Damn It!!! A Female Clarence Thomas?

[Sweetpea]

<http://www.blackcommentator.com/54/54_female_clarence.html>

"'Far Right Dream Judge' Janice Rogers Brown Joins Lineup of Extremist Appeals Court Nominees

California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of President Bush's most recent nominees to the federal appeals court, has a record of ideological extremism and aggressive judicial activism that makes her unfit to serve on the appeals court, according to a an in-depth analysis of her record released by People For the American Way and the NAACP. Brown, nominated to the DC Circuit Court, is one of many Bush judicial nominees that could come before the Judiciary Committee and full Senate this fall."

Where the hell do they find these people? In Psych Wards?

[punpirate]

1. It's possible some should be...

... in psych wards, but, in truth, the Federalist Society is finding them for the Bush administration. Ever since the administration booted out the judicial examiners of the ABA, they've been using the Federalist Society to vet judges. I'm sure the Federalist Society is not just checking backgrounds, but making suggestions, as well.

Cheers.

[kodi]

2. its a chess game, she is a pawn who is a distraction

if there is one thing democrats are known for it is their ability to swallow the bait when fighting the right wing.

sometimes small victories are actually traps which reduce the ability for dems to maneuver later on.

the gop is moving to the public discussion the meme that the dems are attacking latinos and blacks in the federal judical appointment area, and the dems play into the hands of the rhetoric that the gop intends to use against dems as hypocrites when pronouncing that they are the party which fights for minority rights.

expect this to be said by the gop......" see, democrats talk about being the friends of minorities, but when one is nominated for a federal court seat, we see the real discriminatory way they operate."

while most informed people may see this remark as pure propaganda, uninformed people will hear the "hypocrisy" remark and take it as factual.

in now way do i advocate supporting this woman, but the dems had better gird their loins for this sort of intellectual subtrufuge.

[spooky3]

3. I may be naive

but I don't think they are fooling many people--maybe just making other freepers feel good.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Bullshit. She's the next threat after Estrada. Thread title is correct

She is the next Clarence Thomas.

The gop can spin out all the memos they want, but nothing can undo the last 40 years of their fighting against blacks, women, and other minorities. I have no doubt the democrats have Brown in their sights as the next loon to be stopped before she gets any further. Bush needs to be slapped down once again. There are only 15 months left for him and The Senate has been brilliant in barring the door to any more lunacy in our courts.

[kodi]

21. your remark is a bono fide example of what i was mentioning

any time you see an opponent do something for which your response is well predicted ahead of time you have to stop and wonder why they did it.

this does not immediately imply that you change your response or course, as you seem to imply was the thrust of my initial comments, but that you must be ready to recognize that their behavior is not an isolated event, but likely a single move or tactic in a concerted strategy.

all you have to do to see this at work in the republican mindset is to look at the way bill clinton was finally cornered by ken starr after those crazy law suits and depositions. did anyone think at the time they were filed that the peripheral law suits that paula jones filed would lead to clinton's impeachment?

hardly. it was a concerted effort to get clinton into a situation where he either had to tell a devestating truth or lie. the entire process was calculated to that end, even though one would not recognize it by simply looking at each event alone.

that was deadly lesson, apparently already forgotten.

here is how to respond to brown's nomination.

1. list all blacks, latinos, women and other minorities elevated to federal judgeships by a democratic adminstration.

2. list all blacks, latinos, women and other minorities elevated to federal judgeships by a republican adminstration

3. list their creditials and approval ratings by the ABA and other legal groups found to carry weight in the debate.

4. list those decisons by judges selected by republican administrations which run counter to efforts to increase enfranchisement of the aforemnetioned minorities.

5. list those decisons by judges selected by democratic administrations which increase enfranchisement of the aforemnetioned minorities

6. list those court decisions by brown which run counter to efforts to increase enfranchisement of the aforementioned minorities and which concur with the standard ones of earlier minority appointments by republicans.

7. lay down a side by side comparison of what the "democratic" minority judges have done versus the "minority" judges appointed by republicans vis-a-vis minority issues, and tie brown in with the latter group.

