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 (158943)	1/25/2003 9:14:47 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580018

"When an adverse action is taken affecting one covered by [civil rights] laws, there is a tendency on the part of the person affected to spontaneously react that discrimination caused the action. All of us have difficulty accepting the fact that we sometimes create our own problems." Never was a truer statement uttered. Look at Rodney King. In Seeley v. City of Hattiesburg, a case involving a Black firefighter who was terminated, and also sought damages under the protection of civil rights laws, Pickering wrote: "The fact that a Black employee is terminated does not automatically indicate discrimination...This case has all the hallmarks of a case that is filed simply because an adverse employment decision was made in regard to a protected minority." What, on earth, is wrong with this statement? Hell, who in their right mind could disagree with it? It doesn't help the cause of black people when firing one automatically results in the employer losing in a discrimination suit. You ought to be embarrassed to raise such a weak argument in support of naming this man a "racist". You, who talk about needing to know "what happened in the case", would take a couple of out of context quotes (that appear, in both instances, to be inarguably factual) and assert they comprise some kind of support for the idea of calling this man a racist. He has been borked. Bush is trying to right the wrong that was done by the Democrats. I hope like hell the facts of the Pickering nomination are brought before the American public who will readily understand the disgusting actions of the Democrats in this matter. Sickening, political behavior -- the politics of personal destruction. The ONLY thing a damned Democrat knows how to do.

To: tejek who wrote (158943)	1/26/2003 8:32:59 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580018

Re: Who Is Charles Pickering? By Stacey Barney Nice, balanced, article.

To: tejek who wrote (158943)	1/27/2003 5:47:40 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1580018

Some of these things I've responded to be for. I'll respond to the new claims. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kent) says this about the judge: "The record of Charles Pickering can be expressed in two words: moral courage. When victims of racial injustice looked for justice, they found it in one man, Jones County Attorney Charles Pickering." Not something usually said about racists. Pickering has testified against Klan members. And yes, as Johnny Magee, an African American Laurel business man and member of city council defends, Pickering has even helped Laurel, Mississippi "civic leaders...develop after-school programs to keep Black males from coming into his court on criminal charges." Looking less and less like a racist. In Foxworth, et al. v. Merchants Co., a case involving two Blacks who jointly owned a grocery store, and sought damages under the civil rights laws against a supplier who stopped extending credit, Pickering wrote: "When an adverse action is taken affecting one covered by [civil rights] laws, there is a tendency on the part of the person affected to spontaneously react that discrimination caused the action. All of us have difficulty accepting the fact that we sometimes create our own problems." To get a real reading of the case we would probably need the court transcripts not a summary of one short paragraph. However Not agreeing to give damages to someone who sued under civil rights legislation in a case about credit doesn't strike me as a being a bad sign that the judge has racist tendencies. As for the comment "sometimes we create our own problems". Well they very well might have. Many people who can't get credit can't because of their own actions. More generally I don't think anyone should be required by the government to extend credit except as a matter of enforcing contract law. But of course that is a matter of opinion about what the law should be, rather then an interpretation of what the law was (the later being Pickering's job in the case). The case seems to amount to Pickering ruling that the credit refusal was not based on racism. Absent proof that it was we can't use it as evidence against Pickering. In Seeley v. City of Hattiesburg, a case involving a Black firefighter who was terminated, and also sought damages under the protection of civil rights laws, Pickering wrote: "The fact that a Black employee is terminated does not automatically indicate discrimination... I agree with Pickering. Of course it may have been discrimination, but once again no evidence or argument is put forward that it was. Absent evidence that the reason for the firing was racial discrimination there is no evidence that Pickering made an incorrect or unjust ruling. it is all the more important to remember that racism did no die with Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, racism is far more potent as it has become almost a seamless part of American society, especially within the context of our nation's governing bodies. Racism did not die, but the rest of the statement is not true. It is not more potent much less far more potent. And it was far more integrated into society and the government in the past. Now it is something that is viewed very negatively by a strong majority of people, and often acts based on it can bring harsh penalties. No, racism did not die. It simply became institutionalized. Again it was institutionalized in the past, not unless you are counting affirmitive action, racism is much less institutionalized. If Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) is to be believed, "...this 5th Circuit seat is as important as a Supreme Court seat. Feinstein is exagerating. So, in the end, who is Charles Pickering? A segregationist racist or a man of moral courage who is an unfortunate political scapegoat? If these fundamental questions can't be answered with any sense of surety, then Pickering does not belong on the 5th Circuit bench. Obviously some people are out to get him as part of a political battle. Since he is being attacked it raises the question - "Are these attacks valid". If this question can not be answered then the default assumption should normally be that they are not. Tim