The Pickering Affair

[Scruffy]

So, here's my question about the whole affair.

And just so SIN and Bill don't get all bitchy about my liberal bias, I don't give two hoots as to who is a judge in the United States of America. I really don't. I don't know Pickering, don't have any opinions on whether or not he should be a judge or anything. Hell, I'll go you one better, unless there's proof that he would be a bad judge(Say a blatant ruling along the lines of "The defendant is probably guilty but he's hispanic so send him to Chino") then he should probably get his shot.

But here's my question, why do you suppose, that we're so quick to assume a politician is going down party lines? I typically think we should give folk the benefit of the doubt on stuff like this. Maybe Kennedy and his clan really don't believe that this guy would be a good judge. Is that really hard to believe?

I know I'm sounding a tad naive here but the point remains that I'll believe what a man says , unless I have evidence to the contrary.

It's why I believe Lott when he says his upcoming vote on that Daschle aides nomination isn't in retaliation. It's why I believe that KFC is finger lickin' good.

 

[SINthysist]

Trent Lott has blocked Dashle's nominee in a tit-for-tat move and Zell Miller has warned that this is going to backfire in the South.

And, uh, there were 10 Democrats on the committee and 9 Republicans, and goodness sakes, who could have guessed the vote would be 10-9 against.

I sure didn't see that one comming!

 

[SINthysist]

"I know I'm sounding a tad naive here but the point remains that I'll believe what a man says , unless I have evidence to the contrary. "

They are counting on that!

 

[Scruffy]

And, uh, there were 10 Democrats on the committee and 9 Republicans, and goodness sakes, who could have guessed the vote would be 10-9 against.

Okay but Democrats and Republicans aren't The Lakers and The Celtics. It's not Buckeyes vs. Wolverines. They're people, who by their very grouping, should be expected to have similar views on things.

When I read that all the Progressive Conservatives all voted one way on a tax bill I don't say "Stupid partisan bastards. Can't their party let them vote their minds?" I say "Stupid Progressive conservatives. A bunch of skull fucking idiots"

I expect a group of people, lumped together by political ideology to share certain beliefs. Grow up.

 

[Scruffy]

"I know I'm sounding a tad naive here but the point remains that I'll believe what a man says , unless I have evidence to the contrary. "

They are counting on that!

Who, the boogeyman and count chocula?

 

[Ishmael]

Daschle's senate

Scruffy,

Pickering was painted as a "racist" when all evidence was to the contrary. I'm not goin to post the mans record, but as far as race relations go, it was exemplary. Pickering showed a color blindness with regard to justice that angered many of the residual 'segregationists' left in the south. In other words, Pickering was a victim of blatant character assasination.

That is wrong under any guise and I, for one, won't forget that.

The is a great deal of precedence regarding the Senate's "advice and consent" role in the selection of administrative appointee's. If one goes back to the "Federalist Papers" and the writings of first Supreme Court Justice Storie, you will find the the litmus test for appointee's are their qualifications for the office, not their particular political, or legal, beleifs.

One of the most contraversial appointments in recent history was John F. Kennedys appointment of his brother Robert to the post of Attorney General. The Republicans controled the Senate at the time and could have made a great deal of political mileage out of this decision. Robert's appointment was ratified because he was qualified.

I think the Democrats have made a grave mis-calculation in the case of Pickering, particularly in that they really weren't all that interested in "Borking" Pickering as much as they were using him as a warm up for the Supreme Court appointments that will surely be coming.

Crying "wolf" at every conservative appointment will take the edge off their objections and the people will get tired of this behavior.

Pickering should have been appointed. He was qualified for the post. And the Dem's should have saved their ammo.

I'm glad they didn't. It will backfire, badly.

Ishmael

 

[Scruffy]

Re: Daschle's senate

Scruffy,

Pickering was painted as a "racist" when all evidence was to the contrary. I'm not goin to post the mans record, but as far as race relations go, it was exemplary. Pickering showed a color blindness with regard to justice that angered many of the residual 'segregationists' left in the south. In other words, Pickering was a victim of blatant character assasination.

That is wrong under any guise and I, for one, won't forget that.

Well, Ishmael, again I'm not as well versed in his record myself but I have one or two straws to break with your post.

