Full Version: Charles Pickering, is he really that anti gay?
I was on 365gay.com and I was just browsing the News section and it said that the president made a recess appointmen of Charles Pickering. Is it really that big a deal?
In another thread, billsf posted
This really gets at my craw for dubya to use a stupid recess opportunity to appoint this right wing radical.
Packin' the courts has always been his objective in conjunction with the rich religious right, and he won on this one.
It's making me really sick. frown
This really gets at my craw for dubya to use a stupid recess opportunity to appoint this right wing radical.
Packin' the courts has always been his objective in conjunction with the rich religious right, and he won on this one.
It's making me really sick. frown
There are worse things, but this is pretty bad. See, southern conservatives ... well ... southern conservatives are evil. Evil right down to their cold, black hearts, which pump not blood like yours and mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea sized brains, which becomes the cause of their nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior.
Do you understand?
Do you understand?
QUOTE
m1:
This really gets at my craw for dubya to use a stupid recess opportunity to appoint this right wing radical.
Remember, Bill Clinton used the same strategy to appoint an openly gay ambassador because the Senate never would have confirmed him. The Repugnicans all cried foul, but it's an old ploy.
This really gets at my craw for dubya to use a stupid recess opportunity to appoint this right wing radical.
Naah, it's not so bad, if you're so focused on homosexuality and you think it's okay to appoint someone to the court
-who is a close associate of Trent Lott;
-who voted to give state funds to the overtly racist Mississippi Sovereignty Commission (an analogue of the respectable and virulently anti-black, anti-Civil Rights White Citizens' Councils);
-who openly advocated racial segregation and intimidation of blacks and black voters when he was a young man; and
-who in 1994, in a ruling from the FEDERAL bench, forced prosecutors to reduce the sentence of a white man convicted of cross burning, calling it a "drunken prank," even go to the extreme of contacting Janet Reno (!) to challenge the federal sentencing guidelines to have the convicted criminal's sentence reduced!
Hey, none of these actions were anti-gay, but if you seriously think he's a gay lover with this sort of attitude towards African Americans, then think again!
Just another reason NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH!!!
[ January 17, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
-who is a close associate of Trent Lott;
-who voted to give state funds to the overtly racist Mississippi Sovereignty Commission (an analogue of the respectable and virulently anti-black, anti-Civil Rights White Citizens' Councils);
-who openly advocated racial segregation and intimidation of blacks and black voters when he was a young man; and
-who in 1994, in a ruling from the FEDERAL bench, forced prosecutors to reduce the sentence of a white man convicted of cross burning, calling it a "drunken prank," even go to the extreme of contacting Janet Reno (!) to challenge the federal sentencing guidelines to have the convicted criminal's sentence reduced!
Hey, none of these actions were anti-gay, but if you seriously think he's a gay lover with this sort of attitude towards African Americans, then think again!
Just another reason NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH!!!
[ January 17, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
He's not that bad. he's just drawn that way: Village Voice article.
I have copies of letters from four lawyers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, who represented, in four different cases, black defendants in Pickering's court. In each case, Judge Pickering made a considerable downward departure from federal sentencing guidelines. And these are not at all the only four such cases of black defendants getting reduced sentences from him.
In one of the four cases, the defendant, a first-time offender, had been on drugs since he was eight. Pickering gave him a sentence light enough to let him get rehabilitation services in prison. The black defendant's lawyer said \"this may have been a positive life-changing experience\" for his client.
...
Says Reuben Anderson, the first black Supreme Court justice in Mississippi, formerly with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund: \"I have known Pickering for at least a quarter of a century. [He is] extremely fair and impartial to all the parties.\"
[ January 17, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
QUOTE
I have copies of letters from four lawyers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, who represented, in four different cases, black defendants in Pickering's court. In each case, Judge Pickering made a considerable downward departure from federal sentencing guidelines. And these are not at all the only four such cases of black defendants getting reduced sentences from him.
In one of the four cases, the defendant, a first-time offender, had been on drugs since he was eight. Pickering gave him a sentence light enough to let him get rehabilitation services in prison. The black defendant's lawyer said \"this may have been a positive life-changing experience\" for his client.
...