8. the difference in approaches towards minority enfranchisement between these groups is the high ground upon which the democrats fight the nomination of brown, because she has shown by analysis that she is NOT acting to increase the enfranchisement of minorities. this undercuts the standard republican attack that the dems are not living up to their commitment to minorities and in fact is ammo to go on the offensive against ALL such behavior by republicans.

when you have this you have defended yourself against charges of discrimination, moved the appointment debate to the battle ground of ideology and competence instead of skin color, and have counter-attacked on the precise issue of minority enfrachisement which the republicans were planning to use as their own weapon in the debate.

simply calling her a female "clarence thomas" is a febble way to go about gutting this woman's nomination. in fact, it is exactly what the republicans want, so they can move the issue from one of substance to one of personalities.

i think it is crazy for progressives to think that the gop does not anticipate what the progressives will do or that they have not already planned to gain advantage from it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. it's "feeble"

And it applies to the reasoning that we should be concerned as to whether or not we are playing into their devious little scenarios.
Right now I see a frustrated pro-life president who's "base" of fundie whackos is p.o'd at him for not getting Estrada et al. appointed and it makes me happy as shit.

It ain't broke and I don't want to fix it.

[kodi]

31. "their devious little scenarios" led to clinton's impeachment

it destroyed clinton's ability to get things done for his last 2 years, and certainly played a part in the election results of 2000.

it was this wholesale slowing down of the democratic agenda that was the affect of the thinking you pronounce where "devious little scenarios" are not worthy of examination for booby traps.

i too am frustrated at what the busheviks are doing to the country and world, but i am not about to go off half-cocked without thinking 5 steps ahead simply because it makes one "happy as shit."

adults know how to delay their gratification when the goals are so important.

Right now what I see is a political party who is gearing up for a presidential election and is willing to use anything at its disposal to get re-elected. that includes using the threat of democratic filibusters of conservative judges as raw meat for their base.

all i want to do is best figure out how to spoil that meat while at the same time not allowing that brown meathead on the bench.

i laid out my thoughts on how to spoil that meat. what is your plan?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. Impeachment hindered Clinton's ability to fight terrorism

Let's chew on that bitter pill for a moment.

Bill Clinton was all for fighting terrorists after suffering several devestating attacks during his presidency. He and Reno knew the gravity of the situation, yet the GOP attack machine which included Gingrich, DeLay, Ken Starr, et al... was more interested in bringing down Clinton while ignoring the better interests- the security interests(!) of America.

So instead of all this political chicanery, let's work together for the benefit of all Americans why don't we?
Tom Daschle has offered to, Orrin Hatch has not.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. kodi?..kodi?.... what happened?

huh. must be on the phone to his Senators thanking them for stopping Estrada!...... Which reminds me:
Thank you Chuck and Hillary! I LOVE U :loveya:

[kodi]

34. gee, thanx for the ad hominum, but what's your plan to stop brown?

do you think you are a comedian? this is not a joking matter.

it is a deadly serious issue about the shaping of the federal court meake-up for a generation, which you have now turned into a litmus test for your brand of liberalism and a soap box to denigrate my comments to think wisely about this as we prepare to attack brown and deny her a seat on the federal bench.

i stated clearly what my concerns were about this nomination, i detailed what i think the opponents of brown should do, and here you are ridiculing my position and yet you yourself have offered nothing as a plan to stop brown's nomination but vitriolic comments and snide remarks towards me...i am against this nomination, as are you, and for the same reasons you hold. is this clear to you as you insult me?

i ask again, how would you plan to stop her nomination if you were in the senate? is it even marginally different than what i stated should be done? and as import, have you examined your position in this matter in relationship to other battles we must fight, because i am sure our opponents certainly will.

i do not think it smart to get all freaky and emotional about this issue, in the long run, it is better to think clearly, lay out the facts and then attack brown for being an arch conservative who has done nothing for minorities.

we on this side of the divide have a habit of "ready, fire, aim" all to often when our emotions run away with us, and it is exactly what the busheviks expect from us.

