Racial Bigots

[SuperScout]

November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."


[The above notes are from internal communications of the minority party (that 's Democrats, to you in Rio Linda) concerning Presidential judicial appointees. Notice how these liberals don't bother to look to the qualifications of the appointees, but GASP!!, oppose one because he's ... GASP!! a Latino!! Let's just see if this lovely bit of news will be re-played during the campaign next year, especially in Hispanic markets. This type of Democrat hypocrisy just might be shoved right up their collectivist arses!]

[Gimpy]

you've just got the WRONG political party and their so-called "leadership" confused there SuperFella!

You find some obscure, little piece of a so-called "memo" that supposedly shows how the democrats are acting like "bigots"?? when opposing the radicals that Bush boy has attempted to put in the Federal Court system.

Let's examine the REAL T-R-U-T-H about these jerks he's trying to force down the throat of the American people!

###################################

Bush Nominates Right-Wing Extremists

Priscilla Owen: Chooses special interests over average Americans
Owen, nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has a long career as a conservative judicial activist, opposing reproductive rights, environmental protections, and workers' rights. As a lawyer in private practice, Owen did virtually nothing but represent big oil companies, and she continued to favor big business on the Texas Supreme Court. (Owen can thank Karl Rove for her election to the Texas Supreme Court; he received $228,000 for campaign services.)
Owen has consistently opposed the claims of injured and harassed workers and voted in favor of corporations that sold defective products. Owen also voted against environmental regulations and abortion rights. When Bush White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was a justice alongside Owen in Texas, he wrote that her dissent on an abortion-related case constituted "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Owen was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 but renominated by Bush in 2003.


Miguel Estrada: Keeping secrets from the Senate
Miguel Estrada, nominated to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (frequently considered the stepping stone for a seat on the Supreme Court), has failed to provide adequate answers to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee and provide the committee with records from his work in the Solicitor General's office.
Estrada is a member of several right-wing activist groups and stated that he had not personally considered Roe v. Wade -- a ridiculous statement from a former Supreme Court clerk. Prominent Hispanic groups including the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus oppose Estrada's nomination.

Jeffrey Sutton: Restricts anti-discrimination laws
Sutton, nominated to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, has strongly supported restricting the ability of Congress to address discrimination against minorities and the disabled. Sutton has also written in favor of declaring the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional.

Carolyn Kuhl: Career extremist
Carolyn Kuhl, nominated for a lifetime appointment to the powerful 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is a former official in Reagan's Justice Department with a long record of opposing reproductive rights, civil rights, and environmental protections.
Kuhl supported tax breaks for Bob Jones University despite its ban on interracial dating, a position opposed in a letter signed by 200 of her colleagues. She wrote what a former Solicitor General called "the most aggressive memo" advocating the reversal of Roe vs. Wade in a case before the Supreme Court. Prominent environmental groups, in a letter to Senators, have warned that Kuhl's record on environmental protections puts Americans at risk.

########################################

And there you have it. Another feeble attempt by the neo-con, radical right-wingers to try and show that the Democrats are the "bad guys" has been exposed for what it is!

NOTHING BUT LIES AND DISTORTED INNUENDO from the extremists in the Republican party!

When will you EVER learn, SuperFella, that there ARE some of us out here that can actually "think" for ourselves and see through your veil of insidious, unscrupulous, radical, extremists right-wing views that are disguised as inaffective attempts to convince others to adopt your type behavior and outlook???

Nice try, but it ain't gonna work this time!

[SuperScout]

The only thing extreme here is your mental derangement! As the Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, Janice R. Brown, another Presidential appointee, received 78% of the popular vote (that's from all voters, for your Rio Lindanistas), andyou're going to label her a right wing zealot? The little memo was written by your pathetic party of panderers.

If you can, set aside your zombie-like devotion to the special interest groups that control the Democrat party, and instead review the comments from the American Bar Association regarding the respective appointees. To a person, they are exceptionally qualified, are brilliant jurists well within the mainstream of American jurispurdence.

For example, a jurist would actually GASP!! propose that a private college be given tax breaks, and you raise the issue that they are opposed to inter-racial dating? Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment, allowing people and institutions to have free thoughts that may not meet your standards? Or has your Collectivist Party apparati cancelled that right as well?

And in your research-laden efforts, did you ever come across on the volumes of records that previous employees of the Solicitor General's office, who later were Presidential appointees, had to produce for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings? Here's a hint: the answer is no. This is all a flimsy ploy by Leaky Leahy (remember him: the Democrat who leaked highly classified secrets to the press?) to discredit Estrada. And you're going to call the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund a "prominent" Hispanic group? Who, outside of Puerto Rico, has ever heard of them?

I could go on and on, but you probably need to lie down, as sitting up and reading may be too much of a strain.

[phuloi]

Why,Scout! I`m surprised at you! Surely you must have been apprised of the fact that this entire list is comprised of "Neanderthals" (The Chapaquidac Kid),and "Lemons" (Her Hillaryness)

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy :

If you think leftists who have turned the Supreme Court into something it was never intended to be, are not extemists, then what the hell are they ??? PUH-LEASE !!!!

Larry

[Gimpy]

well within the mainstream of American jurisprudance"----------------in WHOSE opinion? YOURS??? Gimmie a break.

If ANYONE needs to "lie down"..it's YOU. Are you SURE your meds are not in dire need of re-evaluation???

You want some MORE "P-R-O-O-F " which shows how some of these dingbats are viewed by their "contemporaries" and/or their "peers".

You asked for it!

******************************

Estrada Nomination Withdrawn in Face of Strong Opposition



Organizations Opposed to the Confirmation of Miguel Estrada

Forty-nine national, regional and state organizations have declared their opposition to Miguel Estrada's confirmation to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.



ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights
AFL-CIO
Alliance for Justice
American Association of University Women
Americans for Democratic Action
California branch of the League of United Latin American Citizens
Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Community Rights Counsel
Congressional Black Caucus
Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Earthjustice
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
Farmworker Association of Florida
Feminist Majority
Friends of the Earth
General Board of Church and Society, The United Methodist Church
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
La Raza Lawyers Association of California
LaRed Latina
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
MoveOn.org
National Abortion Federation
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Council of Jewish Women
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Fair Housing Alliance
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Farm Worker Ministry
National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Women's Law Center
Natural Resources Defense Council
People For the American Way
PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste/Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United)
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Sierra Club
Society of American Law Teachers
Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project
United Auto Workers
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
United Farm Workers of America
United States Hispanic Leadership Institute
William C. Velasquez Intitute
Working Assets

A number of individual Latino community leaders have also announced their opposition to Estrada's confirmation. Read their letter and names.

Statement By Latino community leaders Against the Nomination of Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

America?s working families look to the federal courts to protect our rights at work, to stop unfair labor practices by employers, and to ensure that employers respect laws regarding fair pay and equal treatment on the job. Of all the federal courts, none?other than the U.S. Supreme Court?is more important to working people than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It is in this court that the legal rights of working people are won and lost.
President Bush has nominated Miguel Estrada for a lifetime seat on this court. Mr. Estrada is a ?stealth candidate? whose views and qualifications have been hidden from the American people and from the U.S. Senate. Since his nomination, Mr. Estrada has consistently refused to answer important questions about his views and his judicial philosophy. Mr. Estrada also refuses to provide to the Senate the legal memoranda he wrote while working for the Department of Justice. Without more information about Mr. Estrada, it would be simply irresponsible for the Senate to put him on the bench.
Moreover, what we do know about Mr. Estrada causes us deep concern. For example, Mr. Estrada has worked to support laws that are used to prevent immigrant laborers from earning a living. Mr. Estrada?s supervisor at the U.S. Department of Justice has said that he ?lacks the judgment? and is ?too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge.? Mr. Estrada has expressed troubling views about the role of the courts in our system of government, suggesting in a radio interview that it is wrong for people to challenge unjust laws in court.
We fully support diversity in the federal judiciary and we are painfully aware that Latinos are underrepresented on the federal bench. Shamefully, Mr. Estrada is the only Latino who President Bush has nominated in two years to any federal court of appeals. Mr. Estrada, however, has never provided any pro bono legal work to the Latino community; he has never joined, supported, volunteered for or participated in events of any organization dedicated to serving the Latino community; and he has told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that he believes being Hispanic would be irrelevant in his day-to-day duties on the court. It is also significant that Mr. Estrada?s nomination has been opposed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
After a careful review of Mr. Estrada?s record, and in light of his continued refusal to come forward with more information about his views and judicial philosophy, on behalf of the working families of America, we have decided to join these groups and oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Linda Chavez-Thompson
Executive Vice-President
AFL-CIO
Washington, DC Eliseo Medina
Executive V.P.
SEIU
Los Angeles, CA Dennis Rivera
President
SEIU 1199NY
New York, NY Arturo S. Rodriguez
President
United Farm Workers
Keene, CA
Milton Rosado
President LCLAA
Trenton, NJ Miguel Contreras
Exec. Sec. Treas.
LA County AFL-CIO
Los Angeles, CA
Christina Vazquez
International VP
UNITE
Los Angeles, CA Maria Elena Durazo
President Local 11
HERE
Los Angeles, CA
Mike Garcia
President
SEIU Local 1877
Los Angeles, CA Rocio Saenz
President
SEIU Local 615
Boston, MA Hector Figueroa
Secretary Treasurer
SEIU Local 32BJ
New York, NY Walter Hinojosa
Texas AFL-CIO
Austin, TX
Oscar Sanchez
Exec. Dir., LCLAA
Washington, DC Rose Rangel
SEIU
South Pasadena, CA Roberto Jordan
UNITE 62-32
New York, NY Maria Portalatin
AFT
New York, NY
Debra Renteria-Styers
UAW
Macomb, MI Salvador Aguilar
USWA
Griffith, IN Gary R. Allen
IAM
Albuquerque, NM Manuel Armenta
USWA
Arizona
Maria Armesto
AFT
Washington, DC Jose A. Caez
IBEW
Farmington, CT Joe Calvo
UAW
Lombard, IL Santos Crespo Jr.
AFSCME
Brooklyn, NY
Dionisio Gonzalez
USWA
Los Angeles, CA Elsa Lopez
AFT
Miami, FL Susie Luna Saldana
AFT
Corpus Christi, TX Angela Mejia
CWA
Channelview, TX
Tony Padilla
TCU
Rockville, MD Lorenzo Rivera
UAW
Oxford, MI Johnny Rodriguez
UFCW
Dallas, TX Jose Rodriguez
IAM
Ontario, CA
Celestino Torres
USWA
Hayden, AZ Heriberto (Ed) Vargas
UNITE
New York, NY Baldemar Valasquez
FLOC
Toledo, OH Armando Vergara
UBC
South Pasadena, CA
Guillermo Zelaya
IUPAT
Washington, DC Henry Gonzalez
UAW
South Gate, CA Heny (Hank) Lacayo
UAW
Newbury Park, CA Jack Otero
TCU
Washington, DC
AI Ybarra
Exec. Sec-Treasurer
Orange County (CA) AFL-CIO Gerardo Becerra
ILA
Miami, FL Lawrence Martinez
GCIU
Washington, DC Rudy Mendoza
CWA
Santa Barbara, CA
Ray Arguello
UAW
Detroit, MI Jorge Rodriguez
SEIU
Los Angeles, CA Jimmy Matta
Kent Co. WA LCLAA
Seattle, WA Tania Rosario
Kent Co. WA LCLAA
Seattle, WA
Patricia Campos
Pres., DC Metro LCLAA
Washington, DC E.J. Himenez
USWA
Corpus Christi, TX Apolinar Quiroz
USWA
Chicago, IL Chuck Rocha
USWA
Pittsburgh, PA
Updated: February 04, 2003

*************************************************

Now for Carolyn Kuhl.....Career Extremist!

Executive Summary
The nomination of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has generated significant opposition.
Throughout her legal career ? as a lawyer in the Reagan Administration Justice
Department, in private practice, and as a state judge ? Kuhl has followed a legal
philosophy harmful to the rights and interests of ordinary Americans. This is particularly
true in three areas: women?s rights and reproductive freedom, other civil rights, and
access to justice.
For example, Kuhl personally and aggressively pressed for the overturning of Roe
v. Wade. She was one of the architects of the Reagan Administration?s shameful attempt
to reverse long-standing IRS policy that denied tax-exempt status to Bob Jones
University and other private schools that practice race discrimination. Both of these
extreme positions, as well as several others advocated by Kuhl, were firmly rejected by
the Supreme Court. And as a state trial court judge, Kuhl has been unanimously reversed
by the California Court of Appeal for a number of rulings harmful to the legal rights of
individuals. Kuhl?s confirmation to the Ninth Circuit should be rejected.
I. CAROLYN KUHL?S RECORD IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
? Kuhl?s record on women?s rights, including reproductive freedom
? Trying to overturn Roe v. Wade: Kuhl was co-author of ?[t]he most aggressive
memo? to the Solicitor General from within the Justice Department urging the
Department to file an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in the Thornburgh
case calling for ?outright reversal of Roe.? Kuhl then co-authored precisely such
a brief, but the Supreme Court rejected Kuhl?s attack on Roe.
? Seeking to limit sexual harassment protections: Kuhl was co-author of an amicus
brief on the side of the employer in the Meritor sexual harassment case. The
Supreme Court unanimously rejected the position advocated by Kuhl, which
would have made it more difficult for women to prove sexual harassment in the
workplace.
? Supporting limits on family planning aid: Kuhl defended Administration
rules that sought to breach confidentiality and require family planning clinics
getting federal funds to notify parents of adolescents seeking contraception
assistance. In the Planned Parenthood v. Heckler case, an appellate court rejected
her argument and held that the rules violated the law as passed by Congress.
2
? Kuhl?s record on other civil rights issues, including promoting tax-exempt status
for Bob Jones University
? Crusading for a tax exemption for Bob Jones University: Kuhl was identified as one
of a ?band of young zealots? who were the architects of the Reagan Administration?s
decision to reverse long-standing policy that denied tax-exempt status to Bob Jones
University and other racially discriminatory private schools. This radical reversal of
civil rights policy championed by Kuhl ignited a firestorm of criticism and was
repudiated by the Supreme Court in an 8-1 ruling in the Bob Jones case.
? Trying to restrict discrimination remedies and end affirmative action: Kuhl
was part of the Administration?s effort to restrict court-ordered remedies for
employment discrimination. She co-authored a brief in the Sheet Metal Workers
case advocating the extreme theory that relief in such cases can be granted only to
identifiable victims of discrimination, even when discrimination is intentional and
long-standing, barring affirmative action. The Supreme Court again rejected
Kuhl?s argument.
? Kuhl?s record on access to justice
? Seeking to curtail citizens? access to the courts: In the words of a
high-ranking Administration official, Kuhl ?launched a frontal attack? on the
important principle that organizations like the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and the
Christian Coalition can file lawsuits on behalf of their members. Kuhl?s effort
was opposed even by the Chamber of Commerce and the AMA, and was rejected
without dissent by the Supreme Court in the Brock case.
? Testifying against legislation to promote access to justice: Kuhl testified in
Congress against proposals to allow veterans to go to court when denied veterans?
benefits and other access to justice legislation. She criticized the veterans? rights
proposal, claiming that the ?federal courts are not the enchanted land where all
wrongs will be made right.? Congress nonetheless later passed a law signed by
President Reagan providing for judicial review.
II. CAROLYN KUHL?S POST-REAGAN ADMINISTRATION RECORD
Kuhl?s record after leaving the Reagan Administration has continued to reflect
legal views that are out of the mainstream on important issues, including women?s rights,
other aspects of civil rights, and access to justice.
? Kuhl?s record on women?s rights, including privacy, bodily integrity, and
reproductive freedom
? Dismissing claim of egregious privacy violation: As a state court judge, Kuhl
threw out of court an invasion of privacy suit brought by a woman with breast
cancer whose doctor had brought a drug company salesman into the examining
3
room where he witnessed an intimate examination of her. The California Court of
Appeal unanimously reversed Judge Kuhl?s decision in the Sanchez-Scott case,
holding that Kuhl was wrong on the law, that the woman had a well-established
expectation of privacy, and that her complaint had alleged ?highly offensive
conduct.?
? Dismissing rape victim?s claim: Kuhl wrote a 2-1 decision in the Julie R. case
against a woman who had been raped by a man who trapped her in a car by
parking it against a fence so she could not get out. Despite a vigorous dissent
explaining that the car was used ?as a cage to prevent the victim from escaping,
thus enabling the motorist to commit the act of rape,? Kuhl ruled that the injury
did not result from the ?use of? the car and so the victim?s insurance company did
not have to cover any damages.
? Continuing her anti-reproductive choice advocacy: In private practice, Kuhl filed
an amicus curiae brief in Rust v. Sullivan on behalf of an anti-choice group in
support of the federal ?gag rule? that prohibited family clinics getting federal
funds from discussing abortion with patients. Kuhl?s brief attacked the Court?s
decisions upholding a woman?s right to choose abortion as causing a ?major
distortion in the Court?s constitutional jurisprudence.?
? Arguing in favor of sex discrimination in education: As a private lawyer, Kuhl
filed an amicus curiae brief in the VMI case supporting efforts by the Virginia
Military Institute, a public all-male college, to continue to exclude women.
Several years later, the Supreme Court rejected that position and ruled that VMI?s
exclusion of women was unconstitutional.
? Kuhl?s record on other civil rights issues
Several articles by Kuhl on employment discrimination and related subjects raise
troubling concerns. In one, she specifically opposed affirmative action as a
?divisive societal manipulation? and appeared to criticize the Court?s decision
against the position she had advocated in the Sheet Metal Workers case. In the
other article, Kuhl disapproved of the erosion of the ?employment at will?
doctrine under which employers can fire workers for any reason. She also
appeared critical of the effects of laws prohibiting racial, gender, and other
discrimination, appearing to lament the fact that ?[e]mployers must act toward
employees in the protected classes in such a way that they can explain the fairness
of their actions.?
? Kuhl?s record on access to justice, whistleblowers, and related issues
? Trying to limit protection for whistleblowers: In a unanimous ruling strongly
critical of Judge Kuhl in the Liu case, the California Court of Appeal reversed her
ruling that prevented a whistleblower from getting money relief under
California?s anti-SLAPP law, explaining that Kuhl?s decision was an improper
4
?nullification of an important part of California?s anti-SLAPP legislation.? In the
Songco case, Kuhl reduced by more than $4 million the punitive damages
awarded by a jury to a whistleblower who had been illegally fired.
? Improperly ruling against citizens? suits: In another unanimous ruling by the
California Court of Appeal reversing Judge Kuhl, the court overturned her order
in the Truitt case that harmed the ability of an injured railroad worker to pursue a
damage claim against the railroad by prohibiting him from using a written
statement obtained from a key witness in the case. The court also unanimously
reversed her decision in the Laird case dismissing a defamation claim against a
Hollywood producer.
? Seeking to invalidate qui tam access to the courts to combat fraud: In private
practice, Kuhl urged the federal courts to strike down the qui tam provisions of
federal law that allow private citizens to file suit to combat fraud against the
government. The federal courts rejected such arguments and upheld the law.
Far from demonstrating a record of commitment to ?protecting the rights of
ordinary Americans? and to ?the progress made on civil rights, women?s rights and
individual liberties,? criteria suggested by more than 200 law professors for
evaluating federal judicial nominees, Carolyn Kuhl has tried to turn back the clock on
these crucial matters throughout her legal career. Her confirmation to an important
lifetime position on the federal court of appeals should be rejected.

************************************

Now that REALLY looks like the kind of folks we want in the Federal Judicial system, huh????

Go take another dose of your meds there SuperFella. You REALLY need them!

Anyway, what in the hell are YOU bitchin about. Take a look at THIS for Christs sake!

The Senate has only blocked 3.5 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees. This is compared to the Senate, under Republican control, blocking 20 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees

SCORE CARD:

Clinton Nominees confirmed = 248

Clinton Nominees blocked = 63 (or 20 %) during 8 years

Bush Nominess confirmed = 168

Bush Nominees blocked = 6 (or 3.5%) during nearly 3 ys.

Looks like YOUR boys in the Senate (Repubs) were a whole lot more "quilty" of this horseshit than the Democrats are!