1) This is beside the point but there's no need to put racist in quotation marks. Either way, The one thing I'd say is that some of the groups that opposed his nomination made claims that he was pro-segregation in his youth. If that's the case, I'm not sure if it is myself, then his record on race relations was not "exemplary"

2) Your point would be better taken if the Democrats said something along the lines of "We don't think racists should be allowed to be judges. Pickering used to be obviously racist. He can't be a judge" What Sen. Leahy said and I'll paraphrase is something along the lines of Pickering injects his opinions into his legal decisions. That point could, and should, be debated but that's the real point. Did he make bad legal decisions based on his opinions? If not then you're right about the character assassination. If he did then he isn't qualified for the job.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Daschle's senate

Well, Ishmael, again I'm not as well versed in his record myself but I have one or two straws to break with your post.

1) This is beside the point but there's no need to put racist in quotation marks. Either way, The one thing I'd say is that some of the groups that opposed his nomination made claims that he was pro-segregation in his youth. If that's the case, I'm not sure if it is myself, then his record on race relations was not "exemplary"

2) Your point would be better taken if the Democrats said something along the lines of "We don't think racists should be allowed to be judges. Pickering used to be obviously racist. He can't be a judge" What Sen. Leahy said and I'll paraphrase is something along the lines of Pickering injects his opinions into his legal decisions. That point could, and should, be debated but that's the real point. Did he make bad legal decisions based on his opinions? If not then you're right about the character assassination. If he did then he isn't qualified for the job.

I'll stand by my original statement.

Should a man be judged as to his worth by what he allegedly said, as stated be dubious sources, or by his actions?

What Sen. Leahy (the leaker) opinion is, is of no consequence whatsoever. Annecdotal testimony discarded, Pickerings record with regard to civil rights was exemplary and showed a level of character that I would think we would all like to see in our Judges. He made very unpopular decisions from the bench. Such as the fact that in
1967, Pickering testified against the Grand Wizard of the KKK accused of the firebombing death of a civil rights leader, even after being warned by the FBI that his testimony could place him, his wife and two small children in danger from the Klan. (He was a prosecutor at the time and this testimony led to his NOT being re-elected to office.) Or that James Charles Evers? The brother of slain civil-rights hero Medgar Evers? Is defending this "extremist" in the pages of The Wall Street Journal? Hmmm.

The people for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice and other members in good standing of the character assassination coalition were faxing false accusations about Pickering far and wide. Some of those faxes landed on Evers' desk. Evers, who has known Pickering for decades, was "saddened and appalled to read many of the allegations
that have been put forth about Judge Pickering ... made by groups with a Washington, D.C., address and a political agenda" and without real knowledge of "Pickering's long and distinguished record on civil rights."

Evers notes that Pickering did more than face down the Klan. While in private practice, he defended an African-American man accused of robbing a white 16-year-old at knifepoint. After two trials, the man was acquitted. (In Mississipi? Heresy I say!)

Or that as a federal judge, Pickering once overturned a damage award in a civil case because he believed that the jury was biased against the plaintiffs, an interracial couple. He ordered
that the matter of damages be retried and the award for the couple was thus increased.
For some more reading try:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20020306.shtml

Ishmael

 

[Scruffy]

Re: Re: Re: Daschle's senate

I'll stand by my original statement.

Should a man be judged as to his worth by what he allegedly said, as stated be dubious sources, or by his actions?

What Sen. Leahy (the leaker) opinion is, is of no consequence whatsoever. Annecdotal testimony discarded, Pickerings record with regard to civil rights was exemplary and showed a level of character that I would think we would all like to see in our Judges.

1) You're right. A man should be judged by his actions. But you're mistaken if you think that what you say is not an act. If Mr. Pickering believed that Black people should not be allowed to drink from the same fountain as white people(Again, I'm not saying he did, but then again you're not saying he didn't) then he was a racist individual at that point in his life. I don't think that should disqualify him from the bench though.

2) I don't think that Leahy's opinion is of no consequence(It obviously is of consequence being as it barred Pickering from the bench) I'm going to assume you meant relevance. That I still disagree with. Listen, if Leahy's biggest crime is being racist, well then we have had much more racist people in much higher positions. Being racist shouldn't disqualify you from a federal judgeship. The big qualifier there, however, is whether or not a racist lets his personal views interfere with his job. Leahy isn't saying "Pickerings a racist so he doesn't get to be a judge." but he's saying "Pickering's views adversely affect his ability to be a good judge"

Is Leahy right? Couldn't say for sure. I'm not a legal scholar. But a few isolated cases in a career that must have been involved with hundreds if not thousands of cases do not close the book.

 

[Ishmael]

Ah, the crux of the matter.

That's the problem Scruffy. Not one instance was ever cited by the opposition.

And therein lies the problem. Judge Pickering is strongly opposed to abortion. His rulings from the bench upheld the Supreme Court decision in Rowe vs Wade, even though he is probably dubious, as many of us are, of Justice Blacks perception of the penumbra of the 1st ammendment.

Now, abortions rights, or lack thereof, are a hotly debated issue in this country and I certainly don't what to get into that debate in this thread. Too many other threads here address the issue. However, if you oppose a man because of his views on abortion then say so. To play the 'race' card because of an unrelated difference of opinion is highly disingenuous in my book and calls into question the character of the accuser's, not the accused.

Ishmael

 

[Scruffy]

Re: Ah, the crux of the matter.

That's the problem Scruffy. Not one instance was ever cited by the opposition.

And therein lies the problem. Judge Pickering is strongly opposed to abortion. His rulings from the bench upheld the Supreme Court decision in Rowe vs Wade, even though he is probably dubious, as many of us are, of Justice Blacks perception of the penumbra of the 1st ammendment.

Now, abortions rights, or lack thereof, are a hotly debated issue in this country and I certainly don't what to get into that debate in this thread. Too many other threads here address the issue. However, if you oppose a man because of his views on abortion then say so. To play the 'race' card because of an unrelated difference of opinion is highly disingenuous in my book and calls into question the character of the accuser's, not the accused.

Ishmael

I think we agree for the most part the only difference being that I'm examining the hypothetical whereas you're looking at the specifics.

The one argument I have with your post is your contention that what defeated him is "the race card". Again, it's not that he's racist but blah, blah, blah.

 

[bored1]

From what I have read the man was totally qualified for the position.....A good man was trashed by the 10 Dems on the committee....The 9 Republicans waited till the end to address the misstatements by the majority.....Anyone Bush nominates is going to be hammered.....What the left wants is judges that will legislate from the bench............

 

[Scruffy]

Re: Ah, the crux of the matter.

That's the problem Scruffy. Not one instance was ever cited by the opposition.

Not to be a jerk about it but after five minutes of surfing I found Leahy citing two specific instances.

Here it is in a C&P from the Washington Post:

According to Leahy's analysis, a number of Pickering's district court rulings that were reversed by the 5th Circuit Court that he now hopes to join involved "well settled principles of law" as defined by the appeals court's own standards.

Leahy cited one First Amendment case in which Pickering was reversed, which the senator said involved "almost identical facts" as an earlier 5th Circuit Court ruling in another case. "We do not know whether [Pickering] did not know the law or did not follow it," Leahy said.

In two other instances within a three-year period, Pickering's dismissals of cases before him were reversed by the circuit court on the basis of the same legal principle, Leahy said. "He had been reversed on that basis once and committed the same error again," he said.

Leahy also said that Pickering has a "habit of inserting his personal views" into his written opinions. In a 1996 employment discrimination case, Leahy said, Pickering "did not limit his opinion to a legal conclusion based on the facts [but] made sure to note that 'the Civil Rights Act was not passed to guarantee job security to employees who do not do their job adequately.' "

This is Scruffy again. I just thought I'd throw this in from Leahy:

"Many have criticized Democratic senators for calling Judge Pickering a racist," Leahy said. "That did not happen, and that criticism is a smoke screen to obscure the real problems with this nomination."

 

[Guest]

No proof?

Pickering's pre-judicial conduct

Although we have not been able to review Judge Pickering's entire 30-year public record before becoming a federal judge, several aspects of his activities with respect to civil rights have drawn attention and concern. These include his record as a state senator on voting rights issues, and two subjects about which he has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: an article he wrote concerning a former Mississippi law providing criminal penalties for interracial marriage, and his involvement with the notorious Mississippi Sovereignty Commission.

During the period of Pickering's service as a Mississippi state senator in the 1970s, the Senate passed voting-related measures that helped perpetuate discrimination against African Americans. When Pickering was elected in 1972, blacks in Mississippi were already litigating a lawsuit, Connor v. Johnson, challenging multi-member state legislative districts that seriously harmed minorities and helped keep the state Senate all-white until the end of the 1970s. In 1973, Pickering voted for, and the Senate passed, a partial Senate redistricting plan that continued to provide for county-wide voting in a populous county, rather than creating single-member districts, harming minority voting rights.[10] In 1975, Pickering voted for a broader Senate-passed measure that similarly provided for county-wide district voting.[11] Pickering was Secretary of the Elections Committee that wrote legislative history for the 1975 plan. In language foreshadowing Pickering's criticism as a judge of reapportionment necessitated by court orders, the committee stated that it was seeking to avoid "unwarranted hardship upon voters and election officials by structuring voting precincts on [census] enumeration districts which are subject to frequent change."[12] Only after pressure from court orders in Connor at the end of the 1970s did the Mississippi legislature finally enact single-member districts, helping result in the election of two African American Senate members.[13]

As a state senator, Pickering also co-sponsored legislative proposals that were harmful to minority voting rights. In 1975, when Congress was to renew Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act mandating pre-clearance of voting changes in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination like Mississippi, some southern legislators opposed it. Pickering co-sponsored a Mississippi Senate resolution calling on Congress to repeal the provision or apply it to all states, regardless of their discrimination history.[14] In addition, both in 1976 and 1979, Pickering co-sponsored so-called "open primary" legislation that would have abolished party primaries and required a majority vote to win state office. The measure was criticized as discriminatory before its passage in 1976, and both years it was prevented from taking effect due to Justice Department objections under the Voting Rights Act.[15]

Another important civil rights issue that came up during Pickering's service as a state senator concerned the infamous Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. The Sovereignty Commission, a state-funded agency, was created not long after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education in order to resist desegregation, and was empowered to act as necessary to protect the "sovereignty" of the state of Mississippi from the federal government. The Commission infiltrated and spied on civil rights and labor organizations and reported on their activities. It compiled dossiers on civil rights activists and used the information to obstruct their activities. The Commission existed until 1977, when the state legislature voted to abolish it and to seal its records for 50 years. Pickering, who was a state senator at the time, voted in favor of sealing the records, and was asked about the subject at his 1990 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1990, Pickering testified that "I never had any contact with that agency and I had disagreement with the purposes and the methods and some of the approaches that they took. . . I never had any contact with the Sovereignty Commission."[16] He further testified, pertaining to the time during which he served in the state Senate before the abolition of the Commission (1972-1978), that "this commission had, in effect, been abolished for a number of years. During the entire time that I was in the State Senate, I do not recall really of that commission doing anything. It already was de facto abolished. It was just not functioning."[17] Pickering stated that "I know very little about what is in those [Commission] records. In fact, the only thing I know is what I read in the newspapers."[18]

In fact, as a state senator, Pickering voted in 1972 and 1973 to appropriate money "to defray the expenses of" the Sovereignty Commission.[19] These votes suggest not only that the Commission was still active at that time, but also that Pickering was familiar with and supported its activities, at least enough to vote in favor of appropriating state monies to fund them.

Moreover, evidence indicates Judge Pickering did have contact with the Sovereignty Commission. At the time of Judge Pickering's 1990 confirmation hearing, the records of the Sovereignty Commission were still sealed, pursuant to the legislature's directive. However, several years ago, in response to litigation, the courts in Mississippi ordered that the Commission records be made public. A review of those records has uncovered documents indicating contact between Pickering and the Commission. A memorandum by a Commission investigator to the Director of the Commission dated January 5, 1972 stated that "Senator Charles Pickering" and two other state legislators were "very interested" in a Commission investigation into union activity that had resulted in a strike against a large employer in Laurel, Pickering's home town. Also according to this memorandum, Pickering and the other legislators had "requested to be advised of developments" concerning infiltration into the union, and had requested background information on the union leader. Memorandum from Edgar C. Fortenberry to W. Webb Burke (January 5, 1972), at 3. Subsequent memoranda written in 1972 by the same investigator indicate follow-up activities of the nature identified in the January 5, 1972 memorandum. Particularly in light of his 1990 testimony, Pickering's votes in favor of funding the Sovereignty Commission and his other apparent involvement with it are extremely disturbing.

