Posted on 02/07/2002 11:53:33 AM PST by afuturegovernor
Mega-bump.
Heads up, FReepers!!
Here's a Note to Activists:
Want to do something? Go here:
Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!
for links, tools, & instructions about how to contact a pile of different people, and how to send a link to this story right here ( or anywhere else ) to a "mass email" using Outlook Express.
Blacks are not stupid, but they've not learned anything about Aristotle's Ethics when it comes to indignation.
In the Ethics, Aristotle identifies righteous indignation as a "virtue" -- as opposed to indignation related human actions springing from envy or maliciousness, which are Aristotle's related "vices."
Is that the standard? Behave like Barbara Boxer on a bad hair day whenever confronted with a racial issue or you aren't politically correct enough to pass muster with the Judiciary Committee?
Irrespective of his personal political preference [At the time of my court appearance I did not have any idea of the judge's political orientation], he was everything an ethical and fair minded lawyer could hope for. From the Bench he listened with great courtesy and deference to the Florida attorney representing an out-of-state client against a significant Mississippi corporation. It was obvious that he had read both side's written arguments and the file before the hearing and was familiar with the theories advanced and their complexities, and, they were indeed complex. At no time did I get the all too common feeling for a "foreign" lawyer in a distant land of getting-- what the profession calls-- "home towned."
He gave both side ample time to present their legal arguments and asked if we wanted to submit post-hearing briefs. In due time, he authored and rendered an opinion and order regarding the hearing's subject matter. His opinion was a thoughtful and analytical summary of the legal issues in which he announced a reasonable and legally correct decision.
Whether my position prevailed is not important. The important thing is that the entire matter was heard and decided fairly and consistent with what trial judges should do. Both sides had an opportunity for a full exposition of their legal arguments and the judge, after taking the matter under advisement, did an excellent job of understanding and articulating the rationale' for an intelligent decision. There was not the slightest hint of any political ideology or orientation in his conduct on the Bench or in his decision.
That's all any lawyer or litigant can ask for from a trial judge, a fair hearing. That's what Judge Pickering did in my case and it was consistent with everything I heard about him from other lawyers around the federal courthouse during my two days in Hattiesburg, MS. for the hearing.
I abhor judges who allow their personal political predispositions and personal lifestyle preferences to interfere with their oath upon donning the judicial robe.
I would be here today describing my disappointment with the Presidential nomination if that had been the case. But, ethical consistency and intellectual honesty also requires that I let it be known when the contrary is true and the judge is suffering unfair treatment by the Senate, as is the fact here.
A nominee's personal politics, while of some interest, is something senators should ignore when the President of the other party has the power to nominate judges. As Governor Cuomo said in his book several years ago (to paraphrase)"...A President should be able to have his nominations confirmed unless there is some objectively confirmed and clearly defined impediment to a judicial nominee's character or ability to assume the Bench." That is a concept endorsed by the ABA and good, fair-minded lawyers everywhere. The Republicans did the same thing that's now happening to Judge Pickering --actually it was engineered by Jessie Helms--with repect to President Clinton's nomination to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal of a very fine black judge. That race driven conduct by Helms, and acquiesced in by the committee's GOP majority, was just as unwarranted and unfair in that instance as is the situation today.
That's just one lawyer's observations and opinion. However, it is based upon some specific empirical data gathered from first-hand experience. 12 posted on 2/7/02 9:40 PM Pacific by middie [ Post Reply
Irrespective of his personal political preference [At the time of my court appearance I did not have any idea of the judge's political orientation], he was everything an ethical and fair minded lawyer could hope for. From the Bench he listened with great courtesy and deference to the Florida attorney representing an out-of-state client against a significant Mississippi corporation. It was obvious that he had read both side's written arguments and the file before the hearing and was familiar with the theories advanced and their complexities, and, they were indeed complex. At no time did I get the all too common feeling for a "foreign" lawyer in a distant land of getting-- what the profession calls-- "home towned."
He gave both side ample time to present their legal arguments and asked if we wanted to submit post-hearing briefs. In due time, he authored and rendered an opinion and order regarding the hearing's subject matter. His opinion was a thoughtful and analytical summary of the legal issues in which he announced a reasonable and legally correct decision.
Whether my position prevailed is not important. The important thing is that the entire matter was heard and decided fairly and consistent with what trial judges should do. Both sides had an opportunity for a full exposition of their legal arguments and the judge, after taking the matter under advisement, did an excellent job of understanding and articulating the rationale' for an intelligent decision. There was not the slightest hint of any political ideology or orientation in his conduct on the Bench or in his decision.
That's all any lawyer or litigant can ask for from a trial judge, a fair hearing. That's what Judge Pickering did in my case and it was consistent with everything I heard about him from other lawyers around the federal courthouse during my two days in Hattiesburg, MS. for the hearing.
I abhor judges who allow their personal political predispositions and personal lifestyle preferences to interfere with their oath upon donning the judicial robe.
I would be here today describing my disappointment with the Presidential nomination if that had been the case. But, ethical consistency and intellectual honesty also requires that I let it be known when the contrary is true and the judge is suffering unfair treatment by the Senate, as is the fact here.
A nominee's personal politics, while of some interest, is something senators should ignore when the President of the other party has the power to nominate judges. As Governor Cuomo said in his book several years ago (to paraphrase)"...A President should be able to have his nominations confirmed unless there is some objectively confirmed and clearly defined impediment to a judicial nominee's character or ability to assume the Bench." That is a concept endorsed by the ABA and good, fair-minded lawyers everywhere. The Republicans did the same thing that's now happening to Judge Pickering --actually it was engineered by Jessie Helms--with repect to President Clinton's nomination to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal of a very fine black judge. That race driven conduct by Helms, and acquiesced in by the committee's GOP majority, was just as unwarranted and unfair in that instance as is the situation today.
That's just one lawyer's observations and opinion. However, it is based upon some specific empirical data gathered from first-hand experience. 12 posted on 2/7/02 9:40 PM Pacific by middie [ Post Reply
I'd say that most people are totally clueless when it comes to holding themselves from flying off the handle when they feel overly envious about something. And that those same people, once having flown off the handle, will blame it all on their "antagonist" and attack again ... maliciously.
One of my favorite words these days is eudaemonism.
Is there anyone out there that knows what it means without looking it up?
This tells me that there are a lot of potential Republican votes out there, ripe for the picking. Only 49% of those who are eligible to vote cast a ballot in 2000. Let's get out the vote.
This is, of course, is the key. There are a lot of conservative-thinking folks who have never voted because they're too busy doing other things, or too uninvolved, or too convinced that nothing's going to change. I suspect that now that Bin Laden and his gang have shown us all just how important "the issues" can be (many of us, of course, already knew), there will be a lot less apathy at election time.
And as you say, the Democrats have already been barn-storming at 100% max effort. It's time for the big Elephant to get it's ass in gear and lumber down the road to big majorities in 2002. All of us working together can help make that happen.
I believe it was reported a number of times that they got 95% of the black vote in Florida. Nationally, it is still probably over 90%. Of course, there appears to be widespread cheating in black precincts. But however you look at it, democrats take essentially all the black vote in these national elections.
Well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. We can only try to change their minds slowly over time. And, of course, do our best to ensure fair elections everywhere. Full access for all and cheating for none. Truly fair.
Many blacks are intensely patriotic
You are right. Many blacks are in the military.
Black America has been sold on the line that the RATS are on their "side". As they come to realize that all Americans are fundamentally on the same side, they will be less inclined to believe RAT lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.