Says Reuben Anderson, the first black Supreme Court justice in Mississippi, formerly with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund: \"I have known Pickering for at least a quarter of a century. [He is] extremely fair and impartial to all the parties.\"
[ January 17, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]
QUOTE
m1:
In another thread, billsf posted
This really gets at my craw for dubya to use a stupid recess opportunity to appoint this right wing radical.
Packin' the courts has always been his objective in conjunction with the rich religious right, and he won on this one.
It's making me really sick.
Just out of curiosity, Bill, where were you when Mr. Clinton made numerous recess judicial appointments?In another thread, billsf posted
This really gets at my craw for dubya to use a stupid recess opportunity to appoint this right wing radical.
Packin' the courts has always been his objective in conjunction with the rich religious right, and he won on this one.
It's making me really sick.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
Thank you, Florida, you've screwed us, again!
TomFord, your allegiance to W is clear, but seriously, are you really defending Pickering--with Nat Hentoff's biased commentary? Well, here's some counterpoint:
Spinsanity column on Pickering
Spinsanity column on Pickering
QUOTE
But first, a recap. The concerns over Pickering's qualifications date back to 1959 when, as a law student at the University of Mississippi, he wrote a note for the law review suggesting methods to make the state's law banning interracial marriage less vulnerable to legal challenges. Conservative supporters have described that as a purely academic exercise by a much younger man, while liberal critics have described it as the beginning of a pattern. Critics also point to other racially charged moments in his past, such as his connection to the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a state agency that worked to maintain segregation. When he was nominated to be a District Court judge in 1990, Pickering testified that he had no connection to the commission -- but it was later revealed that he had once asked an official at the agency to keep him informed of a labor dispute in his hometown. Again, conservatives paint this as incidental, liberals as symptomatic.
His record as a judge and state senator has also come under fire, with liberals angry at his efforts to curtail federal jurisdiction over voting districts to maximize minority representation and at his opposition to abortion, including support for a constitutional convention that would have proposed an amendment to ban abortion. Furthermore, on the bench, Pickering's decisions have been reversed 15 times by the Circuit Court, which critics see as evidence of his lack of allegiance to established law. In addition, his ethics have come into question in a case where Pickering allegedly inappropriately pressured the Justice Department to seek a lighter sentence against a man convicted of burning a cross. He also took the unorthodox step of asking lawyers who argue in his court to write letters of support on his behalf, and even read some of them before forwarding them on to the Justice Department.
Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in SALON on Pickering's record His record as a judge and state senator has also come under fire, with liberals angry at his efforts to curtail federal jurisdiction over voting districts to maximize minority representation and at his opposition to abortion, including support for a constitutional convention that would have proposed an amendment to ban abortion. Furthermore, on the bench, Pickering's decisions have been reversed 15 times by the Circuit Court, which critics see as evidence of his lack of allegiance to established law. In addition, his ethics have come into question in a case where Pickering allegedly inappropriately pressured the Justice Department to seek a lighter sentence against a man convicted of burning a cross. He also took the unorthodox step of asking lawyers who argue in his court to write letters of support on his behalf, and even read some of them before forwarding them on to the Justice Department.
QUOTE
But there's also new evidence that Pickering has lied about his efforts \"to establish better race relations\" in the 1960s, discovered in the papers of Pickering's former law partner, the devoted segregationist J. Carroll Gartin.
The new evidence, housed at the University of Mississippi Library, shows that Pickering's decision to defect to the Republicans -- a key turning point in his public career -- came at the strong urging of Gartin, who as lieutenant governor from 1956 to 1960 and again from 1964 until his sudden death in 1966 was a leading member of Mississippi's notoriously racist Sovereignty Commission. Gartin's papers -- including his personal letters and other private documents, plus memos, press releases and news clippings from the time -- also confirm, in more detail than ever before, that Pickering became a Republican in 1964 to protest the national Democratic Party's support for civil rights and its attacks on segregation -- a motive the judge refused to acknowledge in his testimony last year.
A decision on Pickering's nomination could come as early as this week. The GOP is so determined to crush Democratic opposition to Bush's more conservative appointees that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying to change the filibuster rules, and on Friday Bush demanded that senators vote on his nominees within 180 days. Pickering's nomination isn't currently scheduled for a hearing, and it's possible Republicans will push for a vote without one. The Pickering nomination could become a test case in the escalating war over judicial appointments between the White House and Senate Democrats. The new revelations found in his law partner's papers could well strengthen the Democrats' hand. Pickering could not be reached for comment about the Gartin papers, and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Judiciary Committee chairman, did not return calls.
