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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (481405)	10/25/2003 4:01:16 PM
From: Stevefoder	Respond to of 769667

Minority candidates that are not liberal have a big disadvantage in being confirmed to a federal court. Leftists believe "people of color" must be a part of the Democratic plantation. Anyone who does not toe the line is a traitor to their race. (eg. Estrada, Brown, Thomas). White people with similar experience or judicial record are not held to the same standard by the Democratic Senators.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (481405)	10/25/2003 4:59:42 PM
From: Richard S	Respond to of 769667

Bush is showing his cards. The more extreme right-wing he becomes the more his negative numbers will increase.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (481405)	10/26/2003 8:43:39 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Unspin - What is the "mainstream" and what makes you an "extremist." Critics of federal judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown say she's out of the legal mainstream. That just means they disagree with her. The Issue: What is the "mainstream" and what makes you an "extremist." The Spin: Critics of federal judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown emphasize that she's "far out of the legal mainstream" (David Seldin, NARAL Pro-Choice America) and "embraces the extremism of Thomas and Scalia" (Ralph Neas, People for the American Way) The Unspin: These terms almost always mean nothing other than "I disagree" in a way intended to marginalize one's opponent without actually engaging his or her ideas or views. They should be viewed with suspicion whenever uttered. In the case of Janice Rogers Brown they are marvelously inappropriate. To give People for the American Way credit, it did analyze her decisions, and was especially critical of two: a dissent when the majority threw out a parental-consent for abortion law, and a decision to throw out a city affirmative-action program. As Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen points out, in both decisions she was joined by the famously liberal late Justice Stanley Mosk. Justice Brown wrote the decision that affirmed that Prop. 209, which banned race preferences by government institutions, was constitutional. Let's see, that one was passed by 55 percent of California voters. Are they "out of the mainstream"? The court's decision was unanimous. Were they all "extremist"? California Supreme Court justices go before voters for approval, and in 1998 Janice Brown got 76 percent approval, ahead of three other justices. Were the voters who approved her "out of the mainstream"? Let's dump those terms and talk about issues.