Is Charles Pickering the replacement for Trent Lott?

Let's break it down to facts. What heinous crime did Pickering commit?
(excerpt)

But first, a recap. The concerns over Pickering's qualifications date back to 1959 when, as a law student at the University of Mississippi, he wrote a note for the law review suggesting methods to make the state's law banning interracial marriage less vulnerable to legal challenges. Conservative supporters have described that as a purely academic exercise by a much younger man, while liberal critics have described it as the beginning of a pattern. Critics also point to other racially charged moments in his past, such as his connection to the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a state agency that worked to maintain segregation. When he was nominated to be a District Court judge in 1990, Pickering testified that he had no connection to the commission -- but it was later revealed that he had once asked an official at the agency to keep him informed of a labor dispute in his hometown. Again, conservatives paint this as incidental, liberals as symptomatic.

His record as a judge and state senator has also come under fire, with liberals angry at his efforts to curtail federal jurisdiction over voting districts to maximize minority representation and at his opposition to abortion, including support for a constitutional convention that would have proposed an amendment to ban abortion. Furthermore, on the bench, Pickering's decisions have been reversed 15 times by the Circuit Court, which critics see as evidence of his lack of allegiance to established law. In addition, his ethics have come into question in a case where Pickering allegedly inappropriately pressured the Justice Department to seek a lighter sentence against a man convicted of burning a cross. He also took the unorthodox step of asking lawyers who argue in his court to write letters of support on his behalf, and even read some of them before forwarding them on to the Justice Department.

Many of these issues raise unique questions about what kind of issues should be used to evaluate a nominee to the federal bench. But a rational conversation is anathema to many of the partisans involved.

The preceding excerpt was from
this article.
It appears that the liberals don't want anyone who doesn't interpret the law as they prefer to be on any bench. Their litmus tests are a bit narrow. The guy isn't perfect. None of them are.

lash: you have pretty much covered the issues as i know them; but where does this leave the republican senate at this point in time wanting to present a new image or hanging on to an old one? Trent Lott has left an open wound and the Pickering re-nomination might just keep that wound bleeding.

The Fifth Circuit is regarded as one of the most conservative circuits in the country, and Pickering would bring the circuit further to the right. In recent years the circuit has issued a number of the most extreme civil rights rulings, at least two of which have been overturned by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court for having gone too far. Further, the conservative Fifth Circuit has reversed 26 of Pickering's district court decisions, despite its extremely conservative outlook.

I hear you, dys.
My feeling is: I hate McCarthism, and it's incestuous cousins.

If this man has not run afoul of the law, and has not a proven agenda that is detrimental--who will judge him?

I looked with an open mind at the accusations against him, and see no reason for this cry against him. No good reason. I do, however, see a partisan reason. Smacks of McCarthism, to me.

and hi lash, nice to see you, but anyway a primary concern has been Pickering's disregard for established law. 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.

hi, dys.

I'm not aware of the cases you cite. Don't want to send you off for a link. Can you give me an idea where I might find these items you speak of?

Hi Dys!

Just signing in for now. I'm pooped and just don't got no brain cells left operating (shut up Lash! :wink: ), so I'm just gonna read up tonight!!

Anon

i cant find original published opinions of Pickering, but noted that of the 1200 opinions he delivered he only published about 95. which means of course i am reading from other published documents that are second hand at best.

i will see what i can find in the congressional record tomorrow but i would like to return to the issue i was intending which is how are the senate republicans going to contradict an image of racial disregard via Sen Lott and at the same time support a perceived cohort in the renomination of Pickering. i do believe the "new south republican" is not indicitive of either Lott or Pickering and this seems to put the party in the horns of dilemma.

Although I don't see Pickering as a regressive, I do see him as in stagnation regarding many civil rights and surely Dubya can come up with a more moderate candidate. This is a political ploy to test the waters with the new configuration of the Senate, pure and simple. A Karl Rove manipulation and I won't say where I think he has his hand.

www.naral.org/mediaresources/ fact/pdfs/pickering_rpt.pdf -

I tried to find non-partisan views of Pickering, which is difficult.

And I see Karl Rove's hand everywhere. The renominations seem deliberate, an in-your-face dare. And I don't understand it when they keep telling their people to go for the black vote, the suburban womens' vote, the this vote and the that vote.

Pickering is beginning to be a face of the very racial problem that came up with Lott, and I should have thought they would try to moderate that. Unless - the thinking is that since 9/11 Americans are more ready to distrust other colors, in view of what the mid-east terrorists did. Convoluted thinking?

mama-
I think they believe they just don't need the black vote, so they don't have to act like they give a schitt anymore. It's all the same...
the best they can muster up is throwing a buncha words out like "outreach", "compassionate conservative", affirmative access" and crap like that. Hell can take 'em all, if you ask me.

A black Representative from AL announced his switch from the Dems to the GOP in today's Atlanta Constitution.

He said he was tired of the partisanship, and wanted to join the party of unity....

Lash,

The party of unity? You haven't been keeping current with the current events! (P.S. Neither has your black assemblyman.)

Anon

Frisk is due to give a speech honoring Martin Luther King day. I'm very interested in what kind of complexion the speech will take on.
Any sign of appeasement or condescension and they'll have once again blown it. I don't see party unity right now on either side and I don't see Pickering being confirmed. They don't have the 60 votes in the Senate.

Some switch, some leave. J.C. Watts left, and what he says doesn't speak well for the republicans being an umbrella party.

Snood - okay, they don't believe they need the black vote (whatever that is). Nor do they need all those women who believe in right to choose. Nor do they need the diverse ethinic groups who are beginning to take a different look at them. So who do they need? Same old base - but that's beginning to change, too. Charlie Rangel knew what he was doing, all right. Actually, a draft makes sense because volunteers aren't exactly flocking to sign up, and we don't have a vast army. Big, but not quite enough for two fronts. So... a draft. And one of his points was to bring home what the draft is all about.

The face of America is not exactly the color of the rainbow - particularly at the top. And please don't bring in Powell or Rice. It's embarrassing that those are always the only names broguht up. You'd think that they would trot out the secretary of education, or transportation - they're minority groups, too.

ok here's my opine, Bush/Rove send down 31 nominations with Pickerin on the lightning rod for effect, the Dems with a few moderate Reps kill the Pickering nomination, Bush cries foul, remaining 30 nominations slide through with a wink wink, nod nod.

Pretty good prediction, dys. Are you sleeping with a politician?

wish i was, beats sleeping alone! and i can always chew off my arm when i wake in the morning. its a coyote thing you know.