Even without the new evidence from Gartin's papers, Pickering's testimony had already yielded some troubling contradictions, distortions and apparent falsehoods -- a pattern of dissembling that calls into question his fitness for the federal bench. And Gartin and the Sovereignty Commission have been the subject of many of Pickering's most dubious public statements in recent years, including statements given under oath.
In 1990, for instance, when he was successfully nominated as a federal judge for the southern district of Mississippi, Pickering testified that he had had no contact with the commission and knew little about its operations. This was false, as the commission's subsequently released files show. In 2002, Pickering attempted to correct his false testimony, saying that he had contacted the commission in 1972 because he was concerned about possible Ku Klux Klan infiltration of a union in his hometown. This too was false: Commission records show that Pickering actually contacted the commission about union infiltration by a well-known civil rights organization, not the KKK.
Also in his 2002 Senate testimony, Pickering tried to portray Gartin as a \"progressive\" political leader and not a racist. This too, as he grudgingly conceded -- though only in part, under close examination by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin -- was false. Pickering also insisted that when Gartin ran for governor in 1959, his opponent Ross Barnett was the recognized segregationist candidate and that being insufficiently pro-segregation was why Gartin was defeated. Under Durbin's questioning, Pickering asserted that Gartin's philosophy on segregation was not \"as radical as [that of] Ross Barnett.\"
Maybe most remarkably, in a contentious exchange with Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, Pickering again and again refused to answer questions about whether he left the Democratic Party in 1964 because of the party's belated but brave moves on behalf of integration. Pickering dodged Feingold's questions every way imaginable and never gave an answer.
The Gartin papers provide plenty of answers to all of those questions. First of all, they show why Pickering went to so much trouble to try to play down Gartin's segregationist history, revealing Gartin's previously unknown \"conversion\" of Pickering to the Republican Party, as part of the lieutenant governor's quiet, behind-the-scenes collaboration with the Mississippi GOP. Gartin himself stayed where most political power was in those years -- he remained a Democrat, sympathetic to segregationist Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace, but instrumental in delivering Mississippi resoundingly to Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The new evidence also shows the extent to which Pickering dissembled about Gartin's 1959 campaign. Gartin's papers show that the race pitted two confirmed pro-segregationist candidates against each other, and in his campaign Gartin accused Barnett of being softer on integration than he was. The papers also show that when Gov. Barnett took the most radical stance of his career, over the desegregation of the University of Mississippi, Carroll Gartin stood proudly -- and publicly -- by Barnett's side.
Gartin's papers show conclusively that, contrary to McConnell's description, Pickering himself was one of those \"white citizens and politicians who resisted integration and civil rights,\" not someone working to oppose such forces. Instead of \"trying to establish better race relations\" in the 1960s, Pickering worked to support segregation, attack civil rights advocates who sought to end Jim Crow, and back those who opposed national civil rights legislation, above all the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Or, in the words of a public statement he signed in 1967, Pickering wanted to preserve \"our southern way of life,\" and he bitterly blamed civil rights workers for stirring up \"turmoil and racial hatred\" in the South.
The new evidence, housed at the University of Mississippi Library, shows that Pickering's decision to defect to the Republicans -- a key turning point in his public career -- came at the strong urging of Gartin, who as lieutenant governor from 1956 to 1960 and again from 1964 until his sudden death in 1966 was a leading member of Mississippi's notoriously racist Sovereignty Commission. Gartin's papers -- including his personal letters and other private documents, plus memos, press releases and news clippings from the time -- also confirm, in more detail than ever before, that Pickering became a Republican in 1964 to protest the national Democratic Party's support for civil rights and its attacks on segregation -- a motive the judge refused to acknowledge in his testimony last year.
A decision on Pickering's nomination could come as early as this week. The GOP is so determined to crush Democratic opposition to Bush's more conservative appointees that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying to change the filibuster rules, and on Friday Bush demanded that senators vote on his nominees within 180 days. Pickering's nomination isn't currently scheduled for a hearing, and it's possible Republicans will push for a vote without one. The Pickering nomination could become a test case in the escalating war over judicial appointments between the White House and Senate Democrats. The new revelations found in his law partner's papers could well strengthen the Democrats' hand. Pickering could not be reached for comment about the Gartin papers, and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Judiciary Committee chairman, did not return calls.
