Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: paul_philp who wrote (67809)	1/22/2003 9:39:42 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) of 281500

I'm back again to the same post, Paul, the link to the New Republic article and the National Review story. Interesting articles. My read is that they basically offer the same set of events but read Pickering's intentions differently. My small amount of research turned up some things that related more to the last paragraph of The New Republic essay than to the cross burning. Plus some other things. The cross-burning case is just the most flagrant example of Pickering's dubious performance as a judge. He has been reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the one on which Bush wants to place him) 26 times, 15 of them for violating "well-settled principles of law"--an embarrassing rebuke in which the higher court finds the answer so obvious it doesn't even bother to publish its opinion. (By contrast, the last judge Bush named to the Fifth Circuit, Edith Brown Clement, had not one such reversal.) No, Pickering is not a racist. But he is a judicial activist who disregards both the letter and intent of the law when he doesn't agree with it. And, as such, Democrats have no reason to confirm him.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next