"I was criticizing your statements ("They called
nominees "Nazis" & identified Miguel Estrada as especially
dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail & he
is "Latino".") as being distortions."
Distortions? First, I didn't distort anything. they
weren't "my" statements. I repeated a few choice examples
of what has been widely reported from these memos. My
problem with those memos was clear. I said, "The content of
those memos shows how unscrupulous Democrats were." Here's
a sample of what I meant.......
Memorandum
To: Senator Durbin
From: <redacted>
Date: 11/7/01
RE: <font size=4>Meeting with Civil Righs Leaders Yesterday to Discuss Judges
<font size=3>
Due to floor activity last night, <font size=4>you missed a meeting with Senator Kennedy and representatives of various civil rights groups........
Yersterday's meetings accomplished two objectives.<font size=3> First, the groups advocated for some procedural ground rules......
<font size=4>
Second, yesterday's meeting focused on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a strategy for targeting them. The groups singled out three.... They also targeted Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circut) - as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.....
<font size=3>
<<I suggest you read the entire "Talking Points on Estrada
for Cacus" memo (page 25 & 26) of the .pdf linked below
to see more on how this "Latino" thing was handled by the
democrats. Estrada is called "a stealth, right-wing
zealot", among other disparaging things toward him & the
Bush Administration.>>
fairjudiciary.campsol.com
DEMOCRATS ON JUDGES
A series of Democrat memos on judicial nominations was
leaked to the Wall Street Journal, where it was the subject
of a November 14 editorial. The most disturbing information
in the memos is highlighted in the editorial, which is
attached. As one memo makes clear, for example, Democrats
specifically targeted Miguel Estrada because he is
Hispanic. (That memo alone would seem to give Estrada a
prima facie Title VII claim.)...............
Two noteworthy themes emerge in the memos:
<font size=4>
1. The Extreme-Left Groups’ Total Control over the
Democrats’ Actions on Judicial Nominations. The memos
repeatedly make clear that a small collection of extreme-
left groups – abortion groups, race organizations, and
leftist groups specifically focused on judges – are
driving the Democrats’ agenda and decisions. These groups
tell Democrats which judicial nominees to attack and vote
down, when to hold hearings on which nominee, how many
hearings to hold, and rules for allowing floor votes. The
memos even indicate that the groups persuaded Democrats to
delay nominations in order to affect pending cases.<font size=3> Two of
the Durbin memos identify the principal groups as: National
Abortion Rights Action League, Alliance for Justice,
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the
American Way, Association of University Women, National
Women’s Law Center, and National Partnership. All of these
groups support abortion on demand and partial-birth
abortion, oppose parental notification, and support
widespread use of race in public hiring and distribution of
public benefits...........
<font size=4>
Manipulating the Michigan Race-Preferences Case <font size=3>An April
2002 memo to Kennedy indicates that NAACP “would like the
[Judiciary] Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit
nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding
the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher
education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit. . . . . The
thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the
affirmative action program, but if a new judge with
conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided,
the new judge will be able . . . to review the case and
vote on it.” The Kennedy memo later states that the
staffers “are a little concerned about the propriety of
scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular
case. We are also aware that the 6th Circuit is in dire
need of judges.” But the memo concludes: “Nevertheless we
recommend that Gibbons be scheduled for a later hearing:
the Michigan case is important.” Apparently, the NAACP
got what it wanted. Gibbons is one of five judicial
nominees who received a Judiciary Committee hearing on
April 25, 2002. Democrats allowed the other four nominees
to be voted on in the full Senate on May 9, before the
Sixth Circuit decided the Michigan case. The vote on
Gibbons was delayed until July 29 – well after Michigan was
decided........
.......2. Ideological Extremism and Crass Partisanship. The
memos also reveal the extreme views and attitudes and cold
political calculations motivating the Democrats’ actions on
judges.
The Ideological Fringe <font size=4>A November 2001 Durbin memo sets the
tone by noting that “most of Bush’s nominees are nazis.” <font size=3>
Jay Bybee, a nominee to the Ninth Circuit, gets off
relatively easily: a February 2003 Kennedy memo merely
describes him as “an awful nominee.” <font size=4>Another memo,
titled “Owen Talking Points for Caucus,” attacks the
whole Fifth Circuit, describing it as “one of the least
fair and least just circuit courts.” But the most abuse is
directed at Miguel Estrada. Interestingly, though Judiciary
Democrats argued to themselves that they should defeat
Estrada because he is Hispanic and an attractive Supreme
Court nominee, they told a different story to other
Democrats. A document titled “Talking Points on Estrada for
Caucus” states that Estrada “has serious temperament
problems” – that he is not “even-tempered” and “a short
fuse.” (None of this came out in Estrada’s committee
hearing.) The “Talking Points” conclude by declaring Miguel
Estrada “a stealth, right-wing zealot.”·
The Triumph of Politics The fall 2002 memos repeatedly urge
Democrats to delay nominees for purposes of election
politics.<font size=3> A September 2002 Kennedy memo notes that a
hearing has been proposed for Sixth Circuit nominee Deborah
Cook for early October. The memo argues that it “would
demoralize Democrats’ key constituents – in particular,
labor – to have a hearing before the election.” (Cook did
not receive a hearing until the next January, after
Republicans took control of the committee.) The same memo
expresses alarm that committee votes may be scheduled for
McConnell and Estrada before the recess. It states that “we
think this is a terrible idea and that voting on (and for)
these nominees would be demoralizing to our base before the
election.” The Democrats’ need to satisfy “the base” was
not limited to periods before elections. A January 2003
memo describes a meeting attended by Daschle, Reid, Leahy,
Durbin, Edwards, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Schumer. The memo
notes that “all in attendance, including Daschle and Reid,
voiced the view that the Estrada nomination should be
stopped because,” among other reasons, “the Democratic base
is particularly energized over this issue.” ..........
fairjudiciary.campsol.com |