The Mississippi NAACP and other critics of Pickering have also raised the issue of a law review article he wrote on Mississippi's law criminalizing interracial marriage. Until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court held such laws to be unconstitutional,[20] interracial marriage was prohibited by statute in a number of states, including Mississippi. In that state, interracial marriage was a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. In 1958, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a problem in the language of the state statute criminally penalizing interracial marriage made the criminal law unenforceable. The court therefore reversed the conviction of an African American woman for "cohabiting with" a white man.[21]

In 1959, while he was a law student at the University of Mississippi, Pickering wrote an article concerning the result of that state Supreme Court case, which had rendered unenforceable the state's law penalizing interracial marriage. Charles W. Pickering, "Criminal Law - Miscegenation - Incest," Vol. XXX, Mississippi Law Journal 326 (1959) (hereafter "Pickering, 'Miscegenation.'"). In his article, Pickering advised the state legislature as to how it could cure the problem in the statute so as to render the law enforceable. The article specifically stated that if the law were to "serve the purpose that the legislature undoubtedly intended it to serve, the section should be amended." Pickering, "Miscegenation," at 329 (emphasis added). The very next year, the state legislature amended the statute in accordance with Pickering's advice.[22]

In his article, Pickering expressed no moral outrage over laws prohibiting and criminalizing interracial marriage, nor did he condemn them. Indeed, even though the California Supreme Court ten years earlier had held its state laws prohibiting interracial marriage to be unconstitutional,[23] Pickering pointed out in his article that there had been what he called a "vigorous dissent" in that case. Pickering, "Miscegenation," at 328 n.9.[24]

While this article was written many years ago, Pickering has not taken the opportunity presented to him at either of his confirmation hearings to repudiate it. At each of his two hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee (in 1990 when he was nominated to the District Court and in October 2001 concerning the pending nomination) Pickering was asked about this disturbing article. While Pickering testified last year that he believes that "who one marries is a personal choice and that there should not be legislation on that,"[25] at neither hearing did he even express regret over having written the article. To the contrary, at the first hearing he sought to brush aside the article as an "academic exercise."[26] Moreover, at his most recent hearing, Pickering mischaracterized what he had written, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that "I predicted in that article that those statutes would be changed in the future..."[27] In fact, what he had written was this:


Certainly, recent decisions in the fields of education, transportation, and recreation, would cause one to wonder how long the Supreme Court will allow any statute to stand which uses the term "race" to draw a distinction. However, it is submitted that the Supreme Court will not invalidate the miscegenation statutes, for some time at least.

Pickering, "Miscegenation," at 329 (emphasis added). The fact that Pickering still defends his writing of this article and does not seem to evidence any understanding of the evil wrought by such laws indicates disturbing insensitivity to civil rights concerns.

Pickering and civil rights

Civil rights issues have frequently come before Charles Pickering, both as a federal judge in Mississippi and as a life-long resident of that state. His record both before and after becoming a judge, however, does not demonstrate an affirmative commitment to civil rights protections. To the contrary, his record reflects insensitivity and even hostility toward key principles and remedies that now safeguard civil rights and indifference toward the problems caused by laws and institutions that have previously created and perpetuated discrimination.

Pickering as a federal judge

Most of Judge Pickering's opinions and orders on civil rights issues are unpublished, which has therefore limited our review. In the vast majority of the published and unpublished civil rights cases we reviewed, Pickering ruled against civil rights plaintiffs. Without access to the arguments, briefs, and other parts of the record in those cases, it is difficult to evaluate the specifics of these rulings. An analysis of Pickering's opinions themselves, however, is deeply troubling. In many of his opinions, Judge Pickering goes out of his way to disparage civil rights protections and plaintiffs. Usually in dicta not even necessary to his decisions, Pickering has criticized principles protecting civil rights, sought to limit their application, and denigrated those who seek to invoke civil rights laws.

For example, in several cases Judge Pickering has discussed the fundamental "one-person one-vote" principle recognized by the Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment. This principle, which calls for election districts to be nearly equal in population in order to protect the equality of all voters in our democracy, has been called one of the most important guarantees of equality in our Constitution. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 8, 17-18 (1964) (majority opinion by Justice Black). In a lengthy criticism of the principle in one case, however, Judge Pickering called it "obtrusive" and something that legislatures have reluctantly learned they "must live with." Fairley v. Forrest County, 814 F.Supp. 1327, 1330, 1338 (S.D. Miss. 1993). In that case, the defendants conceded that a deviation of more than 25% from equality was improper, in accordance with Supreme Court rulings that deviations of more than 16.4% are presumptively unconstitutional. Id. at 1330; Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 417-18 (1977). In dicta, however, Pickering suggested that these deviations were "relatively minor" and "de minimis" and that he might well have held that they "would not violate the Constitution" had that argument been raised. Fairley, 814 F.Supp. at 1345, 1330 n.2. Pickering also declined to order special elections as a remedy in the case, even though he acknowledged that this remedy had been ordered in previous one-person, one-vote cases by the Fifth Circuit. Id. at 1340-41, 1346.

Judge Pickering has also criticized or sought to limit important remedies provided by the Voting Rights Act. In order to redress serious problems of discrimination against African American voters in some cases, the courts (including the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit) have clearly recognized the propriety and importance of creating majority-black districts as a remedy under appropriate circumstances. [3] Judge Pickering, however, has severely criticized this significant form of discrimination relief. In one opinion, he called it "affirmative segregation." Bryant v. Lawrence County, 814 F. Supp. 1346, 1351 (S.D. Miss. 1993). In another opinion in the same case, he claimed that such districts produce "polarization" and complained that candidates elected in such districts "may well feel little need to accommodate the views of their minority white constituents." Id., 876 F.Supp. 122, 127 (S.D. Miss. 1995).

Judge Pickering has also suggested a narrow interpretation of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Under Section 5 of the Act, any changes in voting-related procedures in jurisdictions like Mississippi with a history of voting discrimination must be pre-cleared by the Justice Department or the federal district court in Washington D.C. to ensure that they have no discriminatory purpose or effect. The Supreme Court has made very clear that other federal courts have a limited but important role in this process; they can provide relief to voters by ensuring that proposed changes are submitted for pre-clearance, but are not themselves to evaluate or consider whether the changes are discriminatory. The Supreme Court clearly explained this protection in a case arising out of Mississippi, and has repeated it several times since.[4] In one case, however, Judge Pickering strongly suggested that the "application" of the principle that voters can sue to require Section 5 pre-clearance "should be limited" to cases where racial discrimination is specifically charged, contrary to the Act and Supreme Court precedent. Citizens' Right to Vote v. Morgan, 916 F. Supp. 601, 604 (S.D. Miss. 1996). Pickering harshly criticized the plaintiffs for even bringing that case, stating that it was "simply another of those cases which demonstrates that many citizens have come to view the federal courts as a potential solution to whatever problem comes along," a "notion" that he believed had been "fostered" by federal courts. Id.

Unpublished opinions by Pickering in a number of discrimination cases contain much more severe criticisms of civil rights plaintiffs and the use of civil rights statutes. In one case in which he rejected a race discrimination claim, Pickering harshly complained about "the side effects resulting from anti-discrimination laws," which he suggested cause people "covered by such laws" to "spontaneously react that discrimination caused" any adverse action against them. Foxworth v. Merchants Co., No. 2:95CV278PG (S.D. Miss., July 9, 1996) (slip op. at 8-9).

In two cases dismissing claims of race discrimination in employment, Pickering used identical language striking a similar theme. He wrote in both that "this case has all the hallmarks of a case that is filed simply because an adverse employment decision was made in regard to a protected minority" and that the courts "are not super personnel managers charged with second guessing every employment decision made regarding minorities."[5] Pickering similarly disparaged the plaintiff in an age discrimination case, proclaiming that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act "is not a vehicle by which any replaced worker over the age of forty may have a federal court review the merits of his job performance or the demerits of his termination." Jarrell v. F-S Prestress, Inc., No. 2:97-CV-108PG (S.D. Miss., Feb. 24, 1998) (slip op. at 11), summary judgment for def't aff'd, 166 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 1998).

