You've probably never heard of Elaine Jones. You probably have heard about a special investigation to determine who accessed memos from democrats on the senate judiciary committee, detailing their strategy to derail and otherwise obstruct Bush's judicial appointments.
What should be amazing, but it's not, is that the the media's emphasis is on the fact that their dirty little secrets got out, instead of the purely partisan, prejudicial, divisive strategy contained in them.
It's no longer even debatable that the dems are beholden to special interests to shape the federal bench with their judges who think like they do, corrupt and caniving, but Elaine Jones is the proof in the pudding.
Elaine Jones's actions, are not only unethical for a person in her profession, but that's beside the point, the point is that her actions are emblematic of how the democrats are micromanaged by special interests. In this example, the special interest is the NAACP.
Sen. Edward Kennedy ought to be removed from the committee. But that will never happen., unfit to serve due to his bias.
Racist? Biased? Devicive? Democrats? Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
Brief quote from today's the Wall Street Journal about a memo Ms. Jones wrote to Senator Ted Kennedy:
"An April 17, 2002, memo to Senator Ted Kennedy describing her request that the Democrats on Judiciary "hold off" confirming nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals until the University of Michigan affirmative action case is decided.
At the time Ms. Jones made her appeal, she was lead counsel to a group of Michigan students who were parties to the case--which is to say, she had a direct personal interest in what the court decided. Also at that time, five nominations were pending for Sixth Circuit openings and Ms. Jones was worried that a Bush appointee would tilt the balance against her clients. All the nominations were for slots designated as judicial emergencies.
To put it another way, Democrats on Judiciary were being asked to delay confirmations for a desperately understaffed court not because the nominees were unqualified but because of how they might rule in a particular case. Now, that's "politicizing" the judiciary."
UPDATE 08/16/04: And the REST of the story. La Shawn Barber
related links: 1 2
11:45:26 PM 
|
