"If you think racism isn't part of the conservative mindset,

In published opinions, Judge Pickering has disparaged Miranda and other procedural doctrines created to ensure that constitutional rights are respected. In making these arguments, Judge Pickering has cited the Bible, made references to natural law, and even mischaracterized a Supreme Court decision dealing with Miranda rights.

Judge Pickering has made disparaging comments about two of the key protections of equal voting rights for all Americans - the one person-one vote Constitutional doctrine and the Voting Rights Act. In one case, Judge Pickering said that federal courts had been overly zealous in their enforcement of the one person-one vote doctrine and suggested that people were more interested in "sav[ing] tax dollars" than in protecting their equal right to vote. He refused, despite his admission that the voting districts at issue violated the doctrine, to order the state to remedy the situation. Independent Judiciary

In 1993 district court Judge Pickering published an opinion questioning the "one person-one vote" doctrine as "obtrusive." Criticizing court-ordered redistricting and citing the expense to taxpayers and the disruption of customs such as voting along county or municipal lines, Pickering wondered "if we are not giving the people more government than they want and more than is required in defining one-man, one-vote too precisely." AAUW

And a little about my homegirl, Priscilla Owen:

Owen is sure to be scrutinized for a dissenting opinion she wrote in a Texas case involving a teenager asking for an exemption from a state law that required her to tell her parents before getting an abortion. The law allows exemptions in certain cases.

The court voted 6-3 to allow the abortion without parental consent. Owen dissented in an opinion that was highly criticized by then Texas Supreme Court Justice Al Gonzales, now Bush's white House counsel.

Gonzales wrote a concurring opinion and criticized dissenters for trying to insert personal ideologies and take the law beyond what was written by the Legislature.

"To construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism," Gonzales wrote in the 2000 opinion.

Controversy Surrounds Bush Judicial Appointee

(A sidebar: "judicial activism" is the opposite of "strict constructionism", which is what Bush claims to want in his judges.)

And just a few more:

**Jeffrey Sutton, nominated to the Sixth Circuit court of appeals, has been criticized for extensive efforts as an appellate lawyer to curtail congressional authority and limit federal protections against discrimination and injury based on disability, age, race, religion, and sex. More than 50 national groups and over 220 regional, state, and local organizations have opposed his confirmation, including the National Rehabilitation Association, the American Association of Persons with Disabilities, the Welfare Law Center, and the National Women's Political Caucus.

**Michael McConnell, a University of Utah law professor nominated to the Tenth Circuit court of appeals, has generated significant criticism, focusing on his views on reproductive choice, privacy, and church-state separation. For example, McConnell has called the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade "illegitimate" and "an embarrassment", and signed a 1996 "pro-life" statement that asserted that abortion "kills 1.5 million innocent human beings in America every year" and called for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. He has also advocated a "radical" departure from decades of First Amendment decisions by the Supreme Court, such as rulings forbidding government-sponsored prayer at public school graduations.

**Carolyn Kuhl, a state superior court judge nominated in June, 2001 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has been severely criticized for her record on civil rights, privacy, and reproductive rights. For example, while in the Reagan Justice Department, she reportedly played a key role in convincing the Attorney General to reverse prior policy and support a policy that would have granted tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University despite its racially discriminatory practices, an approach rejected by the Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote. She also urged the Supreme Court to overturn its Roe v. Wade ruling as "flawed."

Unprecedented Situation Calls for Unprecedented Solution

"Contrary to what Bush appointee and TNRCC Commissioner Barry McBee represented to Congress in his testimony of August 1998, the TNRCC has no meaningful environmental justice program to protect low-income citizens and people of color from toxic pollution across the state (of Texas)," said Carman.Civil Rights Complaint Filed Against Texas Environmental Agency

Enough?

Back to the topic now, which was bigotry--or more specifically, racism--and the conservative mindset:

"The Republican Party's commitment to equality of opportunity has come under question in recent weeks, particularly its determination to deal effectively with racial segregation. That's lamentable, for there is a laudable story to tell about the modern Republican Party and the efforts of a Republican president to ensure equal opportunity for all Americans."

How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools

Bet he loved that Sidney Poitier, too.

It is quite true that while Nixon enthusiastically embraced the Southern Strategy, he also personally oversaw a smooth transition to desegregated schools in several states in the south in 1970. But before we get all misty about his generous committment to civil rights, it's probably a good idea to listen in on a couple of Dick's taped conversations just sitting around the Oval shooting the breeze with Ehrlichman and Haldeman (and Rumsfeld) around the same time:

"We're going to (place) more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family . . . let people like Pat Moynihan and Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Total emphasis of everybody must be that this is much better than we had last year. . . . work, work, throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key."

"It hurts with the blacks. And it doesn't help with the rednecks because the rednecks don't think any Negroes are any good."

"Yes," Rumsfeld replied.

As for the notion that "black Americans aren't as good as black Africans," Nixon said, "most of them are basically just out of the trees. ... Now, my point is, if we say that, they (opponents) say, 'Well, by God.' Well, ah, even the Southerners say, 'Well, our niggers is (unintelligible).'Hell, that's the way they talk!'" the president said on the tape.

"That's right," Rumsfeld said.

Nixon moved easily from Blacks to Mexicans in his conversations, because they just go together like chitlins and tamales, I guess.

"I have the greatest affection for them (blacks) but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years," says Nixon. "They aren't. You know it too. I asked Julie about the black studies program at Smith (College, which she attended)."

"The Mexicans are a different cup of tea," says Nixon. "They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest. They do have some concept of family life, they don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like."

As so often happens in these conversations, the topic then smoothly moves on to gays, which really seems to work these guys up. This conversation took place over 30 years ago, but I imagine you can hear much of the same stuff today at pot luck suppers in the Southern Heritage Community :

"You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that so was Socrates."

"But he never had the influence television had," Ehrlichman says, apparently referring to Socrates.

"You know what happened to the Romans?" says Nixon. "The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They (had sex with) the nuns, that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell, three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain, it happened earlier to France."

Nixon on Tape

PDiddie - I can tell that you went to a lot of trouble to try to answer my challenge. I'm sorry that I think it was a waste of time. Your citations are off-point and I'm afraid not the least convincing. In every case you treat the assumption drawn from an act or statement as a fact when it is merely an assumption. Your sources assume they know why something was said or done, ignore the obvious alternative reasoning behind the action or statement, and condemn the individual for what they as the observer believe was meant or intended. That you agree with their conclusions makes them no more valid.

And in case you don't understand why I write that your citations are off-point, consider that the statement you made was that these people are attempting to destroy the rights of specific minority groups. Can you point me to just one example you offered wherein John Ashcroft is shown to be attempting to destroy the rights of blacks, women, or gays specifically? (I understand that you believe he and the current administration have eroded certain civil rights through actions they have taken to combat terrorism, and on that broad statement we are in agreement, but that is not the statement I asked you to support.)

And again, I do appreciate the effort you went to, I just don't think any of it goes to the point you originally made, nor do I find any of your citations make a compelling argument.

Thanks for your acknowledgement of my effort, tres; it really didn't take that long. Google is a wonderful thing.

Let me say that I knew exactly how you would respond.

It's always that way.

Someone asks for 'proof' of my post; I provide it; but the proof 'isn't good enough'.

The tired bromide applies here: "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

At least you didn't discredit the source, or say that the source had an agenda, or some other such nonsensical rebuttal.

Of course I also note that as a rebuttal there is nothing in your posts that seems to contradict the overwhelming evidence that bigotry, and catering to it for political advantage, is part and parcel of the "thrownness", to use a pop psychology term, of conservatives.

It might behoove you at this point to stop asking for 'proof' you know in advance you won't accept, and instead provide a little something that 'proves' the opposite point of view.

I'll wait.

Pdiddie:

WOW am I glad I didn't go through the trouble. I almost did, just to give you some support. I have often found that when someones mind is already set, no possible amount of logic will change it. I had a feeling this was a fools errand when you started it.

Great post though, ya have to try!! Kudos!

Trespassers:

I shall take the easy route!

You Post
"
Can you point me to just one example you offered wherein John Ashcroft is shown to be attempting to destroy the rights of blacks, women, or gays specifically?
"

His continued attack on abortion ... Roe versus Wade ... Womens rights ... Something the Republicans are licking their chops about as we speak!!! He has a long history!! Before you bring up his line about protecting life, think Death Penalty!!

Want some specific links, or will you admit he is a pro-lifer??


Anon

Anon:

This plays out the same every single time.

Pragmaticone on Abuzz; Lash Goth here; now this person.

(Of course, what better to expect when his argument is so weak that he resorts to the epithets of 'cowardly' and 'ignorant'?)

What disappoints me the most is not just the repetitive, rhetorically pathetic strategy ("Prove it!" "Not good enough!"), but that even the forum guides jump on the merry-go-round.

I suppose it's my own fault; I really expected more from this site than I am getting so far.

The people in charge spend their hours in here 'moderating' with opinions that are at least as antagonistic as anything they censor; establish posting guidelines that sound as they were brainstormed by the Kremlin; and offer up the wisdom that mirrors the quality of the intellect exhibited by our illustrious Commander-in-Chief.

