Compare & Contrast: Democrat Treatment Of Sonia Sotomayor & Miguel Estrada

You may have already read this meme elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere: Democrats rejected Miguel Estrada, a supremely qualified, hispanic jurist, as an Appeals Court nominee in 2001, because they didn't want Republicans being the first party to nominate a hispanic to the Supreme Court. Their treatment of Estrada was of a piece with their treatment of Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Though both men are racial minorities, they happen to be conservative minorities and as a result, incurred the wrath of liberals.

All of this brings me to one of my favorite games to play with the Democrat party--compare & contrast. Jansen G. emailed me an analysis of this hypocrisy that is better & clearer than any I've read elsewhere:

Does the name Miguel Estrada ring a bell? I came across this insightful article discussing the Democrats voracious opposition to confirming Estrada, a Hispanic lawyer, to the Federal Court of Appeals in 2001. The Democrats opposition was uncharacteristically strong, lasting 28 months and including a 6 month filibuster. As one would expect, part of the issue had to do with Estrada's conservatism. What's so relevant about this story, however, is that Estrada had an even greater rags-to-riches tale than Sotomayor. The irony here is tangible: many of the same Democrats that currently find Sotomayor's tale so compelling, belligerently fought against an equally qualified hispanic nominee with as compelling of a story (and no red flags). Of course, the reasoning for such strong opposition, as the article points out, is that the Democrats wanted to deny the GOP the potential political sway it would recieve among Hispanic voters for placing a Latino on the bench. The point I exrapolate from these two stories is that the Democrats are far more excited about retaining their Hispanic constituents than they're genuinely intrigue by Sotomayor's story. Politics can unfortuantely be so sobering, can't it?

Democrats response to both nominees reflects their opinion of minorities: They are for you so long as you embrace liberal politics. Reject their accepted wisdom and they will reject you--no matter how qualified you may be.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Hyperinflation, The Politics Of Personal Destruction, &c. (UPDATED)

This article was emailed to me by Dan K. I would have preferred that he write it up & just let me link to his blog but oh well.

As Dan pointed out to me, it's by "John Taylor, a respected Stanford economist." So there you go, his bona fides are established.

I believe the risk posed by this debt is systemic and could do more damage to the economy than the recent financial crisis. To understand the size of the risk, take a look at the numbers that Standard and Poor’s considers. The deficit in 2019 is expected by the CBO to be $1,200bn (€859bn, £754bn). Income tax revenues are expected to be about $2,000bn that year, so a permanent 60 per cent across-the-board tax increase would be required to balance the budget. Clearly this will not and should not happen. So how else can debt service payments be brought down as a share of GDP?

The mistake Taylor and other responsible economic types make with regards to Obama and his policy is that they believe that he is a responsible actor. To believe this, they have to ignore the whole of what he has done and said he intends to do.

He effectively runs America's financial sector. He wants a 'systemic risk regulator' or some other such. He runs GM and Chrysler. He wants to run the whole of American health care. He wants to establish a cap & trade system which will create a whole new regulatory apparatus to, again, allow him to run that aspect of the American economy too.

He does not care what all of this might cost or how it puts the most successful economy in world history at risk. And when I say at risk, I mean of ever being what it once was. It is part of his overarching plan to remake America into a liberal utopia that all of these things happen.

Radical levels of inflation and other economic woes simply give the man pretext to control more and more.

For those of us who do not like the direction this country is going, we can at least enjoy one delicious little irony (I read this somewhere but I can't remember where to give credit): One of the chief criticisms of the Bush administration was that he used "fear" as a way to push through a conservative agenda. (Nevermind that many Democrats--including current leadership--collaborated and voted on things like the Patriot Act, authorization and funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, wiretapping, military courts, etc. You'll also have to forget that, of course, Obama has continued all of these Bush Admin. policies.)

Well, now their boy is doing exactly what they accused Bush of doing. Do the hypocrites have a problem with this? Of course not. Because it achieves their policy goals. Winning at any cost is part of the fabric of liberalism. Notice that when Republican presidents (Reagan with Bork; Bush 41 with Thomas; Bush 43 with Roberts & Alito) nominated judges for the Supreme Court, liberal groups full court attacked these men. Nothing was off limits. It was personal and it was nasty.

This is standard operating procedure for liberals. They wouldn't have it any other way. Its why, when they argue with you, and they start to lose (as, inevitably, they will) they begin to attack you personally and question your motives. They are unable to debate an issue on its merits.

Anyway, compare Democrats experience with Republican nominees to Republican treatment of Democrat nominees. Compare Bork, Thomas, et al to what you will soon see with Sotomayor and the Republican Senate. She'll get tough questions, but she won't be subjected to the "politics of personal destruction" or "a high tech lynching."

Back to the earlier point of this post: Every policy put forward by the Obama administration has been about re-shaping this nation and moving it towards a liberal dystopia. Inflation and continued economic turbulence aid him in this process and thus, are actually helpful to his cause.

John Taylor's and others' warnings fall on deaf ears in Washington DC. The only ones with ears to hear are either in the desert politically or forced to fall into line with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

UPDATE 29 May 11:21am BST: Ah, division of labor & specialization: Dan didn't write about the original article he sent me, but he did write about some sweet econ stuff--specifically, about his Q&A with the UK head of Islamic finance at PWC:

his explanation of the current financial crisis was the best I've heard yet, and I've heard and read many. No politicizing, no finger-pointing, clear, complete, and understandable. I've heard an interview with a journalist recently and he admitted that he and most journalists/news commentators have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the matter of economics and finance. But since people are demanding answers, they pretend and make it up as they go. Mohammad Amin knew what he was talking about, and he knew better than most, and I'm not easily impressed.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Clarence Thomas On Racial Preference

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know how much I admire Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. I read his memoir, My Grandfather's Son, in 2 days. I believe I wrote about it here and about Thomas most recently, here.

When Clarence Thomas holds forth on anything, I pay attention. Partly, because he is smart and wise and partly because he so rarely opines on anything not related to a formal Supreme Court written opinion. This gives added emphasis to everything he says. Especially this:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday that African-Americans are better served by colorblind programs than affirmative action.

Thomas, addressing leaders of historically black colleges, said affirmative action "has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking."

A longtime opponent of race-based preferences in hiring and school admissions, Thomas said, "Just from a constitutional standpoint, I think we're going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes."

Thomas, 60, has voted on the court to outlaw the use of race in college admissions and in determining which public schools students will attend. He wrote with evident resentment in his autobiography "My Grandfather's Son" that he felt he was allowed to attend Yale Law School in the 1970s because of his race and took a tough course load to prove he was as able as his white classmates.

I think here he's referring to what President Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations."


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama Slanders Clarence Thomas (UPDATE)

If you've been reading for the last 9 months or so, you know that Clarence Thomas is one of my heroes. His memoir--'My Grandfather's Son'--was the OL&L book of the year in 2007.

Tonight, at the Saddleback Q&A sesh (transcript here) Barack Obama* hypocritically disparaged my favorite Supreme Court justice. Watch the video and see for yourself.



Mid-way through saying that Thomas didn't have enough experi..., Obama stops himself and performs a bit of the verbal acrobatics for which he is famous. He instead attacks his qualifications.

Obama doesn't know what he's talking about.

Though Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review, as American Thinker points out, he never published any of his own work. In 12 years of whatever affiliation he had with University of Chicago Law School, he published nothing. This is rare in the academy that typically requires that professors 'publish or perish.'

When it comes to memoir writing, Obama is definitely more qualified than Thomas. After 47 years of life, the incredibly narcissistic and self reverential Obama has written two memoirs--'Audacity' & 'Dreams.'

Thomas, 60, just wrote his after 17 years on the Supreme Court, a year on the DC Appeals Court, 9 years as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a year as Assistant Secretary of Education Office of Civil Rights, 3 years as Legislative Assistant for Senator Danforth, 4 years as an attourney for Monsanto, and 4 years as Assistant Atourney General of Missouri (see wikipedia for more).

If Clarence Thomas wasn't qualified to be one of 9 Supreme Court Justices, what does that say of Barack Obama's qualifications for President? Grossly unqualified?

*UPDATE 18 August 6:58pm PST: The WSJ follows my lead. So does Doug Ross.


*Over-the-top performance, no real skill or experience.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Friend Of The NAACP

For those of you not fortunate enough to be members of the NAACP (don't you care for the plight of African-Americans in this country?!), we post the following email we received this morning. It's appropriate because we want to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated 40 years ago today (and like Lincoln, left this world before he could finish his work).

Dear Friend,

Today, on the 40th anniversary of his assassination in Memphis, the NAACP honors the memory and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Forty years after his death, America has seen some progress in equality: educational opportunities have increased and workplaces and political leadership are more diverse. But when you consider these facts, it is very clear that we still have a long way to go.

- African Americans represent just 12% of the overall population, yet almost 30% of those arrested are African American. (link) And once arrested, African Americans are three times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. (link)

- The average net worth of white families is $70,000, compared to just $6,000 for African-American families. (link)

- African-American women are 10% less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than white women, but 36% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women. (link)

Dr. King's involvement with the NAACP dates back to his work in Alabama in the 1950's, and the NAACP honored Dr. King with its most prestigious prize, the Spingarn Award. We were proud to work side by side with Dr. King, and to carry on our work today on behalf of all people of color.

Dr. King pushed America to fulfill its promise of equal rights for all. Today we should all honor his life and legacy by recommitting ourselves to keeping the dream alive.

Sincerely,
Dennis Courtland Hayes_Interim President

A couple of thoughts:

- Unlike the NAACP, when we see these statistics, we don't automatically assume the root cause is racism or that the solution is greater equality. We've said it before and we repeat it again here: we value liberty over equality.

As we first pointed out in our MLK day post, the NAACP uses "adverse impact" to explain these differences. We repost Justice Thomas' deconstruction of this flawed logic. He uses the difference between white and black results on the bar exam as his example. From his book, My Grandfather's Son (OL&L Book of the Year 2007):

In the seventies you rarely had to look very far to find a theory, or a black person on whom it was being tried out. Like every other black law student, I was uncomfortably aware that blacks failed to pass the bar exams at a much higher rate than whites, and that the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund had filed lawsuits alleging that the exams they took were racially discriminatory. Lani Guinier, one of my classmates, was involved with the Legal Defense Fund, so I asked her to supply me with information about the extent of the problem and the strategy that the Legal Defense Fund was pursuing. At first I assumed that the disproportionate black failure rate was conclusive evidence of racial discrimination, but the more closely I looked at the facts, the more apparent it became that I was wrong. At that time each question on the bar exam was graded separately by a different scorer and each completed exam identified solely by number, thus making it impossible for the graders to tell which examinees, if any, were black. Some claimed that blacks wrote in "black English" and thus could be identified from the syntax of their responses, but in addition to finding that unlikely, I didn't think it unfair to expect lawyers representing their clients in a court of law to be able to write in standard English. In any case, the inability of a black law student to write and speak English properly wasn't evidence of discrimination by the graders--it was an indictment of the quality of the education he had received. This left only one argument, the Legal Defense Fund's "adverse impact" theory, which held that if a neutral examination produced disparate results among the races, then it could be considered discriminatory. But I didn't buy that, either, knowing that no measurement of any part of our lives ever produced identical results for all racial or ethnic groups. To argue otherwise, I thought, diverted attention from the real culprits, the people who were responsible for the useless education these young people had received.

The problem with my analysis, of course, was that it was of no help to those black students who had already finished school and now found themselves unable to pass the bar exam. But the adverse impact theory had its own built-in problem, which was that its advocates appeared to be suggesting, knowingly or not, that blacks could never catch up with whites. Neither alternative was attractive to me, and I had no easy solution of my own to offer, but at least I'd thought the problem through for myself instead of jumping to a quick and easy conclusion that might be emotionally satisfying but failed to fit the facts. This, I decided, was the right way to approach any problem that excited my passions, and if it led me to disagree with the solutions that were generally accepted, or to advocate positions that would make me unpopular--especially when it came to matters of race--then so be it.

- What's really unfortunate about these African-American crime statistics is that most of these crimes are being perpetrated against African-Americans. It's not unfortunate in the sense that we'd like to see them equally spread out against whites, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. It's unfortunate in the sense that it represents self-destructive behavior.

We think it's a product of, like Wilson pointed out in that article we linked to but no one read, the dissolution of the black family. A dissolution that began with slavery and continued with the destructive results of liberal social policy in Johnson's Great Society. As Wilson notes, what's truly amazing is the resurgence of the African-American family despite the odds.

- 'The family' is the theme. African-American families with mother and father, according to research done by Thomas Sowell (which we are unable to locate now, but with which we will update this post later) compare favorably in terms of income, etc., to white families. The problem with this statistic is how the NAACP defines family.

*UPDATE 4:22pm MST: From Juan Williams' column in today's Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama:

He has stopped all mention of government's inability to create strong black families, while the black community accepts a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Half of black and Hispanic children drop out of high school, but he no longer touches on the need for parents to convey a love of learning to their children. There is no mention in his speeches of the history of expensive but ineffective government programs that encourage dependency. He fails to point out the failures of too many poverty programs, given the 25% poverty rate in black America. (emphasis added)

Remember earlier in the column when we said "the family is the theme?"

**Update 5 April 4:26am MST: From McCain's speech honoring Dr. King:

Dr. King stirred the conscience of our nation to ensure that the self-evident truths of human freedom held true for all Americans. The power of his work and vision was not ended forty years ago in Memphis. Across the world, men and women are living Dr. King's dream as they strive to extend the blessings of human liberty and human rights to all. Today, we mark a tragic day in our nation's history while honoring the work of a man who was the voice for our nation's highest ideals.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Geraldine Ferraro "hearts" Barack Obama

Image link

We've written about the racism of liberal elites here, here, and here. Geraldine Ferraro's comment--that Barack is fortunate to be in his position because of his race--borrows from the same subtle theme.

It's not the overt, burn-a-cross-in-the-front-yard type of racism people associate with the Klan. And it's not even the self-congratulatory racism of Hillary Clintons comment about LBJ "giving" blacks civil rights. As though civil rights were liberals' rights to give.

No, this racism is the invidious racism borne of the paternalistic, liberal-state-knows-best affirmative action policies. In liberal America, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton and others of their ilk are the dispensers of justice and equality. Supposedly, they're not racist because they give minorities opportunities they don't, were it not for affirmative action policies, merit.

It's why Clarence Thomas keeps his Yale law degree in a box in his basement. He earned his way in and was one of the best students, but because Yale was known to practice affirmative action, Thomas couldn't get a job with top law firms because it was assumed he was a subpar candidate.

Thus, when Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for President, it won't be because he's an incredibly articulate and talented politician (which, admittedly, he is). It will be because Geraldine Ferraro, et al., were enlightened enough to give him a chance he wouldn't otherwise deserve.

Barack is right. He doesn't like being patted on the head and told how well he is doing. Who would?

This type of condescending racism doesn't belong in America.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Our Hero, Clarence Thomas

On this day, the officially recognized day to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we celebrate another courageous African American, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thomas' book, My Grandfather's Son, was our favorite book last year and won the innaugural, On Life and Lybberty Book of the Year Award.

Frequent readers of OL&L may recall that Thomas' book prompted this post about Rudy Giuliani, abortion, and the Supreme Court.

In honor of MLK Jr. and Clarence Thomas, we post the following excerpt from Thomas' book. This section, regarding his personal philosophy and "adverse impact" theory is fascinating. Like Dr. King, Clarence Thomas has the courage to break with popular opinion and stand up for what he believes.

In the seventies you rarely had to look very far to find a theory, or a black person on whom it was being tried out. Like every other black law student, I was uncomfortably aware that blacks failed to pass the bar exams at a much higher rate than whites, and that the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund had filed lawsuits alleging that the exams they took were racially discriminatory. Lani Guinier, one of my classmates, was involved with the Legal Defense Fund, so I asked her to supply me with information about the extent of the problem and the strategy that the Legal Defense Fund was pursuing. At first I assumed that the disproportionate black failure rate was conclusive evidence of racial discrimination, but the more closely I looked at the facts, the more apparent it became that I was wrong. At that time each question on the bar exam was graded separately by a different scorer and each completed exam identified solely by number, thus making it impossible for the graders to tell which examinees, if any, were black. Some claimed that blacks wrote in "black English" and thus could be identified from the syntax of their responses, but in addition to finding that unlikely, I didn't think it unfair to expect lawyers representing their clients in a court of law to be able to write in standard English. IN any case, the inability of a black law student to write and speak English properly wasn't evidence of discrimination by the graders--it was an indictment of the quality of the education he had received. This left only one argument, the Legal Defense Fund's "adverse impact" theory, which held that if a neutral examination produced disparate results among the races, then it could be considered discriminatory. But I didn't buy that, either, knowing that no measurement of any part of our lives ever produced identical results for all racial or ethnic groups. To argue otherwise, I thought, diverted attention from the real culprits, the people who were responsible for the useless education these young people had received.

The problem with my analysis, of course, was tht it was of no help to those black students who had already finished school and now found themselves unable to pass the bar exam. But the adverse impact theory had its own built-in problem, which was that its advocates appeared to be suggesting, knowingly or not, that blacks could never catch up with whites. Neither alternative was attractive to me, and I had no easy solution of my own to offer, but at least I'd thought the problem through for myself instead of jumping to a quick and easy conclusion that might be emotionally satisfying but failed to fit the facts. This, I decided, was the right way to approach any problem that excited my passions, and if it led me to disagree with the solutions that were generally accepted, or to advocate positions that would make me unpopular--especially when it came to matters of race--then so be it.

(Thanks to our brother who read the book after we did and marked some of the best parts--including this one)

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day. We suggest you purchase and read My Grandfather's Son to celebrate.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Hillary Clinton is a racist

Or at least, she'll use race or anything else to her political advantage. This much we know.

This morning, while getting ready to leave, we watched Fox News Sunday with Brit Hume, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and hosted by Chris Wallace. We were particularly interested when they turned their attention to the latest spat between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Quick review: Hillary said Obama was no Martin Luther King Jr., and that anyway, it was Lyndon Johnson who passed important Civil Rights legislation.

Drudge is carrying the most recent headlines:

• Dems try, but fail, to transcend race
• War of words
• BET Founder/Hillary Supporter Slams Obama in S Carolina; raises drug use

Chris Wallace and Brit Hume got Juan Williams to admit that Hillary and her surrogates were trying to "remind" people of Obama's race. But to what end? They tried to push him to follow his thinking to its logical conclusion, but he would not. Bill Kristol stepped in and filled in the blanks: it was, simply, because Hillary thought she could gain from this bigoted "reminder." The same way Mike Huckabee gained from mentioning that, 'well, don't Mormons think that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?'

Was it because she thinks Democratic voters are racist? Maybe.

Did she do it because she is racist? Probably not overtly so. She does seem to believe that they need "taking care of." That, like her MLK allusion, she thinks blacks are capable only of making nice speeches but that it's left to the whites--like her and Lyndon Johnson--to do what's best for the African-American community.

This last point seems most likely to us. It fits the overall narrative of the nanny state Hillary would try to create were she (oh, the horror) elected President.

And if this is the case, where is the outrage from the unelected "leaders" of the black community? Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with sanctimonious calls for Clinton's withdrawal from the race?

We have no time nor patience for this type of racism (or any type of racism for that matter)--that Lyndon Johnson did what MLK Jr. could not or even that the same is true today--that blacks somehow need Hillary Clinton. That they need her to tell them what to think and how to vote.

What must independent minded African-Americans like Clarence Thomas be thinking? If only more people would take their cues from he and Thomas Sowell rather than following the liberal Clinton/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson stereotype.



If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Giuliani & Abortion

Last night we finished reading Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' memoir, My Grandfather's Son. Thomas has always been our favorite Supreme Court Justice and reading his memoir has made us admire him even more. He is very honest about his struggles with depression, alcohol, divorce, education--everything.

But the thing that stood out to us, and the reason for this post, was his description of his Senate confirmation hearings. We remember watching these hearings on TV. It was where we first learned about sexual harassment. We remember asking our father (though we doubt he'll remember) why the guys on TV seemed to be attacking then Judge Thomas. Our father, who'd voted for Bush Sr. and supported his nomination of Thomas explained that some people had said things about Thomas that weren't true and that before he could join the Supreme Court, they needed to make sure everyone knew it. We'd never watched C-SPAN before, didn't really understand what they were talking about, but we recognized a good man when we saw him (Thomas) and what Thomas in his book calls a "high-tech lynching" when we saw that, too.

As we read the book, we learned what it cost Thomas, his wife, family, friends, the Bush Administration--everyone who supported him--to be drug through the mud by the cabal of liberal Senators, groupthink Civil Rights organizations, pro-choice women's groups, and their willing echo chamber/propaganda machine, the mainstream media. "Ludicrous" does not even begin to describe the shameful event that played out on C-SPAN and in the press.

Suffice it to say that My Grandfather's Son is one of the best books we've read in some time.

The next President will nominate 1-2 new Supreme Court justices. If nominated by a Republican, they could conceivably change the future of American jurisprudence--abortion, property rights, affirmative action--all these and more could and probably would be reconsidered by a newly conservative Supreme Court.

Rudy Giuliani has admitted that his personal beliefs are pro-choice. In order to placate social conservatives and win the Republican nomination, he stated that he would nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. While somewhat comforting, the experience of Judge Thomas illustrates why this may not be enough. The most recent justices nominated to the court--John Roberts and Samuel Alito--replaced conservative William Rehnquist and nominally conservative Sandra Day O'Connor. Though they were opposed by Democratic Senators and the aforementioned interest groups, because it wouldn't change the balance of the court, they largely got through without a fight.

However, if a Republican somehow manages to win the next presidential election, John Paul Stevens, who seems to be awaiting a Democratic president, may not live long enough to see one and could be replaced by a conservative judge. As this would upset the "balance" of the court, you can expect a fight on the scale of Clarence Thomas, with the same amount of dirty politics. Such a fight requires especially a President who principally believes in and would support a nominee who would face the sort of character assassination faced by Clarence Thomas.

Giuliani has made no secret of his personal pro choice beliefs. We're afraid that when push comes to shove, a President Giuliani would quickly back away from his justice "in the mold of Alito & Scalia" and instead nominate someone more palatable to the angry lynch mob of liberal interest groups.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.