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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (138)	11/16/2004 1:38:46 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Cosby's Spine Not Made of Jello Bill Cosby is back in the news for making sense and sticking to his guns. For several months he has been speaking out, against the example of other black leaders, and decrying the lack of self-responsibility in lower income black communities. Cosby has railed against families who will buy an expensive pair of sneakers for their youngsters instead of school materials. He has turned a verbal flame thrower on African-Americans who use racial epithets for each other, and warns that not learning to speak English properly is ruining their chances of good employment. Sheryl McCarthy, in an opinion piece for Newsday, says Cosby makes sense. Good advice, but it continues to grate on black sensibilities. At a conference of black newspaper columnists I attended in Cambridge, Mass., last week, some of my colleagues said they thought Cosby's criticisms unfairly blamed the black victims of racism for their situation. Mostly, however, they worried that his comments would fan white people's negative feelings about blacks, without forcing them to acknowledge the role that racism and unequal opportunity plays in causing this kind of behavior. Conservatives, of every color, are glad that a voice of reason is emerging from the African-American community. Not because, as blacks may suspect, it gives us ammunition to use against them, but because the things Cosby is saying echo the foundations of our own beliefs about ourselves. We believe in self-reliance and in helping our fellow man. We see self destructive behavior in the black community, and we see that circumstances could change simply by behaving differently; by preparing to grasp the opportunities that arise. Opportunities are everywhere but they must be fought for by anyone, no matter what color, if they are to be taken advantage of. We blacks tend to point the finger first and engage in self-examination later. In discussing our problems, white racism is often our default position, even though the real issue for many of us these days isn't lack of opportunity, but the failure to take advantage of the opportunities available. We also need to get over our obsession with what white people think of us. Last week Cosby said he doesn't care what they think. "I'm addressing my people, period." While the need to build acceptance for a message so far outside the norm for black leadership is understandable, the "my people" thread is none the less, lamentable. It not only reinforces the rift between blacks and whites, but Cosby's message is a good one for a lot of lower income whites, too. To lose the opportunity for a good message, from a good man who is loved across the board, to help everyone who needs it, is a shame. Perhaps it's a necessary shame, but a shame it is. It's appropriate that the man who in many ways has become a father figure to both black and white Americans is now speaking to his immediate "family" in the way a tough, but loving father does. Which is to say, "Shape up and get yourselves together, or else stop complaining." I, for one, appreciate his counsel. And a father who tells his family the truth shouldn't worry about whether the neighbors like it or not. The issue isn't whether the neighbors like it; they do. The real issue is whether his "immediate family" likes it. Let's hope they do; an opportunity is a terrible thing to waste. everythingiknowiswrong.com (November 15, 2004)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (138)	11/16/2004 1:41:11 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Thanks for the welcome. I'm hopeful Bush's second term will be fruitful. Josh * * *

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (138)	11/16/2004 2:03:39 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

And the Nominees Are . . . Here's a short list of who might be on deck for the Supreme Court. BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK Monday, November 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST The Supreme Court is shaping up as the first defining issue of a second Bush term--and that's before there's a nominee or even an opening. Consider the gauntlet thrown down last week by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist at the Federalist Society's annual conference. Speaking of Democrats' unprecedented filibuster of 10 appeals-court nominees, Sen. Frist announced his intention to go "nuclear" if they try the same tactic again. Under the "nuclear option," Senate rules would be reinterpreted so that 51 votes, not a supermajority of 60, would be needed to end debate on judicial nominees and move to an up-or-down vote on the floor. The Constitution requires a majority of senators to confirm a president's selection and all of the nominees filibustered in Mr. Bush's first term would have been confirmed by bipartisan majorities if the Senate had been permitted to hold a vote. Mr. Frist has threatened to go nuclear before--but this time there's reason to believe he means it. Reinterpreting the filibuster rules would require a simple majority vote, and in a Senate with a Republican majority of 55 that should be doable--even with the anti-nuclear Sens. Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voting no. Sen. Arlen Specter, who's slated to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is on board too. Mr. Frist's tough talk got a warm reception from Federalist Society conservatives. But chances are he'll never have to walk the walk. When it comes time to consider a filibuster--especially for a high-profile Supreme Court nomination--red-state Democrats are likely to recall the fate of their colleague Tom Daschle and demur. The senator from South Dakota lost his seat this month in part over his obstruction of the president's judicial nominations. Meanwhile, the question of the hour is, what kind of justice would Mr. Bush appoint to the Supreme Court? With Chief Justice William Rehnquist seriously ill, the betting is that Mr. Bush will get to make his first appointment before too many more gavels sound on First Street. As of last week, the man believed to be the leading contender was taken off Court-watchers' lists (at least for now). The president instead nominated Alberto Gonzales as his next attorney general. Also absent is Federalist Society stalwart Ted Olson. Age discrimination may be against the law when the rest of us try to hire someone, but one of the unwritten requirements for the job of justice is that the candidate be young enough to serve at least 20 years. Even Mr. Olson's admirers call him "too old and too controversial." The former solicitor general is 64. Eight names--noted nearby--turn up often in speculation. Interest groups have had four years to compile, scrutinize and spin every word ever uttered or put on paper by each of the presumed candidates. If nominated, all would be attacked from the left for the usual Roe reasons--and some would face criticism from the right as well. Both sides are raring to go. The Short List 10 Possible Bush nominees for the Supreme Court Samuel Alito Jr., 54 Third Circuit Janice Rogers Brown, 55 Calif. Supreme Court Miguel Estrada, 43 Washington Attorney Emilio Garza, 57 Fifth Circuit Edith Jones, 55 Fifth Circuit J. Michael Luttig, 50 Fourth Circuit John Roberts, 49 D.C. Circuit J. Harvie Wilkinson, 60 Fourth Circuit Two men mentioned for chief justice are J. Harvie Wilkinson and John Roberts. Both have the intellectual firepower, writing skills and temperament for the job; both are well-respected in liberal legal circles. "They are to the right what Justice (Stephen) Breyer and Justice (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg are to the left," says a source close to the White House. Judge Roberts was confirmed unanimously to the appeals bench last year. Judge Wilkinson could have a harder time. He would face criticism from the left for his affirmative-action opinions and from the right from pro-lifers who cite passages in a 1976 law review article and a 1998 opinion to suggest he might be squishy on Roe. He also carries a potentially damaging "most conservative" label, thanks to an analysis of likely nominees by Judicature magazine. As for associate justice, the remaining six on the list could expect varying degrees of confirmation angst. Emilio Garza has called Roe "judicial legislation" and said it should be overturned, even while faithfully applying it to the cases that have come before him. J. Michael Luttig and Janice Rogers Brown carry reputations of being difficult to work with. Sam Alito's biggest liability is his nickname, "Scalito," tying him to liberal bogeyman Justice Antonin Scalia. Liberals would have a field day with Edith Jones, whose record includes a range of hard-core decisions on social issues. A conservative dream team is Justice Scalia or Clarence Thomas to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist with Miguel Estrada filling the associate's opening. Justice Thomas has been undergoing a liberal rehabilitation of sorts recently and might face an easier confirmation fight than Mr. Scalia. He was the subject of a favorable series in the Washington Post in September, and last month an article by David Garrow in the New Republic offered a positive appraisal of his record on the Court. Most notably, it took aim at the idea that Justice Thomas is a lackey of Justice Scalia. "During the court's 2003-2004 term," Mr. Garrow wrote, "Scalia and Thomas voted together in only 73% of cases, and six other pairs of justice agreed with each other more often than Scalia and Thomas." Mr. Estrada is sometimes called the smartest lawyer of his generation. He spent more than two years in filibuster limbo before withdrawing his name from consideration for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats' complaint that the White House wouldn't let them see Mr. Estrada's private legal memorandums from his days at the Justice Department could be addressed by allowing senators private access. In the election that just ended, Mr. Bush often spoke of the kind of justice he would nominate. Chances are he'll soon have the opportunity to show what he meant. Whoever that is deserves a fast up-or-down vote in the Senate. Ms. Kirkpatrick is associate editor of the Journal's editorial page. opinionjournal.com