(Let's see; that ought to get me a timeout... :wink: )

PDdiddle

Thank you kindly for your contributions. I am sending over a box of fine Canadian donuts.

The renomination of Pickering adds weight to your charge that this administration (if not conservatives generally) has a blind spot on the issue of race (or perhaps not a blind spot but rather a view to protecting an important voter base with the evangelical community). Falling upon the heels of Lott being ushered towards the exit sign, this nomination is entirely inconsistent with administration claims re what Lott got wrong. http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=9 (for more... http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/press/pickering.html)

The Nixon transcripts always pull me up short when I bump into them. What a guy! I didn't know, or had forgotten, that Don R. was a happy camper in there with the palace guard crowd. Even at that time, the fellow had no excuse to just sit there nodding while a 'just down from the trees' racial derogation was spewing from Nixon's warped mind.

PDiddie - Thanks for keeping it cordial.

I guess the problem within the context of our exchange is that I don't think you're answering my question, though it is clear to me that you think you are. You offer me a citation stating that Ashcroft is limiting or taking away certain liberties in the name of fighting terrorism--something the administration has chosen to do. This does not in my opinion constitute evidence that he or conservatives in general are racists. It shows me that some people will go too far to do what they think is necessary or right.

I agree with you that some people's rights are being trampled in the process of fighting terrorism. That the rights of minorities are being infringed in the process, does not mean that doing so is the intent. You'll no doubt think that's splitting hairs, but if so, we will have to agree to disagree.

And as to your citations, I must again state that in each case they state something that was done or said, take an objective opinion of what the statement or action must mean, and treat that opinion as irrefutable fact. In each case the worst interpretation--yours--is possible, but that does not make it fact. You treat it as fact.

I don't doubt that you could offer me one or two examples of something out-right racist uttered or done by some Republican, though likely something from years ago. I could likewise find individual Democrats who have shown themselves to be racists, but I do not assume that the sins of one person are indicative of the mettle of an entire party.

I understand that to many people like you, a vote against a program that is desired by minorities is considered a racist act. This ignores the possibility that a person might vote against such a program for other, completely valid reasons. I am strongly against affirmative action. That alone makes me a racist to many. I am against instituting special laws protecting homosexuals, for which some likewise call me a bigot and homophobe. Of course, no one who knows me would call me those things, but that doesn't matter to the people who see me as standing in the way of their agenda.

But it is clear to me that your mind is made up on this issue, so there's really no point in discussing it further. If your point is that some people within any group are flawed, I agree. If your point is that more Republicans vote against programs that constitute special treatment of any group based on arbitrary attributes like gender or ethnicity, I agree. If your point is that many older Americans still have racist viewpoints of which they should be ashamed, I agree. But if your point is that you think most conservatives today are racists, then I do not agree, because you are simply wrong.

Anyone who harbors racism and bigotry in his or her heart suffers from a profound ignorance, and should be ashamed of each breath he or she draws, but anyone who thinks nothing of labelling countless others he has never met as racists should be almost as filled with shame.

PDiddie:

Nothing yet about the continuing attacks on Abortion.

Yea, this does look like a Pragmaticone Clone.

Anon

TW said: May I address this singular point?

I submit that, in the real world, intent is not the only criterion at issue. Let me offer up the example of your prison population and the ratio of African Americans presently incarcerated (quite leaving aside related issues such as sentencing variations). Presently, as I understand it, there are now more African Americans males in jail than attending universities. That this is a consequence of intent seems surely not so, yet it is a consequence. Here in Canada, we have a similar situation with Native Canadians. In Australia, a similar situation exists with their indigenous people.

Any objective observer must surely acknowledge that, though intent could not be established, such imbalances equate to rascism in the real world.

Ah, but intent is the only criterion, blatham. Reread the title of the discussion. Oh, you qualified that. ". . . in the real world. . ." Well, then I'm at a loss as to how to procede. Are we discussing the proposition that racism is a part of the conservative mindset, are we discussing discrimination in hiring. If the latter, I might even agree.

One of the difficulties encountered when someone asks for proof, or links, or whatever, is that - as pd said - said proof or links are not accepted by the person requesting them. In the case of Owen, Pickering, et al, it's there, written down, in the record, easily pulled up to see. And, blatham, I submit that intent is often quite clearly intended. But it is couched in language that is designed to hide the intent.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of racism, but the Bush administration at the top is so clearly white male that it almost begs for Powell and Rice to stand out as tokens.

And Frist's record, too, looks a lot like Lott's. Which makes it interesting that Bush chose Frist immediately following Lott. Suggests some insenstivity to the whole subject.

