Pickering renominated to the federal 5th court

[Guest]

I am going to post an article, and I want your reactions commanders.

I will warn you right up front, this is a trap, I want to see how many of you agree with this writer and how many of you don't.

It will tell me a great deal about each of you.

quote:

---

Bush snubs black voters with Pickering

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 01/12/03 | Cynthia Tucker

After Trent Lott's longing for a segregated past embarrassed the White House, President Bush got busy trying to repair the damage.

First, he arranged to have Lott deposed as Senate majority leader. Then, the White House suggested that the president would work even harder to attract minority voters, reinforcing his longtime interest in building a racially diverse Republican Party.

But he just isn't serious. If he were, he would not insist on renominating U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, a close associate of Lott, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana). Pickering's political and judicial record on issues of race is troubling, which is why his nomination has already been rejected once by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Early in his career, Pickering staunchly supported segregation. However, his many friends and supporters, a few of them black, claim he has long since renounced those views and has worked to eliminate racial disparities in Mississippi.

That may be true. But Pickering's recent record suggests a glaring racial insensitivity. An example is Pickering's handling of a 1994 cross-burning case.

Pickering was upset because Daniel Swan, one of three white men convicted in the case, was sentenced to 7 1/2 years under strict federal guidelines. Two co-defendants had pleaded guilty and received lighter sentences.

Pickering called federal prosecutors into his chambers to insist that they reduce the sentence against Swan, calling his actions a "drunken prank." The judge threatened to order a new trial if the prosecutors didn't comply.

Some prank. The cross was burned not in an empty field, but in the yard of an interracial couple. And Swan and his friends, not content with mere symbolic violence, fired shots into the occupied house that just missed the couple's baby. I can't imagine Pickering demanding a lesser sentence for a black man convicted of a similar crime against whites.

Pickering also called the U.S. Justice Department to complain, even suggesting that U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno intervene. Eventually, prosecutors caved in and dropped one of the charges against Swan even though he had already been convicted.

In addition to its racial implications, Pickering's decision to lobby on behalf of a convicted criminal was shamefully unethical. So were Pickering's answers to questions during an earlier confirmation process in 1990.

Asked about his relationship with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a staunchly anti-black group formed in the 1950s to resist the civil rights movement, Pickering testified: "I never had any contact with the Sovereignty Commission."

Yet the record shows Pickering was a friend and ally of the commission, helping to gain state funds for the group when he was a Mississippi state senator in the 1970s. Pickering might have renounced his segregationist past, but surely he understands that he must be honest about it.

Bush could have nominated scores of conservative judges to fill the empty seat on the Court of Appeals, which is just one level below the U.S. Supreme Court. So why did he insist on Pickering? Why would the president, who probably doesn't have a racist bone in his body, stand by Lott's friend?

Because in the White House, the only real agenda is winning re-election in 2004. The nomination of Pickering is intended to reassure the president's ultra-conservative base, including religious conservatives who admire Pickering's rigid anti-abortion views and Southern whites who still resent progressive racial policies and believe Lott was poorly treated.

On matters of race, Bush still finds political expediency more important than moral leadership.

---

Those of you who do NOT agree with this writer, do not get specific please, just say

NO, this writer is full of it. She hasn't got a clue.

Those of you who do agree with this writer, do not get specific please, just say

YES, I agree with her 100%. She is EXACTLY right.

Thanks in advance!!

[ 01-12-2003, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Raven]

Well, quite frankly there isn't enough information to make a clear decision; we aren't told if there are any other possible reasons for Bush picking Pickering. That said I'm inclined to agree, though I don't feel there is anything wrong with it.

My apologies for not being as concise as you desire (though I did my best), this isn't exactly a question that takes well to a yes or no answer.

[weegee_101]

I'll second Dragon Lady's comment about not enough information (and her comment about the yes or no answer deal).

Yea, I agree with the author on this case.

[rjy01]

quote:

---

First, he arranged to have Lott deposed as Senate majority leader.

---

This is the White House, not the Sopranos. The only force with an interest in deposing Trent Lott was the media in an effort to damage the Republican party after a strong mid-term election.

In regard to Pickering, she doesn't have a clue. I happen to live near Judge Brooks Smith. Our community was horrifed by the ignorant and unjust treatment he received at the hands of national media and "progressive" interest groups during his nomination process to the Court of Appeals. Fortunately, our congressional delegation went to bat for him and rescued his nomination.

[Kevin Trotter]

Litmus testing for federal and supreme court judges is a reality. Pickering failed on this one. Anyone who calls that incident a drunken prank shouldnt be a elected Dog catcher let alone appointed a judgeship. Hence I agree.