January 20, 2004
Bush Recess Appoints Pickering
On the eve of Martin Luther King’s birthday celebration, President Bush showed once again his distain for Black Americans by appointing to the Federal Bench a man known for his racial intolerance. President Bush using his power under the Constitution to install Judges and others while the Senate is in recess, named controversial Republican Judge Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. Pickering’s confirmation has been blocked in the Senate for the last three years.
Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer said of Pickering on Friday that he is:
"A man who defended cross burning does not deserve elevation to the bench."He went on to state that
"[a]s the new year began, many of us had hoped the president would adopt a more bipartisan approach in his selection of judges. Instead, this recess appointment is a finger in the eye to all those seeking fairness and bipartisanship in the judicial nominations process."
Is this what Bush means by inclusiveness? Is this what he means by healing? Is this his faith in God at work? Bush has said repeatedly that he wants Black Americans to embrace the Republican Party, be how can we when the Party, led by Bush, shows a continual disregard for our interests and opinions? Most Black Americans don’t buy the rhetoric, and are tired of the half-truths and platitudes. I for one share their ire.
Posted by V. Edward Martin at January 20, 2004 03:16 PM
Why should he care what Black America thinks? After all, it is just America’s second largest minority. He is too busy courting the largest, and still growing, minority.
Posted by: Vague at January 20, 2004 04:33 PMCan we NOT be victims for a few minutes and look at the secretary of state and the national security advisor. Did Bush make these appointments out of hatred? Or, do you think it was a political move? How many minority candidates have the democrates nominate or supported? Why do blacks continue to support the democrats? What policies that are part of the democratic platform most benefit the black community specifically?
Posted by: Deth Frmafar at January 20, 2004 06:17 PMWhen a man dismisses a cross-burning as a drunken prank, one cannot dismiss the specter of racism in him. That’s a rather specific act which requires a rather specific attitude to condone, or be as forgiving of as he was.
Bush used his powers, like he always does, with no concern for checks and balances. You wonder why the people at MLK’s grave didn’t think much of Bush showing up?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2004 06:31 PMDeth, perhaps listening to some blacks would answer the question posed as to why they still support the Dem’s in large numbers. Going to the source is by far the best way to get an answer. Braun and Sharpton have articulated answers that are probably very representative.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 21, 2004 08:32 AMThis whole Pickering mess is somewhat confusing so I did a search and here’s the best of what I found:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0307/hentoff.php
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0343/hentoff.php
It’s hard to cite Sharpton because even he has pointed the finger at Dems, saying they treat the black community like it’s “mistress.” However, it is interesting to watch him debate, because his reaction alone could enact a shift in a very short period. If they really wanted to show their diversity they’d convince Harold Ford to run as a candidate or as a running mate, rather than Carol Mosely Braun.
Three points I’d like to make.
First, to use something Pickering wrote decades ago to paint him as a racist today is silly, unless it can be shown that he maintains those viewpoints. He has openly stated he does not.
Secondly, before making judgements on the “cross burning” case, educate yourself to the factual possibilities that his decisions had nothing to do with the racial aspect of the case, and more to do with the fairness of the sentencing. Make up your own mind on this., (personal remark deleted by Column Manager, Critique the Message, NOT the Messenger)
Thirdly, Bush used a constitutionally approved method of installing a judge, just as Democrats used a constitutionally approved manner of denying the judge a “thumbs up-down” vote. Both methods are within the letter of the law, though not within the spirit of the law. Either decry BOTH methods or neither, but be consistent.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 21, 2004 01:53 PMDeth—
Just because I voice a well-founded concern about a man whose past racial dealings are obliviously counter to the welfare of Black Americans, doesn’t a victim, or group of victims make. The American judicial system has a very long history of unequal justice and inequality before the bar of justice; this fact cannot be denied or ignored. These abuses continue, diminished be they may, but they do continue. So my concerns are well founded!
Bush’s appointments of Powel and Rice were political in nature, make no mistake; he needed both to land legitimacy to his administration. Powel is (or was) a well respected statesman who better for Secretary of State in an administration head by an anti-intellectual with no foreign policy experience?
Not all Black American support the Democrats, but perhaps the Party receives such broad support from minorities, because its members seem to care somewhat more for the “common man” then the Republicans who care only about the monies few. And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it Bush who journeyed to Bob Jones University where the stated policy is to forbid inter-racial relationships (how pathetic), while refusing to appear at the annual NAACP convention? And isn’t it Bush who continually refuses to meet with the Congressional Black Caucasus? And isn’t it the Republican Party that continues to champion individuals for the Federal Bench who are steeped in racial controversy? Is this the Party Black Americans should embrace?
Edward,
Would you go to the NAACP convention after Julian Bond referred to you as a Nazi? Those 2 Nat Hentoff articles I posted are a nice example of investigative journalism, you should take a look.
Posted by: JT at January 22, 2004 09:13 AMFunny how when a Republican appoints a black person to a high position of authority, it is for political reasons, but when the Democrats appoint a black person to a high position-Oh wait, they haven’t. I think Al Sharpton has done a great job of pointing this out.
First of all, Deth, tell me which party Sharpton belongs to. Second, tell me when you stopped considering him just another race-baiting ideologue. Third, tell me who exactly it is who opposes affirmative action, which effectively increases the number of blacks who fill in bulk of the civil service and federally funded jobs.
Deth—
Al’s statement while amusing, lacked validity, and I abhor his ill use of the race card. As Dean and others adroitly pointed out, there are very, very, very, few Back Americans in Vermont. Should Dean have gone outside the state to fill a quota? Social, economic, and political progress for Black Americans should not be measured by how many of us are in White administrations, but by a level playing field that allows Black Americans to employ whites in their Administrations, and companies.
