« Empirical Evidence In The Judicial Nomination Debate | Main | Media Union Prez Says U.S. Troops Deliberately Killing Journalists »

Quote Of The Day - Low Watt Bulb Edition

"All of the major legislation that today bars racial discrimination in voting, employment and housing was passed after filibusters were broken. How ironic it would be to allow a rule change that would once again thwart progress of African-Americans."
Melvin Watt (D-NC) chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, defending Democrat's use of filibusters to thwart the confirmation of several Bush judicial nominees, including African-American judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown. (AP, NYT)

Comments (24)

Um, what? My head is spinni... (Below threshold)
meep:

Um, what? My head is spinning...

What did he just say? I still can't figure it out. That filibusters were used to stand in the way of civil rights laws ... and it's ironic that they're threatening a filibuster to stop voting on the nomination of a black woman?

Huh? I'm really confused.

Me too!! Can't figure that ... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

Me too!! Can't figure that one out. Congratulations, North Carolina, you offically have an idiot representing one of your congressional districts.

The word ironic is often mi... (Below threshold)
a4g:

The word ironic is often misused, as it is in this case.

Instead, he would have been more grammatically correct if he had said "I am an asshat."

Translation:"Democ... (Below threshold)
Al:

Translation:

"Democrats have used filibusters to prevent black from voting, elimination of the poll tax, equality in employment, equality in housing opportunities, and now we're using it to prevent black judges. Be proud of us for sticking with what works."

He must be breaking with Pa... (Below threshold)
John:

He must be breaking with Party Lines cause I can't believe he said that in Defense of his Party.

Now that makes no sense. I ... (Below threshold)
10ksnooker:

Now that makes no sense. I think this bulb flickered out. He has everything backwards, as best I can tell.

Maybe he forgot that Sheets was the lead on the filibuster blocking the civil rights act.

I am from NC. Mel Watt is o... (Below threshold)
Mike:

I am from NC. Mel Watt is one of the biggest racists around. He was elected to represent what is known as our spaghetti district. This is a long, skinny, meandering, gerrymandered district, which looks like a piece of spaghetti, running up I-85 from above Charlotte towards Greensboro, picking up pockets of black population in order to insure a black was elected. A while back a middle aged white lady that works for me and lives in his district called him about an issue. He was rude, did not want to hear what she had to say, and quickly told her that she was not one of "his constituents". He wasn't talking about her address.

I cannot speak to the Honor... (Below threshold)
Allan Yackey:

I cannot speak to the Honorable Representative’s state of mind. But I do have experience dealing with people who have diagnosed thought problems. I think I can explain the mind set that creates this statement.

Here is the quote:

"All of the major legislation that today bars racial discrimination in voting, employment and housing was passed after filibusters were broken. How ironic it would be to allow a rule change that would once again thwart progress of African-Americans."
Melvin Watt (D-NC) chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus


He understands the following:

1. Topic Of The Day (TOTD) is the filibuster.
2. His side has a position on the filibuster today.
3. The other side opposes his side’s position.
4. If the other side wins this fight conservative judges will be appointed.
5. Conservative judges are bad for the Black Caucus.
6. He wants to say something.

He does not understand or is ignoring the following:

1. His side has reversed positions.
2. The conservative judge in question is a member of the race he claims to be protecting.
3. The need for internal consistency in any one statement.

It's tough when you don't r... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It's tough when you don't read the whole thing. More from that letter (which was signed by the entire caucus, not just Watt):

"We cannot and will not stand down when Senate minority rights are proposed to be overruled against a Senate minority that seeks to protect the rights of African-Americans."

You see, they're not worried about Judge Rogers Brown (against whom they have serious complaints, but rather their constituents.

Mantis, the snippet you've ... (Below threshold)

Mantis, the snippet you've added still doesn't make what the letter says, make sense.

But then, who's surprised?

Ok, I understand it might b... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ok, I understand it might be difficult for you. See, by changing the rules to prevent filibusters, which had previously been used to stall civil rights legislation, the Republicans will then pave the way for the placement of judges who are hostile towards civil rights. That's called irony.

...There is nothing wrong w... (Below threshold)

...There is nothing wrong with your browser. Do not attempt to make any adjustment. We are controlling transmission. ... We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your browser. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Dimwit Zone.

Mantis, why don't you expla... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Mantis, why don't you explain to us all when and how Janice Rogers Brown has ruled against civil rights, ever? I for one would love to hear that expanation.

