now.org
The first part is just about his politics. The fact that he is a conservative doesn't make him either unqualified or a racist.
As to the other statements in your link -
Of particular concern to
Democratic senators are Pickering's ties to
Mississippi's Sovereignty Commission, a
state-funded agency established after Brown v.
Board of Education to oppose integration efforts.
Probing Pickering's relationship to this group,
Feinstein asked Pickering about his decision — while
serving in the Mississippi state senate — to twice
vote to fund this group, which monitored civil rights
leaders in the 1960s and 1970s. Pickering alleged
that at the time of the vote, he did not realize the
Commission was still functional, then stated he
would not have voted the same way today.
This is the best argument against Pickering in the whole article but its still week. All sorts of groups are funded by state or federal governments often as part of a bill so big and containing so many things that the people doing the voting don't know what they are voting for.
Shedding more light on the nominee's past, Russ
Feingold (D-Wis.) questioned Pickering about the
statements he made when he switched to the
Republican party in 1964, the year African-Americans
intensified their efforts to get the vote in Mississippi
and other states across the South. At the time,
Pickering allegedly stated that Mississippi "had been
heaped upon with humiliation" by the national
Democratic party's support of many civil rights
initiatives and that the "Republican party was the
only hope for rescuing Mississippi from socialism."
A Democrat might also say that the Democratic party was heaping on humilation on the Republicans at the time if it was embarasing the Republican party for not supporting civil rights legislation back then. There isn't enough here to amount to support for the idea that Pikering is racist.
Certainly avoiding socialism is a good reason to not support the Democratic party.
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) broached the issue of
Pickering's role as judge in the 1994 trial of a man
accused, along with two others, of burning an 8-foot
cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. Pickering
also faced questions about the trial from John
Edwards (D-N.C.), who said that Pickering had
offered to grant a new trial, on his own motion.
Pickering first denied the allegations, then stated he
had "no recollection of having said that." When
Durbin asked why Pickering had gone to such great
lengths to assist the defendant, Pickering replied
that he was concerned about the unfair disparity in
sentencing. (The other two defendants, who pleaded
guilty, received less severe sentences.)
If you start with the assumption that Pickering is a racist then in your mind this might bolster the case for that idea but without starting with that assumption this amounts to nothing. Making an effort to make sure that a particular person, who happens to be a racist, gets a fair trial is not evidence that you are a racist. If it was you would have to call the ACLU racist.
In answer to a question posed by Durbin, Pickering
attempted to justify calling his former law partner —
a self-described firm believer in segregation...
So calling a racist on the phone is evidence that you are a racist?!?
Tim |
