AKIron,
Thank you for being specific...now we have something to talk about:
Sen. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK, it's true. He is no longer, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not expressed pro-segregationist beliefs in a long, long time, and I believe has renounced them.
George Wallace repudiated his racist beliefs as well. For that matter, so did Strom Thurmond, if I'm not mistaken.
And because they did, they were/are accepted as leaders by the citizenry.
Now, imagine if tomorrow Byrd came out with a statement that, "Segregation would have been a better path for our country." He would catch worse flak than a Lanc formation over a CV group at 5k. His power would evaporate instantly...the Democrats themselves would want nothing to do with him. His goose would be cooked. Well, that's what Lott did; he said maybe we'd have been better off if a segregationist had been elected president. Lott kept his seat in the Senate [note to NUKE: he did not lose his job], but you can't blame the Republicans for getting him out of leadership positions.
That's the difference in the example you brought up: one man seems to have changed his beliefs, the other clearly has not. That, or he's just incredibly stupid while trying to be polite, which I believe was his excuse. Either way, a Republican or Democrat lamenting the end of racial segregation would be crucified by his own party.
Any other examples?
*************************
Gunslinger,
Your point is well made. There are many activists who use the race card at every possible occaision, whether or not there is any merit to the charge. In this case, they certainly can't charge racism however, since the nominees are opposed because of their beliefs, not their race. (Or their party, for that matter. If these people were Democrats with the identical ideology they'd still be unacceptable.)
But don't put all "black activists" (or any group) into such neat little boxes of limited beliefs. As I pointed out above, you certainly wouldn't want liberals or black activists to automatically support candidates based on their race, since that would be racism.
*******************
NUKE,
Here's what I thought was misleading: implying the liberal media was ignoring Ted Kennedy's rudeness; suggesting that the Democrats automatically support minorities, except when they are Republican; and accusing the Democrats of using illegal methods to block the nominations.
Also, I think you're wrong again...nominees can be rejected for their beliefs, not just thier qualifications, or lack of them. Also, it's not unconstitutional to block the nominations with a filibuster. Annoying, yes. Illegal, no.
In the case of Estrada, there is very little written material available on his legal thinking and the Republicans aren't supplying much to evaluate him on. That seems like a valid argument to hold his nomination up.
I agree with you that the Republicans should force the Democrats to have a real filibuster.
You're completely correct when you say that the Democrats don't want a pro-lifer in a position to get on the Supreme Court. That is it, "in a nutshell", and it's the topic for a whole 'nuther post:
"What would happen if the Christian Nationalist, errrr, I mean the Republican Party gained a solid majority in the legislature, held the Presidency for many years, and greatly increased its power in the courts?"
Could they begin rolling back abortion rights, stop equal rights for gays & lesbians, etc., and keep a majority of the voters on their side? And if they could, wouldn't the backlash by the large liberal minority cause the "Culture War" to heat up to dangerous levels?
MRPLUTO
