Are there REALLY no qualified Black Republican Lawyers???

[hornplayer]

This is an interesting article, and certainly begs for an answer to the question above...

Courts: New Bush Judicial Nominee is the Most Conservative Black Man on Earth!
All we want to know is, where does Bush keep finding these folks? Hot on the heels of Janice Roger Brown's nomination to the DC Court of Appeals — a position for which the American Bar Association judged her to be only barely qualified (she received their lowest passing grade), but at which she would provide apparently crucial ultra-rightwing counterbalance — the President now offers us Claude A. Allen. Allen, Bush's nominee for the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, emerged from his vetting with a similarly lousy ABA rating — something he and Brown share with Clarence Thomas, whose nomination to the US Supreme Court marked the first foray into an increasingly common Republican ploy of nominating borderline-qualified/outrageously far-right judges who happen to be black, Latino or women. Then when Democrats fight to block their confirmation, the GOP can (ludicrously) claim the Dems are just plain racist, sexist, etc. It's become a dismally familiar — if still diabolically brilliant — Bush tactic. And it's getting more and more extreme — Allen, a former aide to Senator Jesse Helms (!), is possibly even more conservative than Brown. As Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, this nonpracticing lawyer's most notorious act was to remove from the CDC website information about the effectiveness of condoms to halt sexually transmitted diseases (hello, syphilis, my old friend!). Allen's confirmation is facing a steep challenge in the Senate, with the two Maryland Senators opposing him ostensibly for regional reasons (the seat had typically been held by a Marylander, not a Virginian), but maybe that's just so they wouldn't face accusations of racism from George W. Bush. As the wicked witch said while melting under Dorothy's water attack, "what a world, what a world!"


[article copied from africana.com]

[RBS]

I can't believe that people don't see through this ploy and the sanctimonious arguments that follow.

As the wicked witch said while melting under Dorothy's water attack, "what a world, what a world!"

I'll drink to that.

[jesus marion joseph]

So, the fact that some organisation dislikes a candidate's political views renders that nominee "unqualified"? Or is it the fact that the writer(s) feels that nominees should be confirmed based solely upon the ABA's rating system? By that measure, there would hardly ever be a "qualified" candidate, as they are always seemingly under attack from the opposite side of the ideological aisle.

*edit* Just so that I don't get flamed any more than absolutely necessary, I would agree that "baiting" the opposition by intentionally nominating under or insuficciently experienced candidates of color solely to decry their non-confirmation is, at the very least, deplorable politics. Frankly, I don't know a thing about this nominee other than what is in the blurb extracted by hp.

[Chris D]

I always took it that the ABA's recommendations were non-partisan in nature.

[jesus marion joseph]

I believe you're correct that the ABA itself is more or less non-partisan (at least the ratings system is fairly objective in nature, or used to be-I'm not sure what the current criteria are), but the results of their ratings are then used by Senators who are politicians and, as a result, whether the ABA wants to be partisan or not, it all ends up being a partisan smackdown, with some rare exceptions.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by RBS
I can't believe that people don't see through this ploy and the sanctimonious arguments that follow.

Are you saying that you are *shocked* at the political manipulation employed by..............................career politicians?

[jesus marion joseph]

The following is an excerpt from the ABA's website section regarding the judicial nominating process. The full text is here.

<< Since 1960, the ABA has rated almost 2,000 persons formally nominated by the last nine Presidents either "qualified" or "well qualified." Of the 26 nominees the Committee found "not qualified," 23 were nominees of Democratic Presidents and 3 were nominees of Republican Presidents.>>

[Monte Smith]

I'm sorry, but Black people are only allowed to have one set of ideas. It's for their own good. Chris A. has explained this quite compellingly in his Colin Powell-Condi Rice "plantation" posts.

Pay attention.

Originally posted by Monte Smith
I'm sorry, but Black people are only allowed to have one set of ideas. It's for their own good. Chris A. has explained this quite compellingly in his Colin Powell-Condi Rice "plantation" posts.

Pay attention.

Nice try, Monte, but don't you think your simplistic, condescending comments have become a bit tired?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris A
Nice try, Monte, but don't you think your simplistic, condescending comments have become a bit tired?

Yeah, c'mon Monte. You didn't even call anyone an "appointed moron", or anything nearly as fresh and insightful.

JMJ, while "appointed" is a statement of fact, I will admit that "moron" is an opinion based on performance. Need I add that it is a widely shared opinion?

[bluenoter]

JMJ or other lawyers--Can we take the ABA's ratings of judicial nominees seriously, then, regardless of the political uses to which they're put?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by bluenoter
JMJ or other lawyers--Can we take the ABA's ratings of judicial nominees seriously, then, regardless of the political uses to which they're put?

Good question. The ABA rating seems to be the only one that is systematic and compiled by a "panel of experts", as it were, and according to the ABA is based upon multiple criteria. The ratings are inherently subjective, but I don't see how that can be avoided, as the function of a judge is in large part based upon discretionary calls (although legislatures try to make this less so with schemes such as "sentencing grids", etc). More from the ABA website:

<< The Committee investigates and evaluates the professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament of nominees to the federal bench. The Committee examines a nominee's analytical ability, knowledge of the law, and breadth of professional experience by reviewing their legal writings and speaking to the colleagues of the bench and bar. In a typical investigation, the Committee interviews about 40 lawyers, judges and others familiar with the nominee. A more complex investigation may result in well over 100 interviews. At the conclusion of all inquiries, a formal report, containing a description of the candidate's background and summaries of all interviews, is sent to all Committee members for their consideration. The Committee then votes the nominee "qualified," "well qualified," or "not qualified." >>

The long and short is that IMHO the ABA ratings are a useful evaluative tool, but should not be the sole touchstone upon which judicial appointments are decided. *If* the Senate performs its constitutional duty (IMHO), it should question the nominee further on the criteria used by the ABA in order to "flesh out" the nominee's qualifications to sit on the bench. Unfortunately, this is where pressure groups usually get involved and the process typically devolves into an ideological battlefield, resulting in a proxy political war.

[Uli]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph

The long and short is that IMHO the ABA ratings are a useful evaluative tool, but should not be the sole touchstone upon which judicial appointments are decided. *If* the Senate performs its constitutional duty (IMHO), it should question the nominee further on the criteria used by the ABA in order to "flesh out" the nominee's qualifications to sit on the bench. Unfortunately, this is where pressure groups usually get involved and the process typically devolves into an ideological battlefield, resulting in a proxy political war.

jmj. to the extent that I follow these discussions it's my impression that one of the most contentious points is that Senate members claim that they can't perform their duties because the nominees don't answer the questions. Is that correct? If so, why don't they answer? Is it because the wrong questions (political, all I ever hear about is views on abortion) are asked? or is it just a power play between Executive and Senate?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Uli
jmj. to the extent that I follow these discussions it's my impression that one of the most contentious points is that Senate members claim that they can't perform their duties because the nominees don't answer the questions. Is that correct? If so, why don't they answer? Is it because the wrong questions (political, all I ever hear about is views on abortion) are asked? or is it just a power play between Executive and Senate?

I do recall that there was a recent nominee (can't remember his name now) who refused to answer some of the Judiciary Committee's questions on the grounds that they called for speculative answers or some such thing. Can't recall if they were abortion related or not, either.

I suppose the Senators are free to draw their own conclusions about whether someone is cooperating with them or not and vote accordingly. I do feel, however, that most of the time that there is a controversial nominee before them, the Judiciary Committee is engaging in more of a political agenda through the media than they are in an actual search for "answers". IMHO I feel the process would be better served if the Judiciary Committee limited their consideration to whether the nominee shows the ability to think analytically in coming to legal conclusions and focused far less on specific "hot button" issues and scoring political points through the press. BWTFDIK??

[Tanager]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
IMHO I feel the process would be better served if the Judiciary Committee limited their consideration to whether the nominee shows the ability to think analytically in coming to legal conclusions and focused far less on specific "hot button" issues and scoring political points through the press. BWTFDIK??

Well, I'd say the responsibility for doing so falls on both the Legislative and Executive branches (and that's true regardless of which party controls either). I think it's not unreasonable to assert that any President (of any party) will choose nominees which reflect views closest to his (or her) own, thereby moving the court in a direction more favorable to the administration's positions on constitutional and legislative issues. If the President does choose nominees based not only on their "ability to think analytically in coming to legal conclusions," but also on their position within the political spectrum on issues deemed important by the Administration, then why can't the Judiciary Committee (and the Congress at large) use those same criteria as well in evaluating the nominees? I would argue that, in fact, they should use those criteria as long as the nominees are chosen by them as well, since that is part of their role in checking the power of the Executive.

Both sides are IMHO equally guilty (or innocent), depending on how you look at it.

[GoodSpeak]

Black republican Lawyer...?

[wha-?]


Holy Oxymoron, Batman!!!

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
Black republican Lawyer...?

[wha-?]


Holy Oxymoron, Batman!!!

Why?

[Monte Smith]

Uh oh! Presidential candidate Al Sharpton wants the Senate to let Black conservative judicial nominees be voted up or down, not filibustered:

Sharpton breaks ranks on Brown

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Rev. Al Sharpton implored Senate Democrats yesterday not to filibuster President Bush's nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the nation's second-highest federal court.

Justice Brown, who is black, has come under intense criticism by liberal black groups, such as the NAACP, and by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel plans to vote this morning on her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"I don't agree with her politics. I don't agree with some of her background," said Mr. Sharpton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. "But she should get an up-or-down vote."

Democrats have been sharply critical of Justice Brown, though they have not yet explicitly vowed a filibuster, which would prevent her name from reaching the Senate floor for a confirmation vote that likely would pass. If all nine Democrats vote against the nomination today, they will likely begin a filibuster against her.

Mr. Sharpton's comments not only complicate the vote for several Democrats on the panel, they also are a stark departure from some of the best-known black groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said Justice Brown is "hostile to civil rights and civil liberties and ill-prepared to sit on the nation's second-highest court."

"The president's penchant for choosing extremist minority judicial candidates is an exercise in cynicism of the worst kind," Mr. Bond said. "Clothing extreme views in color is designed to make them more difficult to oppose, but judicial selections should be based in principle, not in pigment."

Born into a poor, sharecropping family in segregated Alabama, Justice Brown made her way through law school as a single mother. After serving in former California Gov. Pete Wilson's administration, she was named by him to the California Supreme Court.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bond and other black leaders portrayed Justice Brown as a "far right-wing extremist" and "outside the mainstream."

They were asked how Justice Brown could be described as a right-wing ideologue when 76 percent of California voters cast ballots to return her to the bench in 1998, the highest percentage of any justice in that retention election.

"It's inexplicable to me," Mr. Bond said. "I cannot think of a response. But nonetheless, that election does not invalidate any of the things [we] have said."

Mr. Sharpton echoed the concerns of many conservatives — especially black conservatives — that Justice Brown is being opposed because she doesn't conform to the Democratic ideology that many blacks espouse.

"We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us," Mr. Sharpton said in a television interview conducted by Sinclair Broadcasting yesterday. "I don't think she should be opposed because she doesn't come from some assumed club."

Mr. Sharpton compared the filibusters to the same sort of "pocket vetoes" used for so long against blacks.

Wade Henderson, director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who attended the anti-Brown press conference, was later asked about Mr. Sharpton's remarks.

"I don't believe it. That can't be true," he said as he headed to a meeting in the Democratic leadership office. "It would be shockingly surprising."

Mr. Sharpton's position could create particular problems for Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat and candidate for president, who plans to vote against Justice Brown's nomination in the Judiciary Committee today.

A group supporting Justice Brown's nomination is airing television ads in South Carolina criticizing Mr. Edwards for blocking the nominee, who was born into the same conditions as many of those in that state's large black population.
South Carolina is Mr. Edwards' birth state and his best early hope for a primary victory. South Carolina also is the state where Mr. Sharpton has the highest poll numbers.

•Robert Redding Jr. and Steve Miller contributed to this report.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
They were asked how Justice Brown could be described as a right-wing ideologue when 76 percent of California voters cast ballots to return her to the bench in 1998, the highest percentage of any justice in that retention election.

"It's inexplicable to me," Mr. Bond said. "I cannot think of a response. But nonetheless, that election does not invalidate any of the things [we] have said."

Don't pester we with facts, dammit! I've got an agenda here!