Well, I'll admit I don't kn... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about Rogers Brown, but if you had just followed the link I posted you would have found some things like this:

In 1999's Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the defendant employer had violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act by creating a hostile work environment through the use of racial slurs directed at Latino employees. The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's remedy that prohibited the use of racial slurs. In her dissent, Brown argued that the First Amendment protects the use of such slurs in the workplace, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination. This conclusion by Justice Brown virtually ignored several Supreme Court precedents.

Peatros v. Bank of America. Peatros, a former bank employee, sued Bank of America and the bank’s district manager for wrongful termination in violation of FEHA. Peatros claimed that she was a victim of age and race discrimination. The majority rejected Bank of America’s argument that the federal National Bank Act (“the Act”) preempted Peatros’ state law claims and found that she had stated a claim for wrongful termination based on employment discrimination.
The court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), in conferring new federal rights and creating new remedies, protect from preemption state statutory protections against discrimination and, thus, preserve FEHA to the extent it does not conflict with federal law. Joined by two colleagues, Justice Brown dissented, contending that federal law preempted the FEHA claim. She argued that the bank’s board of directors “must retain the fullest possible authority to terminate officers at will and without liability to maintain confidence in the financial integrity of their institutions. ”According to her, allowing the FEHA claim to proceed would inhibit boards of directors in exercising their discretion to dismiss bank officers “at pleasure,” as provided by the National Bank Act. She also indicated that the state law should be preempted to maintain uniformity in the national banking system; banks would otherwise be subject to different laws in different states, she maintained. Justice Brown’s position would limit relief for national bank employees terminated for discriminatory reasons.

Mantis, I am not sure from ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Mantis, I am not sure from your post who you think was using the filibuster to stall civil rights legislation. The Democrats were the ones filibustering civil rights legislation, including the Honorable Senator Robert KKK Byrd, not Republicans.

In 1999's Aguilar v. Avis R... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

In 1999's Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc:
So you think freedom of speech isn't a right but freedom from hurt feelings is?

Peatros v. Bank of America:
This is a no-brainer, we all know you leftists believe that everyone is entitled to the job they want rather than one they are qualified for, corporations are all evil, profits are a sure sign of greed, and business owners have no right to hire or fire anyone they choose whenever they choose.

Now please point out where exactly in our constitution the guarantees of freedom from hurt feelings and lifetime employment are located, just for those of us that aren't quite as brilliant as you can look them up.

Since I may not be around l... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Since I may not be around later today I'll go out on a limb here and pretend that you have answered with something intelligible. Since you think that everyone should be free from hurt feelings why isn't Janice Rogers Brown covered by this right? Since nobody has the right to deny employment based of race, creed, religion, age, or political affiliation why do the democrats have the right to deny Janice Rogers Brown a job which she happens to be well qualified for solely based on her beliefs? Why doesn't such hypocrisy bother you in the least? And last but not least, how could you reasonably argue that she was "hostile to civil rights" when you later admitted having to look it up just to see if you had even told the truth about that or not? Gotta suck to be you right about now......

Mantis, I am not sure fr... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, I am not sure from your post who you think was using the filibuster to stall civil rights legislation. The Democrats were the ones filibustering civil rights legislation, including the Honorable Senator Robert KKK Byrd, not Republicans.

Well, you can be sure I know who used the filibuster to stall civil rights legislation. Mostly southern Democrats, and some like-minded Republicans. So what? If anything that makes it more ironic, not less.

Now please point out where exactly in our constitution the guarantees of freedom from hurt feelings and lifetime employment are located, just for those of us that aren't quite as brilliant as you can look them up.

bullwinkle, not only do you consistently misinterpret my posts and put words in my mouth, you are clearly unfamiliar with the law. It is pointless to argue with you as you will distort anything I say to fit into your twisted and monolithic view of what so-called "leftists" believe.

Here's a list of things I never said:

So you think freedom of speech isn't a right but freedom from hurt feelings is? - Didn't say that at all.

we all know you leftists believe that everyone is entitled to the job they want rather than one they are qualified for - Nope, don't believe that.

corporations are all evil, profits are a sure sign of greed - Not that one either.

and business owners have no right to hire or fire anyone they choose whenever they choose. - well this one is true, at least within the bounds of anti-discrimination laws, which I'm sure, as a rightist, you abhor ;).

And I never said I was brilliant, nor that you or anyone else was less so. Let me know when you're done arguing with the phantom leftist menace, because you're clearly not arguing with me.

And last but not least, ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And last but not least, how could you reasonably argue that she was "hostile to civil rights" when you later admitted having to look it up just to see if you had even told the truth about that or not?

I was explaining the content of the letter issued by the Congressional Black Caucus, not putting forth my personal views of Rogers Brown. Try reading, its fun.

Since nobody has the right to deny employment based of race, creed, religion, age, or political affiliation why do the democrats have the right to deny Janice Rogers Brown a job which she happens to be well qualified for solely based on her beliefs?

They aren't denying her a job based on those things, but rather on her court rulings, which you could put under the category of "job performance" if you want to equate federal judges with regular jobs.

Correction: Only one Republ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Correction: Only one Republican (John Tower of Texas), not some, filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Some others voted against it, but did not filibuster. Obviously the Republicans were way ahead of the Democrats (at least southern Democrats) regarding civil rights. I have no intention of defending those who voted against the act, they were and are scumbags, including Byrd (I've always wondered why he didn't just change parties like Thurmond).

Isn't it true that your sid... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Isn't it true that your side is worried about the phantom conservative menace, you know, like Janice Rogers Brown is pro-life and your side prefers pro-death judges? Isn't it true that your side can't stand the fact that they have done little or nothing in the way appointing minorities to high level positions and therefore must attack any minority that the republicans nominate? Come on now, tell the truth. Bet you can't. Byrd is in the party he belongs in, he's the "Dean" of the U.S. Senate, and that's according to several democrats. I saw Harry Reid say so the other day. He's obviously a welcome addition to their agenda, if you don't think so maybe you aren't. He certainly would never have been nor will he ever be welcome in the republican party.

Isn't it true that your ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Isn't it true that your side is worried about the phantom conservative menace, you know, like Janice Rogers Brown is pro-life and your side prefers pro-death judges?

Well, first of all, I'm on my side alone, I'm not part of a club. Yes, a lot of liberals are worried about pro-life judges, and I don't think many of them prefer pro-death judges (whatever that is). So?

Isn't it true that your side can't stand the fact that they have done little or nothing in the way appointing minorities to high level positions and therefore must attack any minority that the republicans nominate?

No on both counts. Little or nothing? How about this? Leaving diversity in his wake: Clinton changed the math for Cabinet appointments. And in comparison to Bush's appointments, don't believe everything you see on TV. Sure, Bush has appointed three extremely visible minorities, but when you look at all the numbers, its a bit different. Check this out for more:
Bush not strong on diversity:

Blacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton, the snapshot shows. Women won 36 percent of Bush's appointments, noticeably fewer than the 44 percent of Clinton's. Overall, the Bush administration gave more than half, 54 percent, of its political positions to white men. Clinton awarded 57 percent of his jobs to women and minorities.

High level?

Under Clinton, women held 43 percent and blacks 13 percent of the senior executive posts, and 45 percent went to white men. Under Bush, women won just 24 percent and blacks 6 percent of the jobs, and 66 percent went to white men.

And the reason, as Trent Duffy explains, is this:

"The president chooses those professionals who can best help him enact his agenda and give the American people the highest quality government that they deserve," he said.

Ok, fine with me, but it doesn't really support your argument in the least. Come on now, tell the truth. Bet you can't.

Clinton couldn't find a qua... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Clinton couldn't find a qualified black for SecDef or SecState, that's high level, having Ron Brown for SecComm might have been a step forward for democrats but does it really count when he's facing indictments at the time his plane crashes? You're counting judicial nominees, Clinton handed those out to any minority that he could find with a law degree, as long as they were positioned to the left of Fidel. Apples and oranges. Try making an honest comparison.

You make me laugh. Ok, so ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You make me laugh. Ok, so you're argument is now (after some changes) that the Republicans have done much more than the Democrats to appoint a minority into the positions of Sec. of Def. and Sec. of State? Hilarious. I guess, unless Rumsfeld has some Cherokee blood I don't know about, we can remove Sec. of Def. as well. So, yes, bullwinkle, you're right, "your side" has done much more to appoint minorities to Secretary of State than "my side". You choose to ignore all other administrative and judicial posts, in which your argument has no basis, and rather focus on one, single cabinet position as proof of Republicans' much stronger commitment to diversity. Nice work. I'm still laughing.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy