Miguel Estrada.

Immigrated to the US from Honduras at age 17 (speaking little English) after his father died. Graduated Magna Cum Laude as an undergrad and from Harvard Law. Branded as "dangerous" because he was Hispanic and conservative (what the oh-so-f'ing-tolerant left calls a "coconut") and denied an up or down vote on his court of appeals nomination by a Democrat filibuster.

By your standard the racism shoe fits the Democrats like Cinderella's foot glided into the glass slipper.

The fact you can't argue in support of Sotomayor on merit and must immediately fall back on accusations of "Racism!!!!11!!!1!!!" against those who oppose her nomination speaks volumes. Maybe you've heard the old expression about only catching flak when you're over the target? Me thinks her "32 words" and brusque, uninspired one paragraph opinion in the Ricci case have the left very worried over their qualified - but hardly exceptional - SCOTUS nominee.

Lee,

Not every disagreement with someone of a different race can be attributed to racism or bigotry. But since that seems to be the only hammer you have, I guess everything to you looks like a nail.

Funny how the tolerant left still think that Justice Clarence Thomas is a sock puppet, but it's the Republicans that think minorities can't handle responsibility or positions of power. Typical lefty "logic".

lee, you are one hate filled person.

Let's see
1st black secy of state - appointed by conservative - labeled "uncle tom" by the left

1st female secy of state - appointed by conservative - left claimed she wasn't really black

1st latino atty general - appointed by conservative - later forced to resign by racist left wing congress members.

1st latino nominee - selected by conservative, fillibustered and stopped by racist left wingers because he was hispanic

Miguel Estrada.

Immigrated to the US from Honduras at age 17 (speaking little English) after his father died. Graduated Magna Cum Laude as an undergrad and from Harvard Law. Branded as "dangerous" because he was Hispanic and conservative (what the oh-so-f'ing-tolerant left calls a "coconut") and denied an up or down vote on his court of appeals nomination by a Democrat filibuster.

Miguel Estrada had no judicial experience -- a fact right wing racists conveniently ignore.

The following quotation is fictional, but imagine that these words could come from Sotomayor at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee: "This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a Hispanic American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity Hispanics who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

That comment would send Rush, Sean and Bill into frothing, apoplectic rage, followed by further demands that Sotomayor's nomination be rejected. But if you change "Hispanic" to "black" in that quote, it no longer is fiction. It is recorded history. It is a verbatim pronouncement from Clarence Thomas -- a Republican president's conservative nominee for the Supreme Court -- at his own confirmation hearing. Nevertheless, most criticism has been aimed at perceived racist-sexist remarks from a 2001 diversity speech in which Sotomayor suggested that she, as a Latina, could be more qualified than a white guy. Pause: Don't most women think they're more qualified than most men when it comes to making wise decisions? Kidding, kidding.

Miguel Estrada had no judicial experience -- a fact right wing racists conveniently ignore.

No matter when you're a doctrinaire liberal though, right?

You can't whitewash the Democrats' inherit racism towards minorities who don't toe the liberal line with such thin gruel, Lee.

Anytime someone like "the Barron" writes a declarative sentence it's worth fact-checking. This one is no exception:

You can't whitewash the Democrats' inherit racism towards minorities who don't toe the liberal line with such thin gruel, Lee.

Bullshit out of the mouth of a right wing bullshitter.

The facts prove you wrong again, Barron:

Liberals reject allegations that Estrada was treated differently because of his ethnic background. "Conservatives who are minorities and do not have far-right judicial or legal philosophies are being confirmed," says Mincberg.

"This is a ludicrous charge," says Aron. "Miguel Estrada would have been opposed even if he weren't Hispanic, and he would have met a similar fate. The Senate has confirmed a lot of nominees who are people of color, and the White House knows it."

The Senate has confirmed 12 Hispanic judges nominated by President Bush. Two of those -- Edward Prado for the 5th Circuit and Consuelo Callahan for the 9th Circuit -- were for appeals courts, and another appeals nominee, Carlos Bea for the 9th Circuit, had a hearing last week and is expected to be confirmed soon.

