Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do Democrats dare make an issue out of John Roberts' race and gender?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:27 AM
Original message
Do Democrats dare make an issue out of John Roberts' race and gender?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:29 AM by BurtWorm
I do think they should make an issue out of it. There's no good reason to appoint a white male if a nonwhite male or a female of any race is just as qualified.

Unfortunately, the Republicans, being the slime they are, have no doubt thought this through very carefully and have a response ready, something to the effect that it doesn't matter what color, gender or what have you a person is as long as they interpret the constitution faithfully. (I've already seen this line taken here on DU.) Bush has appointed two African-Americans, one of whom is a woman, to be Secretary of State, and he's nominated many fascists of color to the judiciary, so he doesn't need to demonstrate his "political correctness" anymore.

Can this be countered with a question about the wisdom of wasting an opportunity to diversify the court? If color, etc., doesn't matter, why appoint a white male? Why not appoint a qualified woman or person of color?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah right and get the Thomas hearings thrown back in our faces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. You mean Bush would then come back with a Scalia clone of color?
That is a possibility. I mean there aren't too many Republicans of color who aren't fascists already, and it certainly would be worse to get another Thomas than another Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. thomas hid behind his race
when the going got too tough.
and the fact that he wasn't particularly well-qualified for the job...
not to mention his questionable behavior towards attractive, black females he happened to supervise...

i WISH they would bring up the thomas hearings again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. No. Beware of Rehnquist.
Hate to say it, but the man might die at any time. Then the Repugs just nominate a female minority and all of our squawking will be nullified as being misplaced and hateful. It's far too easy a trap to fall into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. This is right
And it doesn't take a genius to figure out what to do if we slam into him for being a white male.

That doesn't prevent us from pointing out some conservative jubilation that they have "ignored affirmative action" and selected a white male, however.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think pointing out his race is stupid
but then again they did this every time we would say something bad about Rice or any other minority Bush decided to appoint. So the fact he is white is fair game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. I think it's fair to wonder why Bush squandered an opportunity to
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:43 AM by BurtWorm
diversify the court. It's not as though there are no qualified centrists of color. Or are there?

This doesn't mean drawing a line in the sand. It means instilling in the public another doubt about Bush's ability to understand ordinary people's issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Fight everything
I'm on hold with the White House comment line right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. No, for the NEXT nominee will be a minority or female NUTCASE
And the argument will be, sheesh, you democrats wanted a woman or a hispanic, and you get what you wanted....

Jesse Jackson commented, that's enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. You are correct.
His next choice will be a woman Jesus freak who will look like the church lady. This is'nt going our way anymore. At all. It will take 20 years to gain back the losses from Chimpy and his tree monkeys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. That is probably his plan already.
But the Democrats could win the public relations battle by talking about how failure to reflect the diversity of opinion and background of the nation is a major failure, considering the life term appointments at stake. Because it is true, after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. Its a valid point, but that would be a very bad decision by the Dems...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. He has blue eyes
Obviously a neo-Nazi or something.

:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. there are plenty of other issues to hammer him on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Maybe "issue" is the wrong word. "Doubt" might be better.
Just to put in the public consciousness the doubt that Bush made the best choice, as usual, even if his nomination sails through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. How about 4 Catholics on the SCOTUS? (Fundy Fun Facts)
Are the efungelicals really aware of the fact the Catholics will now make up 4 of the 9 justices? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. and not just your cafeteria Catholics either....
these guys are Dominionist Opus Dei Catholics,
who want Christianity to dominate every part
of this country and world.

I wouldn't turn a blind eye to this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. I like this reasoning. I've run it through the cobwebs a few times
If race doesn't matter, then why the predominance of white males?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Why the OVERpredominance, the inordinate number of white males?
I'm uncomfortable with their feeling comfortable with this choice considering Roberts is far from being the only candidate they could have chosen.

Of course, as Howard Dean says, it's the White Christian Party...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. right
They want to bring back into realization the old (boy) guard in the SCOTUS, covered up, they hope, by that old canard that we've 'moved beyond the need' for such considerations.

Oh. Here's Scotty. "We considered a diverse group." Or something similar. Yeah, right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. I disagree
What you are saying is that a nonwhite or a woman must be appointed, simply by virtue of the fact that he/she is a nonwhite or a woman as the case may be.

If we start with the premise that race and color should not be a factor, for or against, then there is no great wrong in nominating a white male.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I'm asking a question, actually.
I don't think any person or kind of person *must* be nominated. I only wonder why, when there are already seven white men on the court, another one "must" be nominated. Isn't there someone who is not white or male who is as qualified as or more than Roberts? Then why was Roberts preferred over this person? Or more likely, these persons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rogue emissary Donating Member (380 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
23. The questions you ask are a perfect frame for bring up Roberts' race.
Republicans brought up race in defense of Rice and Gonzales. It wouldn't make sense if Democrats were silent on Roberts' race.

To those that worry about the Republican counter attack. Of course they'll use it against Democrats in the future, but they use everything we do against us anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I think it is legitimate to ask the question.
It's legitimate to spread legitimate doubts about the wisdom of this pick. And this is definitely something to wonder out loud about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
25. Not as Democrats. However African Americans, Hispanics, ...
... and women should feel free to sound off if they are disappointed. It isn't for the party to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stirk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
26. Did you hear Andy Card on Hardball? Haha!
Paraphrasing:

'The president considered many different candidates for his Supreme Court nomination. Some of them he already knew well enough that he didn't have to interview them. The non-white male candidates fell into that category'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WMliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
27. anyone with more than two years experience as a judge is more qualified.
I just don't think * knows more than 20 or 30 people. He keeps renominating these schmucks because he doesn't know anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC