Jan Crawford Greenburg on Pat Leahy’s Lies About Miguel Estrada
This blog post by Jan Crawford Greenburg is gold from beginning to end:
Leahy tried to blame Republicans for failing to get [Miguel Estrada] confirmed when they had a majority — and then tried to blame Estrada himself, for not answering questions because he may have been “distracted” by a high-paying job offer.
??? Did I hear that right?
Estrada had (and has) a high-paying job, at Gibson Dunn, which he was willing to leave to go on the federal bench. And, regardless, Estrada answered questions every bit as thoroughly as John Roberts, who was confirmed to the DC Circuit–despite his not turning over the same DOJ documents the Judiciary Committee wanted from Estrada.
Estrada was blocked by Democrats for one reason — the same reason they blocked Bush’s other minority and women nominees: They knew he would be on the short list for the Supreme Court if confirmed. And they knew it’s a lot easier to block a nominee at the appeals court level, when no one is paying as much attention as the do to the Supreme Court. (Republicans are seeing that now with Sotomayor.) It was a deliberate, thought-through strategy.
Estrada should be on the Supreme Court right now. And failing that, he should be testifying at the Sotomayor hearings, about the shoddy way he was treated by Democrats because of his race.
It won’t happen, of course. Republicans always pull their punches at hearings for Democrat judicial appointees. Don’t take my word for it — take Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s. She recently told Emily Bazelon:
I hope that these hearings for Sonia will be as civil as mine were and Steve Breyer’s were. Ours were unusual in that respect.
Indeed — because those were the only hearings for Democrat appointees since the 1960s. Again, that’s a left-leaning justice saying that.
Republicans caved on Estrada, and now they are set to confirm Sotomayor without making a real ruckus about the way Estrada was treated — and about Sotomayor’s claims to be better (not just different or more diverse) because of her gender and ethnic makeup.
Pathetic. Is it any wonder that the GOP is so lacking in an enthusiastic base?
This site is schizo. I thought such confrontational approaches hurt the party?
One of two strategic Senators should savage Sotomayor as well as malign and insult Leahy to the point he blows a gasket.
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:42 am“Is it any wonder that the GOP is so lacking in an enthusiastic base?”
Not from this neck of the woods. I was denied a promotion once because they had promoted enough men and now needs to add some women. That blatant discrimination was perfectly Ok with people like Sotomayor because of my skin color.
Holder said we are too cowardly to talk about race. He and his party are too dishonest to admit the truth. Discrimination should never be used to combat discrimination.
tyree (707587) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:49 amheavensent: “This site is schizo. I thought such confrontational approaches hurt the party.”
Nonsense, the GAP (no, that is not a typo – it stands for the Going Along Party) has a delusional belief that if they go along that they will be liked by the Dems and other beings on the Democrat Plantation. It ain’t gonna happen folks and the sooner the GAP becomes the GOP the better for all of us.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:54 amThis site is schizo. I thought such confrontational approaches hurt the party?
No idea where you got that impression. Rolling over for such nonsense hurts the party.
I think you’re going off someone else’s description of me, rather than my own actual writing.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:55 am“Too cowardly to talk about race” translate into Blacks insulting everyone “ELSE” and “ELSE” siting there saying “you might be right, we are horrible!”
The only way you can get most blacks to discuss race honestly is in private with some Blue Label flowing. Otherwise the shoulder chip and reflexive “blame whitey” mindset comes to bare.
Sad but very true.
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:56 am#4 You are probably correct. Kind of early ain’t it?
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:56 amWell, FWIW, Republicans should have assigned some roles to the Judiciary guys — good cop and bad cop — with the purpose of exposing the HYPOCRISY of Democrats while allowing a few others to sit back and pretend to be mediators looking out for the “Best Interest of the Judiciary.”
Cynicism is needed for the party to thrive.
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:00 amToo bad I’m not a GOP Senator from Iowa. I’d be demanding that Sotomayor be testifying with a lie detector and a huge exploding billboard going off with each lie she tells.
PCD (02f8c1) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:15 amI think the R Senators are treading lightly specifically because she is a woman and because of her ethnicity. Kid gloves lest they elicit any accusations of of racism and/or sexism which they should have expected anyway. Sessions already knows about this stuff.
Republicans are the party of nice and good manners, which plays well for your grandmother and her friends.
Dana (57e332) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:24 amWhy is anybody still talking about the Republicans? Within a few years they will be obsolete, a minor irritant on the political scene.
The only hope for any true (as opposed to Orwellian) progressivism in this country is in the nascent third-party movement just beginning to emerge and test its wings. Of course, soon enough it will no longer be a “third party.”
great unknown (b751d2) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:29 amAfter Graham’s complete capitulation at the start of the hearings, why would anyone be surprised at the always – reliable GOP supine position during the hearings?
