This shouldn't really surprise us. It's Clarence Thomas all over again. Let's nominate the least qualified person of color, and when he doesn't pass muster, we can blame it on the racism of Congress. Also, we can use this as an argument about affirmative action. What's really not-so-funny-to-me is that in nominating Estrada (and in the other case, Thomas) the GOP is practicing that which it accuses practitioners of affirmative action of doing: lower standards to allow minorities to fill slots.

I'm waiting for the "high-tech lynching" language. What really baffles me is that the Democrats are letting the GOP get away with this - just as they did with Thomas. You can't honestly tell me that Thomas was the most qualified individual available to be nominated. And I'm not even talking about the best qualified African American here.

I would fully endorse a nominee of color, if that nominee actually was qualified for the position. But, as you said, if his record is good enough for the bench, then that is what they should be able to focus on.

Clearly, they can't. And they want to have their cake and eat it to. When the GOP practices affirmative action, it's in pursuit of the American dream. When the Democrats do it, it's reverse racism. . .

Apparently Thomas wasn't even the most qualified conservative anti-choice african-american judge on his circuit.

He was, however, politically connected to Poppy Bush.

Thanks for the spirited defense of the Estrada filibuster. I'm concerned about long-term political strategy vis a vis judicial nominations. It's obvious to everyone who looks that nominations are made and evaluated almost entirely on the basis of ideology. In John Dean's excellent book on the Renhquist nomination, it shows that Nixon was all for nominating a woman (which he did), or even a Jew (which he didn't), as long as they were conservative. He didn't nominate a Jew, or even look seriously at Jews, because he didn't think he could find one who would support segregation, which was very important to Nixon.

But somehow, when Democrats make nominations, or block nominations, the Republicans start screaming that the Dems are being overly ideological, and that this is, somehow, unfair. Democrats have got to find a way to break this pattern. There must be a way that we can either a) make the Republicans play be their own rules, or b) change the rules to comport with how Republicans play, so that both parties are on an even playing field with respect to nominations. As it stands now, Republicans pretend to be above the politicizaton of the judiciary, even as they proceed to politicize it beyond all precedent. Yet the Democrats get beat up if they nominate a left-of-center moderate or oppose an extreme-right radical. The compliant press lets it happen.

Something must be done.

Oh, there they go, playing the race card again... whenever one of their poorly-qualified candidates doesn't get a rubber stamp, they complain about racial bigotry. Tsk, tsk.

Terminus, when did the Democrats nominate a left-of-center candidate? You must be dreaming. It's centrist (and even right-of-center) candidates the GOPs are complaining are "too ideological". The GOPs complain about anyone who isn't a far-right Republican, these days.

pissing
dripping
wet see through bikinis
see through
wet t-shirt
wet t-shirt contest
t-shirts
wet t-shirts
t-shirt
70 t-shirts
funny t-shirts
caught
wet pants
underwear
mens underwear
men in underwear
boys underwear
mens underwear
piss
peeing
girls peeing
women peeing
pee
watersports
wet t-shirt
wet
wet pussy
wet t shirt
wet see through bikinis
wet t-shirt contest
wet panties
wet t-shirts
wet t
wet shirt
wet tshirt
wet girls
wet t shirts
wet t shirt contest
wet pants