Redstate

Garza is most plausible for O'Connor because (1) the President wants a Hispanic justice and (2) to replace O'Connor with someone more conservative, the President is going to need someone other than a white guy. It is a political calculation that it will be harder to replace a moderate with a conservative than an existing conservative with a conservative. So, to overcome the more difficult hurdle, it does make political sense to save Garza for an O'Connor resignation.

Realizing that it wasn't you who originally said this, I will rightfully call this kind of reasoning stupid. If anything, the left is more visceral against minorities who are conservatives, because they don't like the notion of prominent members of their supposed constituency groups being heralded as champions by the other side. Expect a more bitter fight over the first hispanic SCOTUS nominee if he/she is a conservative.

For more information, see Thomas, Clarence.

Don't know when I missed your change in tagline, but I have diet sunkist in my nose because of it.  The first sign I have had an effect on anyone, even if it is only being worn as a badge of pride.

Anyway, on topic, Thomas was bitterly debated for quite a few reasons, not merely because he happened to be a black conservative.  But that certainly added to it.  Of course, we were much stronger back then - if Bush and his team are canny, they will find the nominee that paints us into a corner where we lose whether we fight or not.  I had actually been hoping for Gonzales, because I thought it would make fools out of both wings of the political spectrum - neither base would be happy, and moderates would triumph :-).  Plus he's about the best a liberal could hope for from this administration.

Hispanics do not equal Blacks.

It's not the same equation as a Clarence Thomas nomination.  It is more plausible to nominate a Hispanic conservative, particularly because Hispanics are not as firmly in the Dems' as black voters are.

I agree with the analysis.

That I never did anything for a liberal.

And if you think "Is that a pubic hair in my coke?" was anything more than an excuse for going after a black conservative, I've got some real estate I think you'd be interested in.

Hispanics do not equal Blacks.

It's not the same equation as a Clarence Thomas nomination.  It is more plausible to nominate a Hispanic conservative, particularly because Hispanics are not as firmly in the Dems' as black voters are.

This will only make them more hysterical.

What I can't figure out, for the life of me, is why a seasoned political observer like yourself attributes the characteristics of reasonable people to the Democrats who are currently in the Senate.

because IMO there were several reasons why Thomas had an ugly experience.

Assuming Bush nominates a Hispanic candidate, I will be very interested to see how it all plays out.  Of course, given that the Hispanic community is less united and more inclined to identify with nation or region of origin over linguistic or cultural commonality, all the rules are different.

I gotta agree with Erick, Rove, etc.  Of course the Dems will fight a Hispanic nominee to the end, but look at Thomas.  After all the bickering, ranting, and raving, a Democratic Senate voted to confirm.  That's because at the end of the day, the Democrats couldn't look their base in the eye and vote against a black Justice.

The same will go for the first Hispanic nominee.  The Dems will throw the kitchen sink at him, but at the end of the day, they either let Bush appoint the first Hispanic Justice, which will hurt them with Hispanic voters, or block the first Hispanic Justice, which will hurt them even more with Hispanic voters.  They'll choose the less costly option.

While the Dems will certainly go nuts no matter who's nominated, it would be a political blunder to replace a minority on the Court with someone who's not a minority.  Thus, O'Connor cannot be replaced with a white male.  End of story.  Dems will go nuts anyway, but if you put Luttig up to replace O'Connor they will go nuts with sexist arguments.  Bush doesn't need those.  Nobody does.

Because, as I recall, the whole confirmation process was going along pretty smoothly until Anita Hill.

Given the ridiculous nature of her allegations, it became immediately apparent that the Democrats had been waiting in hiding for the smallest excuse they could find to "string him up" (you may remember that he called it a "lynching" in his own words).

I just remember all the talk about Thomas was that the Democrats wouldn't dare throw a bunch of dirt on Thomas like they did on Bork because they'd risk alienating a critical constituency group. That turned out to be hooey, and I think this will, too. Especially given that Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, David Boren and the rest of the reasonable Democrats have left the facility.

But as you may recall, 48 Senators voted against confirming Clarence Thomas - an overwhelming majority of Democrats included in that total.

There are completely different dynamics at work with a Hispanic nominee.  The Hispanic voter is not as firmly in the camp as a black voter was or is.

It's not that the Dems won't raise holy hell, but at the end of the day Garza the conservative has a better chance shifting O'Connor's seat to the right than a white guy conservative.

The Dems could have blocked Thomas entirely.  They didn't.  They couldn't.  And now with only 44 Democrats, and only 4 needed to end a filibuster, it would be even that much easier to confirm.

the nominee, but on the behavior of the Democrats. I'll grant you that a hispanic nominee is different from a black nominee, but 2005 is also very different from 1992. Again, gone are Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, David Boren, and virtually every Democrat who can be called "resonable" with the exception of Ben Nelson, who faces impending doom in the next election cycle.

Further, the Democrats have taken to pulling new and illegal tools out of the toolbox (filibuster) and wielding them with reckless abandon to compensate for the fact that their numbers are smaller.

Put it this way - if Clarence Thomas was nominated to this Senate, which has significantly less Democrats, he'd stand a much smaller chance of ever receiving a vote.

Either way, nominating a Hispanic is a win for the GOP.  Either Democrats confirm and the first Hispanic SCOTUS Justice is a conservative appointed by a Republican president or the nominee fails, POTUS appoints Clement instead, and Democrats pay at the polls for blocking the first Hispanic SCOTUS nominee.  I'm still not sure how this is a bad move.

That is what I'm talking about.  Garza has the best shot and if he fails, he takes a few Dems with him.

Have the Democrats' strident objections to Clarence Thomas and/or Condolezza Rice significantly chipped away at African American support for their party? And before Adam jumps at me with the numbers from 2004, which showed a very modest improvement (almost certainly due to social issues), let's instead look at the numbers from the 1992 election, when Clarence Thomas was freshest on their minds. I don't have the numbers, but as I recall, the highest percentage of blacks who voted Republican in this generation was actually 2004 by a long shot.

Being that this is 2005 (an off-year of off-years), the average person who doesn't post to RedState 20 times daily isn't paying a whole lot of attention to politics, and its ridiculous to expect the average voter (of any demographic group) to remember how certain members of the Senate treated SCOTUS nominee X over a year later, even if he does happen to share the same skin color. Most anyone of any ethnicity who IS paying attention probably already has their mind politically made up, which is why this identity politics game always strikes me as being pretty foolish, strategically speaking.

While I respect both you and Erick quite a lot, I wouldn't be surprised to find a picture of this post next to the definition of "tokenism" in a modern slang dictionary.

What the heck happened to the ideal of nominating the best person, period? You're wandering dangerously close to the "Q" word with this kind of reasoning.

But I just think that in the long-term, it's beneficial for Republicans to be the party of O'Connor and Powell and Rice and Rudy and Estrada and Rogers-Brown and Governator and all those other non-WASPs that are now in the upper-echelons of the GOP.  Call it identity politics if you will.  I call it smart politics.  Today's young voters look at the GOP and see a myriad of cultures and backgrounds at the helm.  They look at the Dems and who do they see?  Howard Dean, a cynical WASP from New England with a four letter surname and a laughter-inducing scream.  And he's calling US the party of white Christian males?

And even if you're right, and even if none of this works in the long run and Hispanics end up perpetually voting 60/40 Democrat, it certainly couldn't hurt.

We're playing politics.  

Hmm... Now you must be a liberal!

We will put a strict constructivist Justice who reads the text and give the original intent/meaning to the Constitution.  End of story.

Everyone knows that the Constitution is on a historic voyeur of intrepidation. Each iteration must give their own mewling to the document, otherwise it's a red letter.

a minority more fiercely than they will Joe Smith the White Conservative.  We should welcome this fight.  I want Bush to nominate Garza so Democrats will vomit all over themselves in the Senate attempting to obstruct him with as virulent charges as they can bring up.  I want to see them alienate their Hispanic constituency.  In the end, Garza will be confirmed, whether by a vote or by invoking the nuclear option, and the Democrats will look like, erm, "donkeys," to put it nicely.

We shouldn't back down from a nomination because Democrats are likely to obstruct it.  We just need to make sure it's a nomination that has political consequences if obstructed.

All this quibbling seems a bit silly to me-- I think the Dems are going to go banzai no matter who gets nominated for whose spot, (possibile exception Gonzales), if they're at all the right of Nancy Pelosi.  In other words, if they're an extreme right wing radical extremist radical!!!  We're going to see claims that nominee did something horrible, horrible, twenty years ago in a stairway, (but there weren't any witnesses, unfortunately); for the umpteenth time Larry Flynt is going to uncover some sex with a dead chicken scandal, (which turns out to be "unverifiable"); the pubic hairs are going to turn up by the truckload...

Well that's my bet.  Anyway, here's why I post:

Have the Democrats' strident objections to Clarence Thomas and/or Condolezza Rice significantly chipped away at African American support for their party?

Well, I think it's a cumulative thing; the black vote is eroding, slowly, but eroding.  Sure, not many blacks have switched solely due to Condi's treatment alone... but I think it adds up.

...the average person who doesn't post to RedState 20 times daily isn't paying a whole lot of attention to politics, and its ridiculous to expect the average voter (of any demographic group) to remember how certain members of the Senate treated SCOTUS nominee X over a year later

Exactly what I mean.  The Dems have always banked on the vote of the young, ill-informed or both, ("Vote for W and you'll be drafted", etc),  but the fact that the left supports minorities.... as long as they're liberals, is going to get through more skulls as the evidence continues to pile up, and any SCOTUS chair is going to get alot of coverage.

...even if he does happen to share the same skin color

I hope I don't get in trouble for this, but you're not black, are you?