The gentlelady from California -- not the one who praised Lieberman when he was running in '06 and wondered why so many were peeved, the other one -- gave Republicans a victory in the Judiciary Committee by voting Judge Southwick out of committee for the same Fifth Circuit seat that gave us Judge Pickering -- rejected and recess appointed -- and another nomination that was removed. [Such things put in context why there was a long term vacancy, DF's bald remark of the time rather misleading without it. Third time the charm, but not quite in a charming way?]
I happened to catch her remarks late last night on C-SPAN (from Thursday, rebroadcast), and they were tedious. Talk of too much dissension in nominations -- apparently raising fights for a handful of Bush nominees is too much (strange how they all seem one-sided, the principled independent votes on one side, the other in lockstep) -- blank check city is required. As GG noted per the choke on the FISA amendment, we must face up to such "Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism," especially given how "staggering, and truly disgusting" such enabling still goes on at this point.
Anyway, she also noted that LS is such a nice person, volunteering his time, and should not be besmirched for two dubious decisions. Such is the perils, btw, of focusing one's fire [see much blog coverage] on two incidents. It should go without saying that the fact he seems like a nice guy, one who takes time for good causes is not exactly a compelling reason to vote for him. People are not simply 100% good or bad ... even the worse sort has some good points. Sure, realistically, it is hard to express in political sound bites a more complex opposition to such people ... see here for an attempt ... but such is the real world. When Sen. Schumer remarks that a black person might rightly doubt they can have a fair hearing in front of the man, some very well consider him over the top. With apologies, life tends to be a bit less black/white.
The problem was also apparent in a letter from advocacy groups, though it also spoke of a "procedural" point,* plus offered an a suggestion his views of executive power also are troubling. I guess an "anyone they pick is probably dubious" standard is a hard sell for some people. Along with Sen. Durbin, it also suggested a minority nominee would be appropriate given the Fifth is a black heavy circuit. Suffice to say, affirmative action appeals will not be too compelling for this administration, though I'm sure there are a few Thomas sorts that can be found in pinch. After all, there aren't too many appellate seats to fill, so the small class of people they have to pick from here is less of an issue.
The two cases are particularly troublesome, sure enough, and one was a concurrence ... one way to obtain a more nuanced view of the judges in question. A civil rights case involving calling an employee a "nigger" (Sen. Durbin noted the resistance of those discussing the matter to actually say the word, but I'd add that you have to say such epithets at least a few times or the force of the problem is not adequately expressed), one involving a birth mother in a custody case damned because of her lesbian lifestyle (often heterosexual lifestyle choices are the worst). Plus, where is there evidence these are outliers? The fact that cases like these cover others that might never come to court or dismissed in lower courts must also be understood by those who make them. The singular nature of some of them is not exactly a defense.
Ultimately, however, simply put, after a certain tipping point, a nominee -- especially in these conditions -- becomes worthy of rejection. Also, to be honest, it can also be symbolic -- drawing the line somewhere, even if we cannot defeat all the bad choices. This hopefully sends a message. It is not one or two decisions. It is not because s/he is a bad person. Surely, many Senate Republicans are pretty nice in various respects, some key Democratic votes are sorta assholes. A candidate for a Senate seat said as much on Rachel Maddow last night -- he noted the Republican incumbent appears nice enough, but is simply not a good fit for the people at large. Informing the public of the point, not personal attacks, would be his task. Many Republicans -- and some Democrats -- rather take another approach. I expect my leaders to resist that.
But, apparently, I expect too much of people in Congress. We must still deal with enablers, simplistic appeals, and naive bs like the senator's move here. She noted that "hey, I can be wrong, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt." Half right there, Dianne. As TalkLeft notes respecting the House's power not to vote for a bill, this is not about "67 votes," but an active move to enable the wrong side.
It is ultimately depressing, but also suggests just what we have to deal with here. Just one example. BTW, DF spoke right before the vote, with only Durbin and Kennedy adding some basically pro forma words against the nominee. Thus, her slam of her fellow Democrats' alleged unfairness was timed to obtain some special concern (to the degree people care about such things) without rebuttal before the vote. How grand.
---
* The letter in part -- a matter addressed by a blog entry on the matter I read as well -- noted that the nomination is being rushed. This is sadly not the only thing, per GG:
And now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with revealing symbolism, cancel their scheduled appearances this morning at Yearly Kos because George Bush ordered them to remain in Washington in order to [rush a] re-write and expand FISA -- a law which he has repeatedly refused to allow to be revised for years and which he has openly and proudly violated. Congressional Democrats know virtually nothing about how the Bush administration has been eavesdropping on our conversations because the administration refused to tell them and they passively accepted this state of affairs.
This is not how republican democracy should work. As with the infrastructure issue addressed last time, it underlines just how we need people in government who do know how things should work. I noted in an earlier post the matter of changes in second class mail rates for periodicals, another important issue the public -- including me, to be totally honest about it -- weren't informed enough about.
It is our job to be so, but we also should have help from our representatives. This is how a "republican" democracy is supposed to work.