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: SilentZ who wrote (233658)	5/19/2005 9:39:55 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586066

"Well, do you really think that the Democrats are opposing the judges they are simply because the Democrats are racist or against women?" Probably. After all, he thinks Janice Brown is highly qualified despite having received a rating of "unqualified" by the state bar. And it wasn't a squeaker either, three-fourths of California state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position of state supreme court judge. And interesting aspect of the seven is that they are widely regarded by their peers as activist judges, very prone to re-interpreting the law to fit their ideology. I guess activism is ok if you have the correct ideology...

To: SilentZ who wrote (233658)	5/20/2005 12:19:41 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586066

do you really think that the Democrats are opposing the judges they are simply because the Democrats are racist or against women? If the shoe fits, then let Democrats wear it. Both of these women have received overwhelming majorities when their retention votes were made. Both have received the highest recommendations from the liberal Bar Association. It is interesting that most of President Bush's minority and female judicial nominees for the courts of Appeals just happen to be worthy of being blocked by Democrats. Perhaps you are right, what Democrats ar really saying is that women and minorities are just too stupid to be qualified because of their sex and or race. If the Senate were subject to an EEOC complaint the ruling against Democrats for discrimination would already be on the books. I thought you guys were for affirmative action. Maybe you are saying that statistical studies of behavior patterns have no place in the discrimination debate. Either way you are going against DemoLib principles. Here is proof of Discrimination: 4 Women approved / 3 Waiting / 2 Minority sounding surnames approved / 3 waiting (1 withdrew after being stonewalled for 2 years) 30 approved judges / 12 waiting (add Gonzalez back making 13) independentjudiciary.com independentjudiciary.com 3/13 = 1/4.33 > 4/30 = 1/7.5 4/13 = 1:3.25 > 2/15 = 1:15 Democrats are guilty of defacto discrimination. If it were anywhere but the Senate (who conveniently made themselves exempt from discrimination charges) they would be investigated and ruled out of order by the EEOC. History will look back on current Senate Democrats with shame. Circuit Court Nominations Referred to Received Voted on by Voted on Committee Hearing Committee by Senate 1993 5 3 3 3 93-94 22 20 19 19 2001 58 7 6 6 01-02 61 21 20 17 That set of numbers says it all. 72% of President Bush's nominees denied a vote versus 14% of Clinton's not receiving a vote. Notice most of Clinton's came in his second year, and most of President Bush's came in his first year. 86% of Clinton's Circuit court nominees approved in his congress. 28% of President Bush's nominees approved in his first congress despite nominations being submitted earlier. U.S. District Court and Circuit Court Nominations: Average Number of Days Elapsing from Nomination Date to Final Action,a 95th Congress to 108th Congress (1977-December 9, 2003) Congress (Years) District Court nom's \| Circuit Court nominations Confirmed Unconf Combined Confirm Unconf'd Combined 95th (1977-78) 40 35 40 33 N/A 33 96th (1979-80) 79 168 89 79 157 87 97th (1981-82) 33 10 32 34 8 33 98th(1983-84) 31 35 32 51 34 49 99th(1985-86) 42 49 43 49 11 48 l00th(1987-88) 122 217 136 119 273 172 101st (1989-90) 77 69 76 79 185 83 102nd (1991-92) 114 172 130 108 296 174 103rd (1993-94) 76 104 77 103 94 102 l04th (1995-96) 112 255 149 124 243 194 105th (1997-98) 165 303 185 212 345 262 106th ('99-'00) 133 328 192 227 364 304 107th (2001-02) 127 39 99 210 160 169 108th (2003) 106 120 Hmm. Looks like President Bush's nominees have been drug out much longer than any other on the list. senate.gov