Even more questionable was Pickering's reported conduct in another discrimination case. Acting on his own motion, Pickering halted a race discrimination lawsuit filed by a local chapter of the NAACP against Dixie Electric Power Association in December 1993. In what was described as a potentially precedent-setting case, the NAACP charged that Dixie had discriminated against African American employees, and also against African American customers in terms of rate-setting and termination-of-service practices. According to a press report, immediately after the suit was filed, Pickering suspended all proceedings, issued a gag order prohibiting the parties from discussing the case publicly, and directed the two sides to explore settlement in a three month period.[6] Apparently, Pickering also suspended the requirement that Dixie file an answer stating its position on the claims.[7] In January 1994, officials of the NAACP chapter "were quoted in local press reports saying they believed the case was very important and could establish a precedent for similar cases against other rural cooperatives."[8] When Pickering learned of these comments, he reportedly issued another gag order prohibiting the parties from commenting on the case.[9] Pickering's handling of the case was one of the factors specifically mentioned by the state NAACP in opposing his nomination.

In short, Pickering's conduct as a federal judge would hardly inspire confidence by civil rights plaintiffs in his handling of civil rights cases. It does not meet his burden to demonstrate a commitment to basic civil rights principles. To the contrary, his troubling conduct in going out of his way to criticize crucial civil rights principles and remedies and to disparage and limit plaintiffs in civil rights cases documents the state NAACP's conclusion of a "hostile attitude" by Judge Pickering in such cases.

 

[Ishmael]

Pickering

Yep, that's the propogandist bullshit that was trotted out for the hearings.

Hey idiots, there is no such thing as "voters rights". Voting is a privelege, not a right.

There are enough holes in the above citations to drive BIG trucks through. Most is out of context and much implies quilt by association.

Citing any objection by the NAACP is enough for me to support the candidate. Any organization that is planning "border blockades" based on the fact that a flag they object was moved from one public place to another, while the constituency that they claim to represent suffers from an 80% illegitimacy rate has their priorities way out of order.

Just another group of extortionists that has learned from the right reverend Jackson how to squeeze monies they have no legitimate right to from the corporate tree's.

(Waiting to be called a racist because I dared call the NAACP a bogus operation.)

Ishmael

 

[Scruffy]

Re: Pickering

Yep, that's the propogandist bullshit that was trotted out for the hearings.

Hey idiots, there is no such thing as "voters rights". Voting is a privelege, not a right.

Gosh, it's easier to just say "bullshit" then it is to counter a well researched, factually based post isn't it. Anything that you disagree with is propaganda. Take shots at the NAACP and make vague and unsubstantiated statements like "there are holes there."

Well, I'm out of this discussion. We know where you stand. Nice not to have to live in a world where you listen to facts and reason isn't it?

 

[SINthysist]

One person offers a dissenting opinion and you take your ball and go home.

That is a losing strategy.

The fact is that everyone, including Zell Miller has stuck up for the man.

What this will lead to is a system where only absolute majorities can place judges and appointees. President Bush has signed several things now which he call "compromises."

That is what it is about.

Dashle will not compromise in a situation in which he did not win the majority by plurality vote, but was handed to him by something that borders on treason.

And he is wielding that fragile power with a very heavy hand.

And people are noticing...

 

[Texan]

I just thought I would shed a little light on the "bullshit" that was quoted above by "unregistered". The propaganda was copied and pasted DIRECTLY from the website of PFAW. PFAW is "People For the American Way". They are an ULTRA-left wing group founded by a former aid of Sen. Kennedy. They are extrmemly proud of their efforts and successes in blocking Republican and conservative appointees to all positions of influence. The quotation below is taken directly from the website of PFAW.

In 1987, he led the successful effort by LCCR and its members, including People For the American Way, to block the nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Edward Kennedy, in a 1995 Senate floor statement, described Ralph as the "101st Senator for Civil Rights."

I point this out in an effort to inform the two or three people who might have actually read that C&P by unregistered, that it was written by someone with an extrememly biased point of view.

 

[Scruffy]

One person offers a dissenting opinion and you take your ball and go home.

That is a losing strategy.

No, and that's obviously not what I did. Me and Ishmael threw this issue back and forth for a while. I have no problem with opposing arguments as can be seen by my eagerness to stir up shit.

What I do have a problem with is people who don't want to deconstruct an argument and call the post "propaganda" and "bullshit"

 

[Scruffy]

I just thought I would shed a little light on the "bullshit" that was quoted above by "unregistered". The propaganda was copied and pasted DIRECTLY from the website of PFAW. PFAW is "People For the American Way". They are an ULTRA-left wing group founded by a former aid of Sen. Kennedy. They are extrmemly proud of their efforts and successes in blocking Republican and conservative appointees to all positions of influence. The quotation below is taken directly from the website of PFAW.




I point this out in an effort to inform the two or three people who might have actually read that C&P by unregistered, that it was written by someone with an extrememly biased point of view.

Sure, obviously. But when Todd or AJ post something from Boortz or what have you, I don't say "fuck that propaganda bullshit"

I look at what's being said and dispute it.

Also, I think it weakens your point to call it propaganda. Is it biased? You bet. But everything said about the man will be biased, be it from his supporters and his dissenters. Calling it propaganda does a disservice to political debate as a whole.

It's opinion.

 

[Texan]

Sure, obviously. But when Todd or AJ post something from Boortz or what have you, I don't say "fuck that propaganda bullshit"

I look at what's being said and dispute it.

Also, I think it weakens your point to call it propaganda. Is it biased? You bet. But everything said about the man will be biased, be it from his supporters and his dissenters. Calling it propaganda does a disservice to political debate as a whole.

It's opinion.

Whatever....

 

[SINthysist]

Yes, Scruffy, now I am sure, I thought with the new rules,

Well I can be Markov Cain again, or A_J, or J_CARVILLE, or Algore, or ...

No I can't, Laurel won't let me...

Man, Woman,

I have never copy and pasted from Boortz. I prefer Fox, Drudge, SCMP, KC-STAR/PRAVDA, and Newsmax, in that order.

I start with RefDesk.com. Go to Fox/Google/CNN, before I hit Drudge and Newsmax.

So If Laurel is Unregistered Troll, then Are you DCL Troll?

 

[Ishmael]

Propoganda

Scruffy,

It is propagandist bullshit. When you start using terms like "racist" you'd better come up with something of substance. The fact that I may disagree with a person of an other race does NOT make me a racist. It takes something of much more substance than that.

First, the Leahy statements. Sen. Leahy's statement about "not about race" came at the end of the hearings, after the damage had been done. And if having a decision reversed is a criteria for non-qualification, there would be not one judge sitting on a federal bench. (And to think that a man once censured by the Senate, and barred for life from EVER sitting on the Security Committee is heading up the Judiciary Comittee really irks me.)

Now to the propaganda. Let's start with the two paragraphs pertaining to the Mississippi Soveirngty Commission.

"In fact, as a state senator, Pickering voted in 1972 and 1973 to appropriate money "to defray the expenses of" the Sovereignty Commission.[19] These votes suggest not only that the Commission was still active at that time, but also that Pickering was familiar with and supported its activities, at least enough to vote in favor of appropriating state monies to fund them."

The votes 'suggest' nothing of the sort. The votes 'suggest' that as Sen., Pickering voted on a budget. With no evidence that Pickering introduced the legislation, he has been painted with a broad brush.

Now about the voting issue.

"Pickering co-sponsored a Mississippi Senate resolution calling on Congress to repeal the provision or apply it to all states, regardless of their discrimination history.[14] In addition, both in 1976 and 1979, Pickering co-sponsored so-called "open primary" legislation that would have abolished party primaries and required a majority vote to win state office. The measure was criticized as discriminatory before its passage in 1976, and both years it was prevented from
taking effect due to Justice Department objections under the Voting Rights Act.[15]"

First of all I can't find fault with a man that feels that a law should be applied equally, or not at all. And as far as the open primary, majority vote issue? Isn't that exactly what you were arguing FOR in another thread?

I can pick that "tar and feathers" piece apart at will, and so can you. Read it with a critical eye, parse the sentences and what do you come up with? Bullshit.

Ishmael