Dem, Leahy Double standard for Clinton's Marsha Berzon [9th Circuit] and Miguel Estrada.

[syriacus]

The Democrats sure have a double standard. (And very, very short memories.)

Clinton's candidate for the 9th Circuit of appeals, Marsha Berzon, was confirmed (64-34)* by the Senate in 2000. Democrats got confirmation of Clinton's leftist candidate, but won't give Bush's candidate, Estrada, the same courtesy.

• Supporters of her said
  We understand from her affiliations with liberal groups that she is probably on the left of the political spectrum, but that is the norm for this President's [Clinton's] nominees, and it does not mean that she will be an activist if she is appointed.
• She graduated from Harvard (Radcliffe)
• she had no record,
• She had not been a judge
• She had had connections with far-left organizations
• those with reservations about her said, "only time will tell" [whether she would become an activist on the bench], and gave her the benefit of the doubt.
• **Leahy demanded a "vote up or a vote down" (which she got).

The Democrats don't only have a double standard. Democrats have a "whopper" of a double standard.

*SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS BERZON NOMINATION/9th Circuit Judge

**Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on Nomination of Marsha Berzon to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

[syriacus]

First posted at Steven W.'s thread A WAY FR CAN HELP TO FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA! 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals.

[truthkeeper]

Yes, how quickly they forget. I'd like to hear the Republicans vocally, publicly (like on the floor of the Senate, perhaps), and repeatedly remind the RATS and the media enablers of this little tidbit.

BIG BTTT.

[cb]

This is WAY less than useful. Since when have demorats been sensitive to their own hypocrisy???????never.

Besides, this is really about republicans not having the guts to fight it out on the floor like filibusters have been broken in the past. Its about preserving their precious country club atmosphere rather than fighting for bush's nominees. That tells me they don't really care who is placed as a judge and are really ok with leftist activist judges. They may think they can get away with treating the next demorat the same way , but we know they'll cave on that too.

I wonder why I even bother voting for the senate bastards.

[syriacus]

This is WAY less than useful. Since when have demorats been sensitive to their own hypocrisy

But, independent voters are especially sensitive to hypocrisy.

The Democrats stand to lose even more of the support they have among those voters.

Gosh, I was a Democrat, a liberal on every issue but abortion, until I saw how my fellow liberals treated Clarence Thomas.

It should be even easier to show an independent that Democrats are lying, hypocritical, manipulators of the system.

[Puddleglum]

But, independent voters are especially sensitive to hypocrisy.

I think this is very true. Just like the 2002 elections, if Republicans get this out on Fox News, on Rush, on the Sunday news shows, people will notice. It may go under the Dems' radar, but folks will know. Write editorials - crack the ice where you can. Someone will see.

The Dems must be in big trouble having to curry favor from their base so much. The abortion issue is not the hot button for middle class folks (esp. women) it once was. The Dems are digging their grave for a generation in this little junkyard brawl to keep their folks from flocking to the Green party.

[Cicero]

Absolutely. The Miguel Estrada story is made to order to undercut the Democrats' pretensions to hold the moral high ground. Hispanic, self-made man, American success story--the only thing wrong with him is that he's Pro Life. And the majority of voters actually favor that, despite what the press pretends.

[syriacus]

The Dems are digging their grave for a generation in this little junkyard brawl to keep their folks from flocking to the Green party.

After reading what you wrote, it occurred to me that the Greens might want to "watch their backs" when in the company of Democrats. The Democrats seem willing to (overtly) do anything to Republicans in order to win back control of the country. Democrats need to be more circumspect in their attacks on the Greens, but they will need to attack them nonetheless.

[cyncooper]

Its about preserving their precious country club atmosphere rather than fighting for bush's nominees.

It is clear you haven't been watching the Senate proceedings.

[votelife]

"Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname," said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "It means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American."

This is the Democrat case against Estrada...

[votelife]

My email to W:

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[syriacus]

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position

I agree. And here is what I think is an indicator of that shift...

Even shier pro-lifers are comfortable with the idea of expressing their views. Some years back, the shier pro-lifers would have declined to express their opinions, unless someone really pressed them for an answer.

Back then, even casually bringing one's "pro-lifeness" into a conversation was viewed as violently anti-social in some environments. All the (liberal) commentary about abortion being an emotionally charged topic helped dampen any discussion, no matter how unemotional.

At this time, too, ordinary Americans might be generally valuing life more than they did in the past.

• The horror of viewing terrorists suddenly, and violently, killing and maiming innocent people might be equated in the minds of ordinary people with the violence with which the youngest innocent lives are being ended.
• Sonograms show that pro-choicers were lying when they promoted the idea that fetuses were mere blobs of tissue.
• It's hard for most people to mentally reconcile the extremes women go to, in order to bear an unborn child, with the ease with which a woman can decide to eliminate an unborn child.

Your email to the President was clear, forceful and well-written. Thanks, from many of us, for sending it.

[votelife]

thank you, I've posted the letter all over FR. I hope that between sending the letter, and WH lurkers/posters, that many have seen the letter. Hopefully GW has seen/will see the letter.