Even without the new evidence from Gartin's papers, Pickering's testimony had already yielded some troubling contradictions, distortions and apparent falsehoods -- a pattern of dissembling that calls into question his fitness for the federal bench. And Gartin and the Sovereignty Commission have been the subject of many of Pickering's most dubious public statements in recent years, including statements given under oath.
In 1990, for instance, when he was successfully nominated as a federal judge for the southern district of Mississippi, Pickering testified that he had had no contact with the commission and knew little about its operations. This was false, as the commission's subsequently released files show. In 2002, Pickering attempted to correct his false testimony, saying that he had contacted the commission in 1972 because he was concerned about possible Ku Klux Klan infiltration of a union in his hometown. This too was false: Commission records show that Pickering actually contacted the commission about union infiltration by a well-known civil rights organization, not the KKK.
Also in his 2002 Senate testimony, Pickering tried to portray Gartin as a \"progressive\" political leader and not a racist. This too, as he grudgingly conceded -- though only in part, under close examination by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin -- was false. Pickering also insisted that when Gartin ran for governor in 1959, his opponent Ross Barnett was the recognized segregationist candidate and that being insufficiently pro-segregation was why Gartin was defeated. Under Durbin's questioning, Pickering asserted that Gartin's philosophy on segregation was not \"as radical as [that of] Ross Barnett.\"
Maybe most remarkably, in a contentious exchange with Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, Pickering again and again refused to answer questions about whether he left the Democratic Party in 1964 because of the party's belated but brave moves on behalf of integration. Pickering dodged Feingold's questions every way imaginable and never gave an answer.
The Gartin papers provide plenty of answers to all of those questions. First of all, they show why Pickering went to so much trouble to try to play down Gartin's segregationist history, revealing Gartin's previously unknown \"conversion\" of Pickering to the Republican Party, as part of the lieutenant governor's quiet, behind-the-scenes collaboration with the Mississippi GOP. Gartin himself stayed where most political power was in those years -- he remained a Democrat, sympathetic to segregationist Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace, but instrumental in delivering Mississippi resoundingly to Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The new evidence also shows the extent to which Pickering dissembled about Gartin's 1959 campaign. Gartin's papers show that the race pitted two confirmed pro-segregationist candidates against each other, and in his campaign Gartin accused Barnett of being softer on integration than he was. The papers also show that when Gov. Barnett took the most radical stance of his career, over the desegregation of the University of Mississippi, Carroll Gartin stood proudly -- and publicly -- by Barnett's side.
Gartin's papers show conclusively that, contrary to McConnell's description, Pickering himself was one of those \"white citizens and politicians who resisted integration and civil rights,\" not someone working to oppose such forces. Instead of \"trying to establish better race relations\" in the 1960s, Pickering worked to support segregation, attack civil rights advocates who sought to end Jim Crow, and back those who opposed national civil rights legislation, above all the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Or, in the words of a public statement he signed in 1967, Pickering wanted to preserve \"our southern way of life,\" and he bitterly blamed civil rights workers for stirring up \"turmoil and racial hatred\" in the South.
MIB, once again I would like you to support your argument about Clinton appointments during recess. Please give examples, names and the positions that the judges take to make them such poor choices. To my understanding this topic was started out as Bush appointing Charles Pickering. Don't try to divert attention to mere hearsay.
I wonder what Condi thinks of her boss's decision?
QUOTE
wade n atlanta:
MIB, once again I would like you to support your argument about Clinton appointments during recess. Please give examples, names and the positions that the judges take to make them such poor choices. To my understanding this topic was started out as Bush appointing Charles Pickering. Don't try to divert attention to mere hearsay.
It's not hearsay, wade. It's historical fact. Clinton made similar recess appointments, both to the federal bench and to other departments. Look at his appointment of Bin Lan Lee, who was opposed by even many Democrats. MIB, once again I would like you to support your argument about Clinton appointments during recess. Please give examples, names and the positions that the judges take to make them such poor choices. To my understanding this topic was started out as Bush appointing Charles Pickering. Don't try to divert attention to mere hearsay.
If the Senate wanted to make trouble about Clinton's appointments, it should have had public discussion of Bill Lann Lee, who had served illegitimately as Clinton's assistant attorney general for civil rights.
In 1997, the president sent Lee's nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it failed to receive enough votes to allow a vote on the Senate floor; it failed in committee, thus meaning the nomination was dead. Instead of withdrawing the nomination or declaring Lee a recess appointment -- which would have given him about a year at the post -- Clinton declared Lee the "acting" Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
That is a clear and shocking violation of the Constitution's "advise and consent" clause.
A recess appointment also occurred with Roger Gregory, who some believed was not fit to serve on the Court of Appeals, considering he had absolutely no judicial experience at all. The Republicans didn't even allow a vote on his nomination to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. That was stupid. They should have at least allowed an up-and-down vote, as should the Democrats now. So what did Clinton do? He bypassed the Senate and appointed Gregory to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals anyway via a recess appointment.
[ January 18, 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
OK, Clinton was wrong to have made recess appointments. You've more than suitably condemned the man, the process and the action. Now, where's the condemnation for President Bush's equally wrong recess appointment? If you're not willing to condemn this decision, you have no basis to require any other person in this thread to condemn Clinton's actions to fulfill your ideal of intellectual honesty.
QUOTE
MIB:
So what did Clinton do? He bypassed the Senate and appointed Gregory to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals anyway via a recess appointment.
And so what did George Bush do, not four months after taking office? He nominated Judge Gregory to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where he now sits for life(assuming no impeachable offenses), with the blessing of a Republican president and the Republican Senate. So what did Clinton do? He bypassed the Senate and appointed Gregory to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals anyway via a recess appointment.
So what does that say of those who opposed his nomination in the first instance?
Perhaps that they so hated President Clinton that their desire to stifle anything he did became an obsession that precluded sound judgment?
[ January 19, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]
Ballplayer, I'm not sure if anyone has really answered your question.
I suppose it can be taken in two ways: is Pickering reallt that bad, or is the idea of a recess appointment so bad.
On the first question, the merits of Judge Pickering, it's very interesting to see the lineup. Nat Hentoff, a civil libertarian usually identified as a liberal, has sprung to Pickering's defense in several columns in the Village Voice (go to the Voice website and search Hentoff's archive. He writes weekly.) Note that although Hentoff is usually identified as a liberal, he has what might be considered "conservative" views on abortion and euthanasia. A very interesting, thoughtful, and thought-provoking commentator.
On the other hand, David Bernstein, a very conservative law professor, is among several prominent conservative voices who think Judge Pickering unfit for elevation to the Court of Appeals. Personally, I don't care for the man. You can read some of Bernstein's thoughts here and here.
If instead you mean the latter version of the question -- is it bad for the President to use recess appointments? -- opinion is equally divided. It is certainly legal for him to do so. The Constitution itself provides that he may do so. This does not completely evade the Senate's right to give advice and consent to Presidential nominees. A recess apppointment serves only until the current session of Congress ends and Congress reconvenes. For the recess appointment to continue in office, the President must renominate him, and the Seante confirm him.
Many people dislike the use of recess appointments, because their current usage is designed to evade the Congress -- a recess apppointment can serve for as much as two years if carefully timed, without Congress having any say in the matter. Historically, most agree that recess appointments were provided for because in the era of the founding, Congress was not the perpetual motion machine that it has since become. Congress convened, met, did its business, and went back (by horse and carriage, then by train) to their far flung constituentcies and their real jobs (sounds nice, doesn't it?). And yet the government needed to keep functioning. If an office requiring Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation became vacant while Congress was in recess, the job could go vacant for a long time until the next scheduled convening of Congress. And of course, while the President could have tried to call COngress back into session, that would have been seen as extremely wasteful, and would have been quite time consuming.
The modern use of recess appointments, while within the letter of the Constitution, is an altogether different animal from what the founders envisioned. It has evolved from an emergency tool to keep government functioning into just another weapon in the partisan death match of modern Ameircan politics.
Where you stand on their modern use depends in large part on what you think of American politics as modified by Atwater, Gingrich, and the boys.
I suppose it can be taken in two ways: is Pickering reallt that bad, or is the idea of a recess appointment so bad.
On the first question, the merits of Judge Pickering, it's very interesting to see the lineup. Nat Hentoff, a civil libertarian usually identified as a liberal, has sprung to Pickering's defense in several columns in the Village Voice (go to the Voice website and search Hentoff's archive. He writes weekly.) Note that although Hentoff is usually identified as a liberal, he has what might be considered "conservative" views on abortion and euthanasia. A very interesting, thoughtful, and thought-provoking commentator.
On the other hand, David Bernstein, a very conservative law professor, is among several prominent conservative voices who think Judge Pickering unfit for elevation to the Court of Appeals. Personally, I don't care for the man. You can read some of Bernstein's thoughts here and here.
If instead you mean the latter version of the question -- is it bad for the President to use recess appointments? -- opinion is equally divided. It is certainly legal for him to do so. The Constitution itself provides that he may do so. This does not completely evade the Senate's right to give advice and consent to Presidential nominees. A recess apppointment serves only until the current session of Congress ends and Congress reconvenes. For the recess appointment to continue in office, the President must renominate him, and the Seante confirm him.
Many people dislike the use of recess appointments, because their current usage is designed to evade the Congress -- a recess apppointment can serve for as much as two years if carefully timed, without Congress having any say in the matter. Historically, most agree that recess appointments were provided for because in the era of the founding, Congress was not the perpetual motion machine that it has since become. Congress convened, met, did its business, and went back (by horse and carriage, then by train) to their far flung constituentcies and their real jobs (sounds nice, doesn't it?). And yet the government needed to keep functioning. If an office requiring Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation became vacant while Congress was in recess, the job could go vacant for a long time until the next scheduled convening of Congress. And of course, while the President could have tried to call COngress back into session, that would have been seen as extremely wasteful, and would have been quite time consuming.
The modern use of recess appointments, while within the letter of the Constitution, is an altogether different animal from what the founders envisioned. It has evolved from an emergency tool to keep government functioning into just another weapon in the partisan death match of modern Ameircan politics.
Where you stand on their modern use depends in large part on what you think of American politics as modified by Atwater, Gingrich, and the boys.
QUOTE
jqueer:
OK, Clinton was wrong to have made recess appointments. You've more than suitably condemned the man, the process and the action. Now, where's the condemnation for President Bush's equally wrong recess appointment? If you're not willing to condemn this decision, you have no basis to require any other person in this thread to condemn Clinton's actions to fulfill your ideal of intellectual honesty.
I condemn neither president in exercising his constitutional prerogatives. I just pointd out that Bush is not alone in such appointments, which Wade somehow believes. I single out, however, Lee, for his appointment. That one was different and should be condemned.
OK, Clinton was wrong to have made recess appointments. You've more than suitably condemned the man, the process and the action. Now, where's the condemnation for President Bush's equally wrong recess appointment? If you're not willing to condemn this decision, you have no basis to require any other person in this thread to condemn Clinton's actions to fulfill your ideal of intellectual honesty.
MIB, you are mistaken once more. I never said Clinton had not done anything. You are very quick to pass a mistaken verdict. I would ask that you not put words in my writing. I only asked that you support your view with evidence. You being a man of the court, I'm sure is familiar with the words proof or evidence.
Mistaken I am not. You called my assertions "hearsay" when instead they were fact, which I illustrated herein.
When a comment comes to the board without support, I consider it hearsay. When You provided support it no longer became hearsay. You are very quick to read your own opinion into situations as you need them MIB. I truly hope you are not behind the bench.
QUOTE
wade n atlanta:
I truly hope you are not behind the bench.
don't worry, he's not behind the BENCH.
I truly hope you are not behind the bench.
True. I am never "behind" the bench. wink
And, Wade, I do not post hearsay. If something is reported as rumor or "something I've heard," then I will point this out. If not, I do my best to be clear and factual.
[ January 20, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
And, Wade, I do not post hearsay. If something is reported as rumor or "something I've heard," then I will point this out. If not, I do my best to be clear and factual.
[ January 20, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
I've never posted in this forum before (although I enjoy reading the spirited discussions) but I wanted to make an exception because of a couple of posts in this thread that I think need further amplification.
First, I would suggest that the appointment of an Executive Branch sub-cabinet officer has little relevance to the lifetime appointment of a Court of Appeals judge. Apples and oranges, really.
Next, a statement was made about the unsuitability of Roger Gregory to sit on the federal appellate bench because of a lack of judicial experience. Well, I would suggest that this is a specious argument, because many other prominent judges had no local, state or federal judicial experience when they received their appointments to the US Court of Appeals (you might have heard of one or two of these):
Ruth Ginsburg (First service on any bench: 2nd Circuit 1980)
Clarence Thomas (First service: 2nd Circut 1990)
Steven Breyer (First service: 1st Circuit 1980)
Anonin Scalia (First service: 2nd Circuit 1982)
John Paul Stevens (First service: 7th Circuit 1970)
Anthony Kennedy (First service: 9th Circuit 1975)
William Rehnquist was never a judge before receiving his Supreme Court appointment in 1971
Sandra Day O'Connor had state judicial experience and David Souter had both state and federal judicial experience before receiving their Supreme Court appointments.
About Roger Gregory's recess appointment, the story is very convoluted. One background fact: In the Fourth Circuit, as in others, there is a tradition that the seats be apportioned across the states in the circuit. With three Fourth Circuit seats open, Presiden Clinton nominated a North Carolina state appeals court judge, James A. Wynn Jr., to one of the open seats.
But Jesse Helms blocked the appointment from being voted on, using a parlimentary tactic (blue slip) whereby a senator can block a judicial nominee from his or her state.
Realizing that Helms would not yield, in 2000 Clinton instead nominated Roger Gregory, a Virginian. Helms objected, not to Gregory per se, but to the fact that he would not be able to blue-slip him. But Helms was able to get Orrin Hatch to block a vote on Gregory, so Clinton resorted to the recess appointment in December 2000.
But the good guy in this story is a man who was elected in 2000: Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia. He met with Gregory, and personally investigated and came to the conclusion that his fellow Virginian was indeed fit to sit on the Court of Appeals. Allen enlisted the aid of his fellow Republican senators, John Warner, and together they helped convince George W. Bush to re-appoint Gregory (and got Helms and Hatch to drop their objections).
OK, back to lurk-dom.
First, I would suggest that the appointment of an Executive Branch sub-cabinet officer has little relevance to the lifetime appointment of a Court of Appeals judge. Apples and oranges, really.
Next, a statement was made about the unsuitability of Roger Gregory to sit on the federal appellate bench because of a lack of judicial experience. Well, I would suggest that this is a specious argument, because many other prominent judges had no local, state or federal judicial experience when they received their appointments to the US Court of Appeals (you might have heard of one or two of these):
Ruth Ginsburg (First service on any bench: 2nd Circuit 1980)
Clarence Thomas (First service: 2nd Circut 1990)
Steven Breyer (First service: 1st Circuit 1980)
Anonin Scalia (First service: 2nd Circuit 1982)
John Paul Stevens (First service: 7th Circuit 1970)
Anthony Kennedy (First service: 9th Circuit 1975)
William Rehnquist was never a judge before receiving his Supreme Court appointment in 1971
Sandra Day O'Connor had state judicial experience and David Souter had both state and federal judicial experience before receiving their Supreme Court appointments.
About Roger Gregory's recess appointment, the story is very convoluted. One background fact: In the Fourth Circuit, as in others, there is a tradition that the seats be apportioned across the states in the circuit. With three Fourth Circuit seats open, Presiden Clinton nominated a North Carolina state appeals court judge, James A. Wynn Jr., to one of the open seats.
But Jesse Helms blocked the appointment from being voted on, using a parlimentary tactic (blue slip) whereby a senator can block a judicial nominee from his or her state.
Realizing that Helms would not yield, in 2000 Clinton instead nominated Roger Gregory, a Virginian. Helms objected, not to Gregory per se, but to the fact that he would not be able to blue-slip him. But Helms was able to get Orrin Hatch to block a vote on Gregory, so Clinton resorted to the recess appointment in December 2000.
But the good guy in this story is a man who was elected in 2000: Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia. He met with Gregory, and personally investigated and came to the conclusion that his fellow Virginian was indeed fit to sit on the Court of Appeals. Allen enlisted the aid of his fellow Republican senators, John Warner, and together they helped convince George W. Bush to re-appoint Gregory (and got Helms and Hatch to drop their objections).
OK, back to lurk-dom.
Lgator, so nice to hear from you. With information that is so insightful and researched, please return again soon from the shadows. I guess that puts the onus on me to do more research on Bill Lann Lee and find out what really happened there. Thanks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.