyone lend a little more info?

[Guest Dangerous A]

I'm not saying the Dems are making it a WHITEBOY vs Latinos situation, however the latino community may make it that way.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"It's really not a WHITEBOY~! vs. Latin situation. We'd vote against Jesus Christ being a justice if he was a conservative."

 

I'd love to see the feminazis lobby against Mr. Christ going to the High Court. Why? Because he'd be pro-life!

 

"Actually I would say liberals just do a BETTER job of luring them over."

 

Agreed. Minorities flocked over to the Dems decades back and have just stayed there, and that Party has taken their votes for granted for so long.

 

"Who here was paying attention during Bader-Ginsburg's hearing? I understand she was nearly blocked. Can anyone lend a little more info?"

 

I really wasn't paying attention, but I don't think there was a mass protest to block her.

 

"I'm not saying the Dems are making it a WHITEBOY vs Latinos situation, however the Latino community may make it that way."

 

A few days ago I saw some LULAC rep. on TV chastising Democrats over the Estrada issue -- that was a strange sight.

 

Maybe next election the GOP will get 20% of the Latino vote -- that will make Republicans spooge themselves...

[Guest Olympic Slam]

A few days ago I saw some LULAC rep. on TV chastising Democrats over the Estrada issue -- that was a strange sight.

I think I saw that too. These groups like LULAC whose entire agenda is race based make me sick. Their entire goal is to advance Latinos and only Latinos........so damn racist.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I'm assuming you're also including the NAACP?...

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

The Dems seem to have this fear of criticizing anyone too hard if they represent a minority. The only reason Clarence Thomas made it to the supreme court so easily is because he is black.

 

As for conservative latinos, look no further than Miami's cuban community.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Those guys down in Miami are pretty much the exception to the rule.

 

And Mr. Thomas had NO trouble at all getting confirmed.

 

I can't help but remember the Dems using that black judge Ashcroft refused to "promote" (or whatever it was called) to a more prominent bench, and they used that race card sh*t on him. But whatever. If you play the game of "he did this, so I can do this" NOBODY would be able to do anything...

[Guest JMA]

It's really not a WHITEBOY~! vs. Latin situation. We'd vote against Jesus Christ being a justice if he was a conservative.

Christ is as liberal as they come. I think he'd be pro-choice myself. Keep in mind I'm going by history and not the various myths.

[Guest Some Guy]

For once the Dems are not playing the race warfare, it's the GOP. The Dems withhold the right to their double standard when they want an ultra-liberal minority judge and call the GOP racists for not wanting the Court sullied by that shit, but when it's the other way around they're "just looking out for the good of the country" or some other such nonsense. The truth of the matter is that Dems and the GOP don't really care about minorities unless they are in their party. They don't really care about anybody unless they're in their party for that matter.

 

Historically blacks were Republicans, the party of Lincoln. Then FDR came up with the idea of buying their votes and LBJ cemented that with Affirmative Action. That was the shift and neither party does much to garner the votes of the black vote. But what you are seeing now is the GOP going hard for the largest minority in the country's vote, the Hispanics. (Black 12.7%, Hispanics 13% of the population and blacks vote in much larger numbers) There is a huge untappes population out there that is ripe for the taking and the GOP has reached first. ALthough they did nominate teh first woman and black to the Supreme court and got nothing out of it, so who knows?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

LBJ cemented that with Affirmative Action.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't affirmative action established by the decision in Bakke vs. University of California?

 

I don't think Affirmative Action was ever instituted as a policy by any president. It just happens to be that most democrats are big supporters of social welfare and inner-city reform, in direct contrast with Republicans. Due to the fact that the majority of these races live in cities (as opposed to rural or suburban areas), their vote typically falls to the democrats.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

For once the Dems are not playing the race warfare, it's the GOP.

Agreed! I can't stand it when Sean Hannity goes on a tirade about how the Dems are supposed to be the party of the minorities and that they're somehow hypocrites for not being in favor of Estrada. This kind of an attack is no better than accusing Trent Lott of being a racist because he didn't support affirmative action. For shame......

 

Although I will say this, I can bet you the Liberals hate Estrada more because he is a conservative hispanic. The fact that a minority doesn't blindly go along with their usual rhetoric must frost them.

[Guest LooseCannon]

- He claimed 'no opinion' on several important cases, particularly Roe v. Wade.

-- Counterpoint: This seems to be common practice. Personally, I know that Clarence Thomas did the same thing with Roe v. Wade, but have no knowledge of other justices' claims under these circumstances. Is this one of those 'fifth-amendment dealies' (technical term) that allow justices to avoid controversial positions? Have recent liberal candidates for judgeships done the same thing?

This is common practice but it has nothing to do with the 5th amendment, but actually has to do with the cases and controversies clause of the Article III. In our adversary legal system, we prefer for the judges to make decisions based on a factual record before them, and to not just announce a philosophical principle from some insulated position from reality. On many issues a judge during confirmation hearings will say something like he'd have to see the pleadings in a concrete controversy before he could decide the issue.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't affirmative action established by the decision in Bakke vs. University of California?

 

Some affirmative action policies have been instituted by Congress and signed off on by the president. But the issue in Bakke was whether or not a state government (specifically CA state college admission procedures) could continue it's affirmative action policies. And of course 4 voted yes for strict quotas, 4 voted for no preferences at all. And Justice Powell wrote the opinion that justifies a racial-preference, but not quotas, which survives to this day. So it wouldn't be correct to say, Bakke established affirmative action. It just upheld and struck down policies that had already existed.

[Guest JMA]

The fact that a minority doesn't blindly go along with their usual rhetoric must frost them.

You mean like how conservatives get upset when a Southerner (like myself) doesn't blindly follow them? I do agree with you about Hannity, though. The man is a blow-hard. My favorite President was a Republican (Lincoln) but his party has been warped by conservatives and religious nuts. There are some Republicans I like today (such as McCain and Tucker Carlson). I just think it's weird that ONLY conservative Republicans appear on TV. Where are all the moderate and liberal Republicans?