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:41 amI see Liberal trolls so certain of their views have to be as anonymous as they can get. That tells me that even they know they are lying and do not want the retribution and attribution they richly deserve.
PCD (02f8c1) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:12 am“The Stupid Party” has now morphed into “The Spineless Party”!
AD - RtR/OS! (1699eb) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:25 amBut what would blacks have to blame white people for? After all, whites have always been extremely accomodating and helpful in moving along racial relations. it’s those angry negros who always gum up the works…
Warpublican (3bafb9) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:32 amThe logic of your post is awfully weak, but it fits your M.O. and careless stridency. You say that Ginsburg’s statement that she and Breyer were treated in “civil” fashion during their hearings is, as you put it, “proof that Republicans always pull their punches at hearing for Democrat judicial appointees.”
Let’s set aside your puerile jab in using “Democrat” instead of “Democratic.” Sorta like when you just had to throw in Obama’s middle name some months ago to gin up some ad hominem hate among the little flunkies who gush over you here in the belief that Obama is the 666 Beast come to destroy this 6,000-year-old planet.
Here’s what went down back in the early 90s when the civility you eschew came about. Bill Clinton, who didn’t put much emphasis on judicial appointments, to the chagrin of liberals, consulted with Orin Hatch when he was about to make his first Supreme Court nomination.
You do know that Hatch is a Republican, right? (This is where your left-wing doppelganger would use that idiotic, equally pureile term “Rethuglican.” Eccch.)
Clinton told Hatch that he was considering Bruce Babbit. Hatch told him that might prove to be problematic, and suggested he consider Ginsburg or Breyer.
That info is from Hatch’s autobiography.
So, Clinton proceeded to strictly follow Hatch’s advice through both his nominations to the court.
Now, do you think that with Hatch being chair of the committee and both his suggestions coming before that committee from Clinton, that maybe, just maybe, Ginsburg and Breyer would carry a bit of Hatch’s imprimatur among Republicans when entering the room?
And BTW, I don’t recall Shrub ever contacting any high-level democrats before making his two picks for the court.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:38 amSomeone took an extra helping of “bitter” at breakfast, this morning.
AD - RtR/OS! (1699eb) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:38 amReilly, Hatch is a Republican? Really? I would have thought he is one of the accommodating RINO’s and he may have picked ginsburg because he knew the Republicans would lay down on that one, and they basically did. And it is NOT the Democratic Party, it is the Democrat Party, maybe the other ought to be called the Republicratic Party?
Methinks Babbit would have been the better pick anyway. At least we still would have had debate.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:53 amHmmm, and I guess that Obama is a Democratic? Or is he a Democrat?
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:54 amNope, Republicans don’t fall down for Democrat appointees to the Supreme Court, Larry. After all the vote to confirm Ginsburg was only, like 98-0. They had far more on Ginsburg’s leftist bent than they have on Sotomayer but, you know, collegiality and a snifter of brandy and all that.
Oh, and that wouldn’t be the first time (or the last, unfortunately,) that Orrin Hatch has shown abysmal judgment in serving the principles (HA!) of the Republican party. After all, riding down the center of “Main Street” arm in arm with non-ideological soul mates is far more important than making at least a token attempt to promote your own party’s ideology. I understand, Larry, that it’s been explained to us that solid, principled ideology is only for Democrats, not conservatives, especially social cons.
But, hey! I’m just a “little flunkie who gushes” so what do I know.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:11 amAnd it is NOT the Democratic Party, it is the Democrat Party
This remains one of the silliest arguments to have broken out online in recent years.
That said, it seems to me that the cost involved in calling people by the name they prefer to be called is generally pretty low, and that it’s a good practice to do so unless you have a really good reason not to.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:21 amWait, when Teh One uses his middle name, does that make him a racist? Good Allah, Mawy, that was silly by even your standards.
JD (1206f2) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:23 amUnless they are no longer the Knights Who Say “Ni”, and then their new name is unpronounceable.
Steverino (who feels a really good curmudgeon could be of any age) (69d941) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:24 amSteverino – or, for a while, the artist formerly known as Prince.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:26 amGood point, aphrael. How does one pronounce that symbol?
JD (1206f2) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:31 amLeaking Leahy is a disgusting little albino man that should have been relieved of his office some time ago. The voters in that state must have maple syrup for brains.
JD (1206f2) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:34 amAphrael – I prefer to be called The Omnipotent and Omniscient Lord and Master of All I Survey, thank you.
JD (1206f2) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:36 amHer earnest defense, stated with complete gravitas, is that “There is no opinion or writing of mine that goes against precedential law.” (paraphrased)
Genius. Where the hell are Hatch, Sessions, Kyl, interjecting that this is the entire point – you buried Ricci and left no fingerprints! Where are they insisting on this point?!
