Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Dims did the same fililbustering.
You know - like they filibustered the hispanic appointee solely becuase he was a republican hispanic and didn't want the repubs to have a hsispanic success story.
The name of this supposed appointee filibustered solely for being a Republican and Hispanic?
Yes, the person did not get the seat, because Republicans were trying to win political points by getting a Hispanic person into the slot. That by basic definition is DISCRIMINATION.
Do you even have the foggiest clue? Why do I even bother to ask.
Estrada was "highly qualified" according to the bar.
He graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree from Columbia in 1983. He received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Estrada served as a law clerk to Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He then clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during his first year on the Court in 1988. One of his fellow clerks during that year was Peter Keisler, another controversial conservative nominee to the D.C. Circuit whose nomination was never processed by the Senate Democrats during the 110th Congress.
From 1990 until 1992, Estrada served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. In 1992, he joined the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General for the George H. W. Bush Administration where he served with now Chief Justice John G. Roberts. In those capacities, Estrada represented the government in numerous jury trials and in many appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, he practiced law in New York with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
He was denied a hearing simply for political reasons.
Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because "he is Latino," and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee.[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[6] Democrats argued that Estrada had extreme right-wing views, although others pointed to Estrada's difference with some conservatives on Commerce Clause issues.[7]
Estrada's was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate.[12] Estrada's was the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee.[12] It was also the first filibuster that prevented a judicial nominee from joining a court.
Republicans back then were pussies.. and they're pussies now. Dimocrats are unethical, power hungry, and corrupt. They have the media on their side. But at least they know how to fight.
And Studly - tell me something - why is it okay to let people into the university of michigan based on race -but not the supreme court. This I have to hear.....
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 11/21/2013 4:38:00 PM >
|
Historic change in senate rules - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread