Are there any nonwhite judges who are a part of Fed Soc? Forum

[nixy]

Uh no, it's not. Or are you about to argue that they were filibustering Bill Pryor, Richard Griffin, David McKeague, and Priscilla Owen because they're also Latino?

That memo only gives insight into why Estrada was somebody they considered to be a good person to pick to filibuster as payback.

Trying to imagine your reaction if Senate republicans wrote a memo saying they were filibustering anyone because of their race, sex, or orientation.

I mean it seems pretty clear that they were filibustering him because of his politics, not because of his ethnicity, and that him being Latino was a reason why they thought he was a particularly strong candidate who needed to be filibustered.

Not saying that the experience wasn't shitty for him (the stuff about his wife sounds very sad), but I don't get how it was somehow hypocritically racist.

[Anonymous User]

Uh no, it's not. Or are you about to argue that they were filibustering Bill Pryor, Richard Griffin, David McKeague, and Priscilla Owen because they're also Latino?

That memo only gives insight into why Estrada was somebody they considered to be a good person to pick to filibuster as payback.

Trying to imagine your reaction if Senate republicans wrote a memo saying they were filibustering anyone because of their race, sex, or orientation.

I mean it seems pretty clear that they were filibustering him because of his politics, not because of his ethnicity, and that him being Latino was a reason why they thought he was a particularly strong candidate who needed to be filibustered.

Not saying that the experience wasn't shitty for him (the stuff about his wife sounds very sad), but I don't get how it was somehow hypocritically racist.

Again, the leaked memo specifically listed Estrada's Latino heritage as a reason to fillibsuter him. If that's not racism, what is? I don't get why people feel compelled to defend this memo. Can't we just admit it was shitty and racist and move on?

[lavarman84]

Again, the leaked memo specifically listed Estrada's Latino heritage as a reason to fillibsuter him. If that's not racism, what is? I don't get why people feel compelled to defend this memo. Can't we just admit it was shitty and racist and move on?

If the goal was really to move on, his name wouldn't still keep coming up. The fact that certain people are still aggrieved over that sort of minor political payback after everything that has happened over the past 25 years shows the strength of victimhood.

You don't hear liberals still complaining about Allen Snyder. Merrick Garland? Sure. That was a stolen Supreme Court seat. But you don't hear much about all of the other judgeships the GOP stole from Clinton and Obama at the end of their presidencies. Indeed, it was that act with Clinton that prompted the Estrada filibuster.

[Anonymous User]

Again, the leaked memo specifically listed Estrada's Latino heritage as a reason to fillibsuter him. If that's not racism, what is? I don't get why people feel compelled to defend this memo. Can't we just admit it was shitty and racist and move on?

If the goal was really to move on, his name wouldn't still keep coming up. The fact that certain people are still aggrieved over that sort of minor political payback after everything that has happened over the past 25 years shows the strength of victimhood.

You don't hear liberals still complaining about Allen Snyder. Merrick Garland? Sure. That was a stolen Supreme Court seat. But you don't hear much about all of the other judgeships the GOP stole from Clinton and Obama at the end of their presidencies. Indeed, it was that act with Clinton that prompted the Estrada filibuster.

Allen Snyder wasn't expressly targeted because of immutable characteristics. In the same way, you don't hear conservatives complaining about Carolyn Kuhl or William Myers. If you'll agree that it's racist to write "he's Latino" as a reason to filibuster a judicial candidate, everyone will move on. It's only the fact that people defend the Durbin memo as not problematic that keeps the "victimhood" going.

[Anonymous User]

Again, the leaked memo specifically listed Estrada's Latino heritage as a reason to fillibsuter him. If that's not racism, what is? I don't get why people feel compelled to defend this memo. Can't we just admit it was shitty and racist and move on?

If the goal was really to move on, his name wouldn't still keep coming up. The fact that certain people are still aggrieved over that sort of minor political payback after everything that has happened over the past 25 years shows the strength of victimhood.

You don't hear liberals still complaining about Allen Snyder. Merrick Garland? Sure. That was a stolen Supreme Court seat. But you don't hear much about all of the other judgeships the GOP stole from Clinton and Obama at the end of their presidencies. Indeed, it was that act with Clinton that prompted the Estrada filibuster.

After the Bork and Thomas fiascos, both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees were confirmed with ease. In fact, Orrin Hatch of all people recommended RBG to Clinton.

Bill Clinton inherited the most judicial vacancies for a President--more than Bush or Trump did, certainly. Where did those vacancies come from? What Clinton dealt with, at the end of his presidency, was retaliation for what Democrats did during the Reagan/Bush administrations with judicial nominations.

Estrada was an escalation in the judicial wars--coming after Bush's olive branches--as that marked the first time the filibuster was used on a CoA nominee, saying nothing about the racist justifications for doing so.

[Robot]

Wtf is this thread

[Anonymous User]

Wtf is this thread

Random account tried to bait FedSoc kids by implying their organization is racist. FedSoc kids took the bait. I think that pretty much covers it?

[lavarman84]

After the Bork and Thomas fiascos, both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees were confirmed with ease. In fact, Orrin Hatch of all people recommended RBG to Clinton.

Bill Clinton inherited the most judicial vacancies for a President--more than Bush or Trump did, certainly. Where did those vacancies come from? What Clinton dealt with, at the end of his presidency, was retaliation for what Democrats did during the Reagan/Bush administrations with judicial nominations.

Estrada was an escalation in the judicial wars--coming after Bush's olive branches--as that marked the first time the filibuster was used on a CoA nominee, saying nothing about the racist justifications for doing so.

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

[Anonymous User]

After the Bork and Thomas fiascos, both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees were confirmed with ease. In fact, Orrin Hatch of all people recommended RBG to Clinton.

Bill Clinton inherited the most judicial vacancies for a President--more than Bush or Trump did, certainly. Where did those vacancies come from? What Clinton dealt with, at the end of his presidency, was retaliation for what Democrats did during the Reagan/Bush administrations with judicial nominations.

Estrada was an escalation in the judicial wars--coming after Bush's olive branches--as that marked the first time the filibuster was used on a CoA nominee, saying nothing about the racist justifications for doing so.

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

Democrats did not hold the Senate and none of Clinton's choices that were not confirmed had the support of a majority of the Senate. This is of course fundamentally different from Estrada, filibustered because of his race.

[Anonymous User]

After the Bork and Thomas fiascos, both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees were confirmed with ease. In fact, Orrin Hatch of all people recommended RBG to Clinton.

Bill Clinton inherited the most judicial vacancies for a President--more than Bush or Trump did, certainly. Where did those vacancies come from? What Clinton dealt with, at the end of his presidency, was retaliation for what Democrats did during the Reagan/Bush administrations with judicial nominations.

Estrada was an escalation in the judicial wars--coming after Bush's olive branches--as that marked the first time the filibuster was used on a CoA nominee, saying nothing about the racist justifications for doing so.

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

Democrats did not hold the Senate and none of Clinton's choices that were not confirmed had the support of a majority of the Senate. This is of course fundamentally different from Estrada, filibustered because of his race.

I don't think there's any reasoning with lavarman on this. It's sad, really. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but these days everything is. I hope someday we can all find common ground.

[Letmein7]

It's okay that [insert my party here] did [insert bad practice here] because [insert opposite party here] also did [insert bad practice here].

Repeat ad infinitum.

[kolio6]

Burn this thread and salt the earth on which it stood

[lavarman84]

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

Democrats did not hold the Senate and none of Clinton's choices that were not confirmed had the support of a majority of the Senate. This is of course fundamentally different from Estrada, filibustered because of his race.

I don't think there's any reasoning with lavarman on this. It's sad, really. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but these days everything is. I hope someday we can all find common ground.

You're right that there is no reasoning with me on this when your reasoning is so weak. The idea that it's somehow worse to filibuster a nominee as political payback than it is to refuse to hold a vote for a nominee as political payback is the sort of lie aggrieved right-wingers tell to themselves to justify their victimhood.

Fact is after the Democrats "blocked" Estrada, the Republicans still confirmed a right-wing judge in Thomas Griffith for that judgeship. It's not even a situation where the Democrats "stole" the seat. (In fact, the Republicans "stole" that seat from Allen Snyder/Bill Clinton.) So you can spare me the grievances over it after all these years. It's just ridiculous, like the whining about Bork.

[Anonymous User]

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

Democrats did not hold the Senate and none of Clinton's choices that were not confirmed had the support of a majority of the Senate. This is of course fundamentally different from Estrada, filibustered because of his race.

I don't think there's any reasoning with lavarman on this. It's sad, really. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but these days everything is. I hope someday we can all find common ground.

You're right that there is no reasoning with me on this when your reasoning is so weak. The idea that it's somehow worse to filibuster a nominee as political payback than it is to refuse to hold a vote for a nominee as political payback is the sort of lie aggrieved right-wingers tell to themselves to justify their victimhood.

Fact is after the Democrats "blocked" Estrada, the Republicans still confirmed a right-wing judge in Thomas Griffith for that judgeship. It's not even a situation where the Democrats "stole" the seat. (In fact, the Republicans "stole" that seat from Allen Snyder/Bill Clinton.) So you can spare me the grievances over it after all these years. It's just ridiculous, like the whining about Bork.

The problem isn't that they filibustered him--it's that they described him as "dangerous" because "he's Latino." If you don't get why that's offensive, I don't know what to tell you (other than to advise against using similar language in your workplace, because it won't go over well).

[Anonymous User]

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

Democrats did not hold the Senate and none of Clinton's choices that were not confirmed had the support of a majority of the Senate. This is of course fundamentally different from Estrada, filibustered because of his race.

I don't think there's any reasoning with lavarman on this. It's sad, really. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but these days everything is. I hope someday we can all find common ground.

You're right that there is no reasoning with me on this when your reasoning is so weak. The idea that it's somehow worse to filibuster a nominee as political payback than it is to refuse to hold a vote for a nominee as political payback is the sort of lie aggrieved right-wingers tell to themselves to justify their victimhood.

Fact is after the Democrats "blocked" Estrada, the Republicans still confirmed a right-wing judge in Thomas Griffith for that judgeship. It's not even a situation where the Democrats "stole" the seat. (In fact, the Republicans "stole" that seat from Allen Snyder/Bill Clinton.) So you can spare me the grievances over it after all these years. It's just ridiculous, like the whining about Bork.

Ignoring your dismissal of the fairly important requirement to have even 50 votes in favor of a confirmation, which Synder did not have, you know your logic makes Estrada's treatment worse right? Because it's proof that Democrats in the Senate did not care about having a conservative in the seat, they just did not want a conservative Latino in the seat.

[lavarman84]

Ignoring your dismissal of the fairly important requirement to have even 50 votes in favor of a confirmation, which Synder did not have, you know your logic makes Estrada's treatment worse right? Because it's proof that Democrats in the Senate did not care about having a conservative in the seat, they just did not want a conservative Latino in the seat.

You're not speaking to an uneducated choir who will eat up whatever intellectually dishonest drivel you put out. Griffith got through because the parties made a deal and Estrada, fed up with the process, opted to withdraw roughly two years before the deal happened. When your argument relies on constantly taking things out of context, it only exposes how flailing it is.

P.S. I'm "dismissing" the 50-vote threshold because the Republicans refused to give him a vote. It's not meaningfully different than a filibuster. They used procedure to block a nomination purely on partisan grounds. It's that simple. Continue pressing your antiquated grievances. You're the victims of the big, mean Democrats.

[kolio6]

I’m not a conservative, but it’s telling you never responded to the initial point that targeting someone for being Latino is problematic as fuck.

And saying Griffith is super right wing is laughable.

I hate that I have to be associated with hacks like you.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP but it's also disingenuous to act like Estrada wasn't being called dangerous because if he was nominated to the Supreme Court, being the first Latino Justice would've made it very hard to block him. Like if Obama had nominated Srinivasan instead of Garland when Scalia died. It's not like he was just being blocked because Democratic leadership hated Latinos, it was a political move. And yes both sides do this, you're not pulling some kind of "gotcha"

[lavarman84]

I’m not a conservative, but it’s telling you never responded to the initial point that targeting someone for being Latino is problematic as fuck.

And saying Griffith is super right wing is laughable.

I hate that I have to be associated with hacks like you.

I am quite happy to not associate with you or be associated with you. But let's set a couple things straight, if you're not going to be honest about what I said in this thread.

First, I did respond to that point on page two of this thread (see below). I ignored it after that point because the comment was being used in an intellectually dishonest manner and didn't warrant further response.

Second, I called Griffith a "right-wing judge," which he is. Are you going to argue that he wasn't a conservative jurist? I didn't call him an ideologue or add the word "super."

The Democrats blocked Estrada and numerous others as payback for the Republicans blocking a number of Clinton appointees near the end of his presidency, including the seat for which Estrada was nominated. And if OP wonders why there aren't more nonwhite FedSoc judges, they should ask the Trump administration.
https://theconversation.com/trump-and-m ... rts-146828

Surely we can set partisanship aside and agree that "he's Latino" shouldn't be offered as a reason for denying anyone a federal judgeship. That shouldn't be controversial.

We agree. But this is politics. Optics matter. And those sort of things get considered on both sides. DC is a place full of shitty people.

Personally, I wish he had gotten the job instead of Griffith. There's nothing wrong with Griffith, but Estrada went through hell and didn't get the judgeship in the end. That doesn't feel just.