Callahan and Bea served as state judges and are considered moderate conservatives. Prado, a former federal trial judge, is seen as a conservative judge.

Eleven African-American Bush appointees have been confirmed. Four were for appeals courts: Barrington Parker Jr. of the 2nd Circuit, Roger Gregory and Allyson Duncan of the 4th Circuit, and Lavenski Smith of the 8th Circuit. Parker and Gregory had previously been nominated for the bench by President Bill Clinton

More bullshit, Barron - please. The more you guys try to cover up your racism, the more that your comments and lies reveal of your racist underlayer.

Will libbies ever admit that, percentage wise, it was Dims who were larger % back then OPPOSED the Civil Rights Act.

Were all of those Dims back then racist?

Racist - opposing a Hispanic court nominee for being too liberal.

Not Racist - opposing a Hispanic court nominee for being too conservative.

Bullshit indeed.

So explain again how conservatives are racist considering most of those appointees were nominated by a conservative president and they are minorities?

Lee -

Have you forgotten the memos that the Dems circulated within the Judiciary Committee that the Wall Street Journal got where one indicated that they considered Estrada "dangerous" because he was a Latino and likely being groomed for a future SC nomination? Wouldn't want the facts to slow you down when you are on another ad hominem tirade against everyone who doesn't agree with you.

"Not Racist - opposing a Hispanic court nominee for being too conservative."

Other minority appointees of Bush who were more conservative were confirmed, blowing yet another hole in Barron's bleatings.

Estrada had no experience.

Neither if which explains or excuses the racism from the right.

Lee,

You are being blatantly disingenuous; you ignored ts' comment. At least try to stay on topic on your own blog post.

The Senate Democratic Judiciary staff specifically targeted Estrada as being Hispanic and spelled out a strategy that had as its purpose the denial of a position because he was Hispanic and could be a future SC nominee. Your 10:13 post ignores that issue and introduces a irrelevancy. Care to address the issue at hand - the clear targeting of a Hispanic person for blatant political purposes?

Lee,

How do you quantify the conservativeness of a judicial nominee? You highlighted this line in your very own response above:

"Conservatives who are minorities and do not have far-right judicial or legal philosophies are being confirmed,"

i.e. Estrada is "too conservative".

And naturally you've never addressed my comments regarding Estrada's level of relevant experience vs. Sotomayor when she was appointed to the federal bench - because Estrada is far more qualified at the time he was nominated than her.

Funny thing about people who continually cry "Wolf!" and "Racist!" - pretty soon no one takes them seriously anymore. So I've formulated a corollary to Godwin's law for you: As Lee types a post on Blue about any specific liberal figure, the probability of a comparison involving racism is 1.

"i.e. Estrada is "too conservative"."

No Estrada wasn't too conservative, Estrada had no judicial experience. Other conservative minorities who had judicial experience were confirmed -- which clearly underlines that racists who use Estrada as an excuse for their hatred of Sotomayor are really grasping at straws.

That comment would send Rush, Sean and Bill into frothing, apoplectic rage,

I highly doubt that Allen considering the hell Clarence Thomas took from the Democrats during his confirmation hearings. Or don't you remember that chirade? The moral preening and contrived righteous questions from the members of Congress has been all too pathetic for some time now.

No Estrada wasn't too conservative, Estrada had no judicial experience.

Whatever helps you sleep at night lee, right? even if that line of response is a total joke. Ignore and deny the evidence that completely refutes your point. I give you credit for staying on point. And just to fit in: racist, racist, racist, racist, racist...

J.R. I also remember the hell Anita Hill took because she claimed Thomas sexually abused her. Which side did that to her? I'm not saying she wasn't truthful or not, but she also was raked over the coals.

I do remember, and conservative radio back then is not like it is now.

interesting take on the the issue of calls of racism on judicial appointments:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/02/its_not_fair_to_casually_call_people_racist_96778.html