Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (158883)	1/24/2003 7:45:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580215

The Dem. criticism of Pickering could be considered nefarious if by objecting, they somehow get to put a Dem. in his place but we both know that isn't about to happen. They don't hope to get a Dem, they just hope to avoid confirming conservatives. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (158883)	1/24/2003 7:45:39 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580215

am astounded.......the Reps. were 24/7 obstructionist when Clinton was in office Perhaps you could mention the names and circumstances under which the Republicans "obstructed" Clinton nominations? There were some nominations blocked, but in my recollection they involved substantive issues like, for example, CRIMES being committed...

To: tejek who wrote (158883)	1/24/2003 8:49:00 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580215

My God, Bush's nomination to the AIDS committee starting slamming gays And when he did Bush ran his butt out on a rail.

To: tejek who wrote (158883)	1/24/2003 9:05:02 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580215

Its why I don't bother to develop any substantive discussions with you. Developing an argument with someone who is incapable of seeing beyond his own opinion is senseless and time wasting. Your opinion is he is a racist. My opinion is there is no evidence to that effect. I would argue that you've yet to put forth anything approaching an argument that the man is a racist. You quoted Byron York's articles, which both clearly indicate the man is not a racist. Then you quoted something from NOW or somebody that scarcely referenced the issue. WHO is not making a substantive discussion? You can look at the available material until you're blue in the face and you still can't find significant support for the idea the guy is a racist. You have cited an article that contains almost zero material on the subject, and suggest that it somehow refutes the extensive research in Byron York's two articles. In fact, MY OPINION is that York's articles clearly indicate that Pickering is NOT a racist. How do you pick this one incident, in which Pickering acted to bring about some fairness in the sentencing, then turn your head to a myriad of other situations in which Pickering has been shown to be ANYTHING but racist? From limiting the sentences of black men whom he believed were deserving of a second chance (is that the behavior of a racist?): --From Pickering's letter to Hatch One case involved a 20 year-old African American male who faced a mandatory minimum five year sentence," Pickering wrote. "I departed downward to 30 months. I also recommended that he be allowed to participate in the intensive confinement program which further reduced his sentence." Pickering also described the case of a 58-year-old black man who faced a five-year mandatory sentence, plus a minimum of 46 months for a separate drug charge. Pickering again sentenced the man to 30 months. In two other cases, he threw out any jail time for men who faced prison terms of 18 and 40 months, respectively. Both defendants were black. "I have departed downward in far more cases involving African Americans than I have in cases involving white defendants," Pickering wrote. Pickering sent Hatch the names of the cases, the case numbers, letters from the defense lawyers involved, and the phone numbers of people to call to check his account of his sentencing practices. These are not the actions of a racist. And then there is the following passage (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/01-27-03/nowacki.htm): In the 1960s, while a county attorney, he worked with the FBI to prosecute violent Klan members in Mississippi. In 1967, he testified against an Imperial Wizard of the KKK charged with the murder of a civil rights activist, despite the risks involved. In 1977, he voted to shut down the Sovereignty Commission and preserve its records instead of destroying them. He has served on the board of the University of Mississippi’s Institute for Racial Reconciliation. He hired the Mississippi Republican Party’s first black political worker. He kept his children in public schools as they were integrating. And many black individuals who know him well—judges, clergymen, civil rights workers, and others—support his confirmation. The point is, there is simply no evidence of racist activities in this man's past. This is about politics. Period. Assuming, arguendo, that your one point concerning the sentencing in the Swan case WAS evidence of racism, certainly his anti-racist acts far outweigh it. Again, this is all about politics and power, and the racism claim is merely an attempt to justify Democrat obstructionism to the public who doesn't always pay attention to these things. Bush should be lauded for having the unmitigated guts to send Pickering back for reconsideration. He is putting the Constitution before politics. This is a good thing.