That all said, it feels silly to still be beating that drum after everything that has happened in the past 20 years.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds good my left wing brethren

[Anonymous User]

Ignoring your dismissal of the fairly important requirement to have even 50 votes in favor of a confirmation, which Synder did not have, you know your logic makes Estrada's treatment worse right? Because it's proof that Democrats in the Senate did not care about having a conservative in the seat, they just did not want a conservative Latino in the seat.

You're not speaking to an uneducated choir who will eat up whatever intellectually dishonest drivel you put out. Griffith got through because the parties made a deal and Estrada, fed up with the process, opted to withdraw roughly two years before the deal happened. When your argument relies on constantly taking things out of context, it only exposes how flailing it is.

P.S. I'm "dismissing" the 50-vote threshold because the Republicans refused to give him a vote. It's not meaningfully different than a filibuster. They used procedure to block a nomination purely on partisan grounds. It's that simple. Continue pressing your antiquated grievances. You're the victims of the big, mean Democrats.

I don't think I'm speaking to an uneducated choir, I'm very aware I'm speaking to a, as others put it, hack.

"fed up with the process" - an interesting way of pointing out that Estrada withdrew and never submitted his name again for any position because his wife miscarried from the stress of 3 years of baseless Democratic smears against him, and then tragically passed away shortly after. And people haven't "gotten over it" in 20 years because it was everyone is well aware of the horrendous toll Democratic racism took on Estrada, and its subsequent poisoning of the process.

But anyway, by your logic, the seat, along with many others, was originally "stolen" from John Roberts back in 1992 when Democrats didn't give him a vote.

"According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing. And that does not count an additional 20 nominations for the federal bench where Biden did not hold hearings that year, which CRS excluded from its count because they reached the Senate “within approximately [four] months before it adjourned.”

So none were cases in which time simply ran out. There was plenty of time to consider the nominations. But Biden refused. Why? According to an article in Texas Lawyer magazine, cited in the CRS report, some of the “nominees reportedly fell victim to presidential election year politics, as Democrats hoped to preserve vacancies in expectation that their presidential candidate would win election.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[Anonymous User]

...

[nixy]

Not OP but it's also disingenuous to act like Estrada wasn't being called dangerous because if he was nominated to the Supreme Court, being the first Latino Justice would've made it very hard to block him. Like if Obama had nominated Srinivasan instead of Garland when Scalia died. It's not like he was just being blocked because Democratic leadership hated Latinos, it was a political move. And yes both sides do this, you're not pulling some kind of "gotcha"

yup.

[Anonymous User]

After the Bork and Thomas fiascos, both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees were confirmed with ease. In fact, Orrin Hatch of all people recommended RBG to Clinton.

Bill Clinton inherited the most judicial vacancies for a President--more than Bush or Trump did, certainly. Where did those vacancies come from? What Clinton dealt with, at the end of his presidency, was retaliation for what Democrats did during the Reagan/Bush administrations with judicial nominations.

Estrada was an escalation in the judicial wars--coming after Bush's olive branches--as that marked the first time the filibuster was used on a CoA nominee, saying nothing about the racist justifications for doing so.

L-O-L. "We blocked Clinton's nominees as political payback. But the Democrats blocking our nominees, including Estrada who was up for a seat that Clinton had been blocked from filling, escalated the judicial wars!" The victimhood is truly impressive.

Democrats did not hold the Senate and none of Clinton's choices that were not confirmed had the support of a majority of the Senate. This is of course fundamentally different from Estrada, filibustered because of his race.

I don't think there's any reasoning with lavarman on this. It's sad, really. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but these days everything is. I hope someday we can all find common ground.

For some people, partisanship is a controlling influence on their mind on anything to do with politics. Here, documentary evidence shows a highly questionable justification for blocking a judgeship. But because the document was written by a democrat, the partisans must reflexively defend it.

It feels so, so good to be an independent. I'm not obligated to do things like whitewash January 6th or believe that Trump colluded with Russia. It's a very liberating feeling - especially as a former partisan.

[Anonymous User]

OP here: not a troll! Relax you guys haha. Thought it would be too tedious on my end to include in my first post "aside from Thomas, Rao, Thapar, Bumatay, Ada Brown, who are other nonwhite Fed Soc judges?"

I found it interesting in my search that many nonwhite judges appointed by Republican presidents are not a part of Fed Soc. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that maybe Fed Soc was in its nascent stage while they were in law school.

You may have had better luck titling this thread "name some nonwhite FedSoc judges" (sure) instead of "are there any nonwhite FedSoc judges" (yes, many). Who are the nonwhite, Republican-appointed, non-FedSoc judges you're thinking of?

I found a few black judges, like Judge Alston (Trump appointee), who explicitly distanced himself from Fed Soc https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/downlo ... the-record (Ctrl + F)
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/downlo ... the-record