Ed from SFV (fabfbd) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:45 amI don’t know about you, but I pronounced it
\ˈprin(t)s\
Steverino (69d941) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:49 amPlaying the “victim card” again? You “conservatives” are SO good at it.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:51 am“Idiot”
Scott Jacobs (ed2c09) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:59 amWhy is it that normal people like Ed can so quickly see the gaping holes in the Dem lies, but a sitting Senator cannot see them, or chooses to not address them?
JD (07af0d) — 7/14/2009 @ 10:20 amJD: See #19 above.
Wash, rinse, repeat, hurl.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 10:39 amUm … Larry?
The obtuse: It is strong in this one.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 11:30 amUnfortunately this entire article demonstrates why the GOP is in the shape it is. Estrada was like Bush not a conservative. He wasn’t a loon like Sotomayor but he argued for amnesty, he argued for affirmative action, his stands may not have been radical but they weren’t conservative.
Worse, the whiole focus is on the appointment of minorities, not on excellence. This is why America is collapsiong. We have become an Arab bazaar where race, gender, sexual identity is trade for votes and damn experience, knowledge, commonsense.
Our judicial system is a joke. We now have Sotomayor who has been overturned more than any other candidate for the Supreme Court than I am aware of.
Does anyone else know if some other candidate beats Sotomayor’s 66% rate of being overturned?
So much for experience and excellence.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/14/2009 @ 11:42 amThomas Jackson, what’s your source for the 66% overturned rate? Someone earlier today alleged that it was a 2% overturn rate – eg, 3 opinions out of the 200+ that she’s written have been overturned.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 7/14/2009 @ 11:49 amaphrael:
Mr. Jefferson is referring to Supreme Court reviews of her Appellate court opinions, as noted in The New Republic.
After Ricci, she’s now 5 for seven overturned.
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 11:58 amEstrada was not as conservative as others, the fact remains his nomination was blocked so the Democrats could keep him out of the running for the Supreme Court. They couldn’t let a Hispanic succeed unless he was one of theirs.
They used the same tactic on civil rights, blocking it when the Republicans had the White House so they could pass it when the Democrats had the White House.
tyree (158c98) — 7/14/2009 @ 12:05 pmThe logic of your post is awfully weak, but it fits your M.O. and careless stridency.
This from the commenter who always posts screeds that could only have originated after yet another epic bender.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/14/2009 @ 12:36 pm#14 LOL.
Yeah, well, maybe if you grew up white-spic-in-the-hood you might understand but facts are facts ….. and I have the scars to prove it.
And with respect to the logic that somehow “whites” need to be “proactive” it presumes guilt when none should exist.
While I might feel lots of whites are racist and bigoted — it certainly does not mean they owe me a damn thing.
Being the object of racism does not grant you an IOU to be cashed at a later point in time for your benefit.
But when discussing bias, et al — even when blacks acknowledge they are biased and racist — they usually say “its ok given the struggle b/c you know it was real hard ……”
Sorry, never felt one ounce of remorse of guilt. World sucks and life is unfair. The sooner you get it and move on — the better life gets and mores successful one becomes.
And therein lies the beef. Equal protection under the law of one’s rights does not mean equal treatment or equal outcomes.
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 12:44 pmLarry Reilly #15,
I enjoyed the irony of you criticizing Patterico for “puerile [name] jabs” while calling President Bush “Shrub” in the same comment.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:13 pm“I enjoyed the irony”
Damn it, beat out again…. 🙁
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:21 pmThe whole truth about Estrada is the last thing Republicans want the world to har.
penalcolony (996c34) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:23 pmIs penalcolony a pirate?
AVAST!
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:27 pmOr the transcendent irony of “Democrat” being puerile. I’m giggling like a Japanese schoolgirl.
Which is more puerile: Shrub or Hussein? Think carefully, now…
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:30 pm“Is penalcolony a pirate?”
Either that, BJT, or, you know, a gay resort/spa in the middle of the Bible belt…
Bob (99fc1b) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:33 pmUnintended irony is the best kind.
What is the “whole story” that we do not know about Estrada?
Why do I get the feeling that it involves David Petranos Esp and MKDP?
JD (3086d2) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:35 pmAn unusual drive by poster writes:
Well, I make plenty of typos. But you have to admit that writing “har” is just plain funny in this context. Unintentionally so.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:42 pmAye, matey Eric Blair! Methinks the penal colony has been into me rum! HAR!
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:03 pmEric, I have only one thing to say to your post: I work ear is done.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:31 pmIs a penalcolony a village of dicks?
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:43 pmYet again, Larry Reilly makes claims that are directly counter to historical reality.
Hallucinations is all we get from him.
SPQR (2304cc) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:11 pm