BTW living in georgia is no joke, we haver that DINO miller and that god-awful SOB chabliss who slandered a great american hero in max cleland.

as to why i did not respond to you at the snap of your fingers, remember, some of us on this board do have jobs.

[Sweetpea]

35. Wow...my intention of starting the thread was to spread awareness

of this woman not to battle on how to spread the awareness. I think your ideas are great Kodi but I don't think you shouldn't dismiss the simplicity of "Female Clarence Thomas". That article was written for Black commentator and when you talk about stopping her nomination, it is important for Blacks to cry out that this woman is not someone who represents the needs of the community.That way no one can say the Dems don't have any racial vision. I have not read a lot of press about her and I have to say once again the caption was eye catching enough for me to read it and to find out the "lowdown" on her so that I can be informed to call my senator to not vote for her nomination.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

36. actually I didn't even know she was African- American 'til today

but I did know her name and knew she was waiting in the wings after the other ideologues the right wing has lined up.
How to stop her? I like what Daschle and the Dems have done so far, and there is and will be no poltical fallout.
And Kodi, I have a job too.

[Sweetpea]

30. Yes, it is a chess game...but as a reader I have to say that I read the

article based on the caption Female Clarence Thomas. It helped identify that this woman is not a safe candidate. Then you can get into the debate.

[JohnKleeb]

4. Tell me when you find a female Thurgood Marshall

:) I can tell you Bush wouldnt appoint that.

[OldSoldier]

6. There's got to be one...or hopefully five...

This is a tactic that would work:

The reich wing puts Janice Rogers Brown up for confirmation. Janice Rogers Brown being a female version of Clarence Thomas, the Democrats immediately begin a filibuster against her. The Repugs then immediately hold a press conference to decry the hypocritical Democrats. Immediately upon hearing this, the Democrats call a press conference. They walk out with five well-qualified moderates, all either African-American or Hispanic women, and announce that any of these five highly qualified, highly intelligent, and fair judges, if nominated to the bench by pResident Bush, would immediately be confirmed. Unfortunately, qualifications, intelligence and fairness take back seats to far-right ideology in this administration, so we're filibustering Janice Rogers Brown.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Not the way the process works though

Advise and Consent, not nominate or dictate. The admin -- no matter who it is -- picks the candidates, not the minority party.

[msmcghee]

10. Read the post.

He was talking about a way to neutralize the gop spin - not change the constitution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. I understand

But that is the problem with his spin. The system doesn't work that way and it could be spun right back at us as trying to usurp the Constitution.

[OldSoldier]

28. They already accuse us of that!

A bipartisan coalition of moderate senators explaining that Bush's far-reich appointees will not be approved because they are out of sync with the mores of real Americans, but appointees like these ones (thoroughly vetted by the American Bar Association and not the Federalist Society) will be signed off on immediately, will highlight to the people just how bad Bush is.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. That's rich. The party that wouldn't let Florida count its votes

and had it's USSC appointees usurp the constitution in order to fight the democratic process.
Or won't let Texas choose determine its own representation.
Or let California elect its own governor.

So WHO's trying to usurp the Constitution?

[spooky3]

8. that's a great idea. They could also have a back up list,

perhaps inscribed on a scroll, that they could hand the wingnuts.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Reverse psychology 101 says that's a bad idea

You have to be more subtle than that! But good line of thought anyway.

[msmcghee]

11. Maybe you should apply . .

. . to the DLC. They like your (non) approach to fighting the BFEE.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. In case you haven't noticed, the Senate Dems

have barred the door to Bush's right wing nominees, so if you have some advice on how they may improve their performance in this regard, by all means send them a line. :eyes:

[msmcghee]

13. I do have some advice.

More tactics like OldSoldier's above . . that symbolically illustrate the hypocracy of the right wing position.

What happens on the floor of the senate is important . . but most sheep/morans are not even aware of that stuff. To them it's just political gears grinding.

This suggestion would certainly attract the attention of the media and would be discussed on GMA and other entertainment-like news shows where the sheep/morans might even notice.

