From Brian Garst at American Thinker:
The most shocking case, however, is that of Miguel Estrada. Estrada was nominated by President Bush for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a position he was, by most accounts, more than qualified for. Estrada graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was also editor of the Harvard Law Review, a post that would later be highly touted on Obama’s thin Presidential resume. In addition to time spent in private practice, Estrada went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and then joined the Department of Justice during the Clinton Administration as an Assistant to the Solicitor General.
In 2001, President Bush made the Estrada appointment to the Court of Appeals. The democratic response was apocalyptic, and Estrada was eventually forced to withdraw after 2 years of stonewalling and filibusters. Thanks to a slew of leaked memos between democratic Senators and liberal interest groups, we now know the despicable motives behind this opposition: Estrada was a Hispanic who might one day be appointed to the Supreme Court, and by a Republican, no less. One memo highlights that Estrada was “especially dangerous” in part because he “is Latino.” In the twisted world of identity politics, advancement of minority groups is only acceptable when it’s made through the appropriate political party, namely the democrats. Conservative minorities are not afforded the same benefits of identity politics as liberal minorities, because they are a threat to the condescending notion that minorities may only think and vote democratic.
Naturally, Estrada’s opposition had to come up with better reasons than blatant racism to publicly oppose a candidate even they admit in the memo was “clearly an intelligent lawyer.” In their “talking points” section, they justified opposition on the grounds that he “has serious temperament problems,” and is a “right-wing zealot.” This last line of attack is somewhat baffling given the repeated claims that he “has virtually no paper trail.” And far from being the asset touted with Sonia Sotomayor, Estrada’s “compelling life story” was dismissed as evidence of nothing more than “affirmative action.” It’s hard to imagine the uproar if a similar statement were to be made about Sotomayor today.
Good links, read the whole thing.
Another good compare / contrast article in the NYT this morning; Sotomayor vs. Clarence Thomas.
Surprisingly good, actually.
Ahhh, but RACISM!
I wonder what Sotomayor’s feelings are about illegal immigration? I have a few Puerto Rican friends, across the political spectrum, and one thing they all agree on is there absolute loathing of Mexicans. It might be an interesting line of questioning during the confirmation hearings, although she probably is prepared for it.
Which is why I laughed when I heard someone had depicted Sotomayor as a piñata, B Moe.
After all, this a woman who said she didn’t know what a taco was until she went to college and had a Mexican girl for a roommate.
The Supremes are a sham until they get someone of exercise ball stock.
ht/hf
Wait, they’ve already got what’s-his-name.
Marcuse smiles. ‘Repressive tolerance’ in action.
pretty gross to read about this stuff, the litmus tests and racial politics.
the GOP does it on idelogical grounds, 100% certain, so the right is little better, but when you see it done on the account of race….yeccch.
They better be careful about how they oppose Estrada…
Oh, wait…
Is “Can’t reroof a house worth shit” an acceptable objection?
Wait, you mean Dems make expressly racist statements and the MSM gives them a pass?
The deuce you say.
You can’t get through, go around.