This is clearly not a topic on which one takes an objective stand, if any such exists. Anyone at all - including women - who have been victims of exclusion, knows about racism in one form or another. And like it or not, the conservatives have not yet demonstrated any desire to inlude any but their own familiar buddies. Neither in th people they choose, nor in the policies they propose.

roger and mama

My point isn't merely in the direction of 'how does one establish intent?' because as we all know, that can be exceedingly difficult, made more difficult by many politico's exquisite talent at matching the color of the rock they are sitting on.

My point rather, is that a persistent blindness to such imbalances - the persistent IGNORNING of them, is itself evidence of racism, however unconscious.

An example which stood out for me was a TV series from two decades ago titled 'Shaka Zulu', on the life of that African king who brought a large portion of Africa under his control during the period when the Brits were beginning colonization of the continent. There were lots of bare buttocks and breasts bouncing around. Native dress, sure. But it occured to me that if this were a series on early Germanic tribes, not a single alabaster breast or buttock would have been allowed. White and smelly perhaps, but surely not 'primitive'.

Well, in hiring, it is certainly possible to be discriminatory without intent. Sometimes without even acting. If an employer's workforce is largely of one ethnic group, and all or most of your new hires come from referrals from your existing workers, your hiring procedures can be held to be discriminatory. This has happened not only without intent, but without awareness.

Granted, intent is not the one and only criterion, but when someone claims to believe that most conservatives are racist, I believe that is a statement regarding his opinion of their intentions, not merely of his opinion of the results. The latter would be meaningless to anyone but the person uttering it, anyway. The simple fact that X effects more minorities than non-minorities does not make X a racist position, policy, or program, nor does it make those who created, lobbied for, passed, or implemented X racists.

Social Security--a favorite program of the Democrats--is patently unfair to blacks. Having a shorter average life expectancy, far more blacks who pay just as much into social security will not survive to receive any benefits from the program, and since whites live longer, the net result is that money is taken from working blacks and given to retiring whites. This is clearly unfair and has a negative impact on blacks. Does that mean the social security program, and anyone who champions it, is racist? This is no more or less ludicrous than the notion that

Your example regarding blacks in prison cuts both ways. On the one hand I am well aware that sentencing for similar crimes varies widely with longer sentences often meted out by inner-city judges than by those elsewhere for similar crimes. Is this the result of racism? In some cases, perhaps. But it is also possible that it is a result of demographics. If inner-city judges give stiffer sentences and the inner city is predominantly black, then blacks would tend to get longer sentences without any racial bias involved in the decision. Further, your example ignores the simple fact that most people in prison are there because they committed a crime.

Is it possible that every black in prison is there as a result of a racist cop, prosecutor, judge and jury? No, I don't think so.

Is it possible that most blacks in prison are there because of an overt racist act or due to racial bias within the system itself? I suppose it's likely, but not probable.

Is it likely that some blacks in prison are there because a racist put them there or kept them there beyond what another person would have had to serve? Sadly yes, I'm sure that is the case. And we should do everything we can to prevent that in the future, and to correct and redress anywhere it has happened in the past.

And I think you know well enough to be careful with statistics. Consider the range and distribution of ages you are likely to see on a college campus; 18-35 maybe? Now consider the range and distribution of ages you are likely to see in prison; 18-75? 80? ??? How many more men of any color are there within the group of likely representatives to begin with? There are far fewer black men in this country that are of college age than are of college age and up.

Now, is that a good thing? No. Should we change it if we can? Sure. How?

PDiddie:

Nothing yet about the continuing attacks on Abortion by Ashcroft ... Yet!!! Lots of words, no real content.

How about the suit Republican controlled Florida had to settle for disenfranchising legal black voters, thousands of them. They had to settle the suit, it never went to court, because Republican right wing conservative Florida wouldn't let them vote. They knew they would lose, so the settled ...

Claims to be libertarian, maybe Sailfree ?? The post looks like it came out of the libertarian handbook.


Anon

I see we have another individual who learned nothing from his experience in Abuzz and wants to make this forum just as unpleasant. (Sigh.) What a shame.

If you want to discuss abortion, start a discussion. It has nothing to do with this one.



What suit? Source? Citation? Link? Seems off-topic, so please begin a new discussion for this as well. Thanks.



More tired Abuzz attack-style. Why are you more interested in discussing me than the issues? This tactic of finding me guilty (of what, God only knows) by claiming I am someone I am not, is childish and doesn't belong here. How exactly does who I am matter? Address the points I make or don't, but there's no place here for the kind of personal attacks you are making.

I thought Able2Know was a forum where this kind of garbage wasn't tolerated. Was I wrong?