[typoon]

Yet they block Qualified candidates by the President. First Estrada now it's Justice Janice Brown. These 2 minorities are more than qualified yet the democrats oppose them because the don't like what these people stand for. The don't toe the typical party line. I thought the liberals and Democrats in this country were all for a colorblind society but yet they oppose the qualified minorities because they don't toe the party line.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by typoon:
These 2 minorities are more than qualified yet the democrats oppose them because the don't like what these people stand for.

I think you answered your own question. They don't like what they stand for, has nothing to do with "minorities."

Most Bush appointees are extremists and there's been little attempt to hide that. If you think it has something to do with color, wow, you are living in a wierd world.

Nice trolling though.

[adamk]

Originally posted by typoon:
Yet they block Qualified candidates by the President. First Estrada now it's Justice Janice Brown. These 2 minorities are more than qualified yet the democrats oppose them because the don't like what these people stand for. The don't toe the typical party line. I thought the liberals and Democrats in this country were all for a colorblind society but yet they oppose the qualified minorities because they don't toe the party line.

who is Justice Janice Brown?

In many ways, her line of thinking mirrors both the Bush administration and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A Christian black woman from the segregated South, Brown supports limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, routinely upholds the death penalty and opposes affirmative action.

....she formulates opinions "in prayer and quiet study of the Bible." And in her commencement address, she criticized philosophers and scientists for trying to mold society "as if God did not exist."

....But when it comes to the death penalty, Brown routinely affirms death sentences. Two years ago, she wrote that "murderers do not deserve a fate better than that inflicted on their victims."

....The White House, which is trying to expand the use of federal death penalty statutes, declined comment on rumors that its lawyers have interviewed Brown in the event a seat on the high court opens.

as for your assertion that she shouldn't be blocked because she is a minority, should she (or any other minority) get the job because of that fact? i would think not. it should be based on her views and those are generally in contrast with liberal beliefs. so is it any suprise at all that they don't want the (pro-corporation, pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-afirmative action) nominee in the supreme court?

adam

[nonhuman]

There's this thing called "trying to win". Even if there's a really qualified, really good in every way candidate, if they happen to be black or hispanic or otherwise not-white, it's very unlikely that the majority of Americans are going to vote for them.

By not choosing a minority candidate, the Democratic party isn't saying they don't like minorities, they're simply recognizing that the country isn't ready to elect a minority to president.

[Lerkfish]

some conservatives don't understand why tokenism is a bad thing.

[thunderous_funker]

Wait a sec...Liberals decide whether or not to support a nominee based on the nominee's ideas, not based on skin color only???

Bastards!!!

Was SimeytheLimey the only conservative on this board capable of a cogent argument???

These trolling threads are getting really pathetic.

[einmakom]

Actually, Janice Brown's only decision on affirmative action was the opinion that people should be judged on the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Brown wrote an opinion opposed to racial preferences, because she opposes racism.

Remember, the Liberals that degrade and dishonor the meaning of the word liberalism also rallied against Miguel Estrada and years prior, Clarence Thomas.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Actually, Janice Brown's only decision on affirmative action was the opinion that people should be judged on the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Brown wrote an opinion opposed to racial preferences, because she opposes racism.

Remember, the Liberals that degrade and dishonor the meaning of the word liberalism also rallied against Miguel Estrada and years prior, Clarence Thomas.

Which leaves us where?

Are these decisions to support or oppose based on the color of their skin or the content of their character?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Actually, Janice Brown's only decision on affirmative action was the opinion that people should be judged on the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Brown wrote an opinion opposed to racial preferences, because she opposes racism.

Remember, the Liberals that degrade and dishonor the meaning of the word liberalism also rallied against Miguel Estrada and years prior, Clarence Thomas.

So if the nominee is Republican, affirmative action is a good thing? Where were all these anti-affirmative action sentiments when Thomas, who no one seriously believed was "the best qualified," was nominated?

President Bush, with a straight face, on Clarence Thomas:

"The fact that he is black and a minority has nothing to do with this sense that he is the best qualified at this time. I kept my word to the American people and to the Senate by picking the best man for the job on the merits."

If you're going to practice affirmative action, fine, I'm not the one objecting to it. Just call it what it is. Pretending that it's "strictly on the merits," then accusing the other side of racism for objecting on the merits, is pretty bogus.

Unfortunately, the race card gets played with equal audaciousness by both sides.

[einmakom]

Actually, you mistake me -

You see an inconsistency that isn't there.

I simply say that being for Minorities means valuing all people for the quality of and content of their character, not the color of skin.

Estrada, Brown, Bush, and Thomas all seem to have agreed, from the content of their opinions.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Actually, you mistake me -

You see an inconsistency that isn't there.

I simply say that being for Minorities means valuing all people for the quality of and content of their character, not the color of skin.

Estrada, Brown, Bush, and Thomas all seem to have agreed, from the content of their opinions.

The key words are "seem to." IMO the inconsistency is that they preach against affirmative action, but still practice it when it's politically expedient, Thomas being the perfect example. They further the charade by accusing the Democrats of "bigotry" towards their minority nominees, when in fact the Democrats' objections are political in nature.

It's a shell game that both parties play. The Republicans want to attract more minority voters, while the Dems want to send the message that any Supreme Court nominations that Bush makes had better be moderate. These are just preliminaries for the big battles to come.