But this is just one suggestion. An imaginative dem leadership should have no trouble coming up with dozens of these symbolically effective ways to get our message out to those who may well decide the next election. The RW does that all the time and gets away with it. We at DU were not impressed with the carrier landing - but most of those sheep/morans still have that "heroic" image in their little heads when they go to sleep at night - feeling "oh so safe from the ragheads".

I can't understand why anyone on the left would criticize methods to get our message out that might actually work. That's why you may have detected a bit of "WTF" in my response.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Democrats stereotyped solidly as the party of minorities

it will be close to impossible for the GOP to shatter this true image of a traditional Democratic constituency. (Look at the U.of Michiagn affirmative action decision.)

Our main goal is to keep the next Scalia (or Thomas, or Rhenquist) from replacing Stevens.

Our secondary goal is to counter efforts by the GOP to paint us as "discriminating against nominees based on their race, gender, or ethnicity" It would be laughable if it weren't so downright scary that they are actually trying to do this, while pulling out every stop to do it. So, with that thought, O.K...Dems! line up those 5 justices! :)

[msmcghee]

20. Good points

And the pukes are stereotyped as the party of rich white fundies (although they are spending millions trying to get away from that image). The reason they get so many votes is that their PR efforts have made that marginally respectable.

But they are so far behind that curve on the fairness/discrimination issue that anything they do helps them a bit. Most Americans want to believe they they are (individually) fair and minded are not bigots (even those who are).

It is an emotional button that can and should be pushed - that will make a difference when the sheep and morans go into the voting booth.

We should pound their hypocracy on this relentlessy. i.e we should play the race (and rich/poor) card every chance we get. That's because those cards that were put in the deck by the RW in the first place.

When they accuse us of playing those cards - we should use that as an opportunity to symbolically illustrate their hypocracy on this issue. We should have the five minority candidates "waiting in the wing as Old Soldier suggests".

[ewagner]

14. Just a thought for discussion

What if, instead of attacking the nominee, the Dems attack the Federalist Society as a radical right wing group.

Remember, most of the country thinks of themselves as "moderate". They don't like extreme views from either the right or the left. If the Dems could show that an extremeist group was hijacking the "Bush Administration" they could deflect criticism that they are either anit-woman or anti-Bush. Sort of kill two arguments with one shot.

Any takers on this idea?

[msmcghee]

16. Why "instead of"?

How about "in addition to".

How would you attack the Federalist Society? It is a private group of citizens - not elected officials operating under the constitution where their actions can be put to the constitutional test of law.

But I agree they should be discredited whenever we can do so.

[ewagner]

19. What I am suggesting

is that if the Federalist Society is being allowed to vet candidates for judgeships, they can be painted in the same colors as Enron writing the energy policy.

[JI7]

15. why i will vote only democratic in 2004

this court thing is a HUGE issue. this is probably one of the biggest if not THE biggest reason why i will only vote democratic in 2004 no matter who our presidential nominee is.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. It is FreeRepublic's (RimJob's) core issue.

Rimjob Robinson is a pro-life whacko nut. End of story.

[Liberal Classic]

23. Psych wards, sure.

No african american who is conservative can be in their right mind.

I love that cartoon, too.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/54/54_cartoon_female_clarence_pf.html

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. LOL! that is great! nt

[tom_paine]

26. You can always find someone to sell the rest of us out

It has nothing to do with race, creed or color.

Quislings are pretty evenly distributed among population subgroups.

Of course, given the vast financial and political powers the Busheviks are willing to cede to their Quislings is enormous...and Clarence Thomas showed that Imperial Family ASllies do not have to be worried about past conduct biting them in the ass.

Crime is essentially legal for members of the Imperial Family, Buttons and Capos alike.

It was partially true during the Thomas hearings. Now it is fully shamelessly Stalinistically true.

And the Quislings March Onward to the Bench, the Agency, the Halls of Power.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. but a few good Democrats can stop them

44 to be exact (the number in the Senate who prevented the vote from occuring)