Judicial standards and the liberal line

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on January 9, 2003

Predictably, today's New York Times comes out with another scathing attack on Judge Charles Pickering. Pickering, who was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee in the last Congress on a party-line vote, is from Mississippi, the same state as "segregationist" Sen. Trent Lott.

The main charge against Pickering has been his "racial insensitivity" regarding a 1994 cross-burning case. National Review's Byron York summarized the case here -- including the details that the Times and other opponents have a tendency to omit.

You should read York's piece, but to quickly summarize, three men were involved in the cross-burning incident. The Clinton Justice Department reached plea bargains with two of the men -- including the ringleader -- which included no jail time. The third man, while definitely deserving of time in jail (in my opinion, they all should have spent time in jail), was facing 7 1/2 years in federal prison.

Pickering thought that sentence would not be just, considering all of the facts -- and that's what the liberals have rhetorically beat him with.

It should come as no surprise that this really isn't about Pickering and race -- it's about his overall judicial philosophy.

As I was pondering this earlier today, a thought came to me that hadn't occurred at the first tarring of Pickering: If the Democrat/liberal lobby is really concerned about people who are soft on racism (I know they aren't, but just suppose), then why isn't there an investigation into the Clinton-appointed federal prosecutors who OK'd a plea bargain with the ringleader -- who prior to burning the cross had fired a gun into the same home?

I know, consistency in politics is a rare thing -- but I'd love to hear someone in the national punditocracy bring up this point. I'd love to hear an answer.


BREAKING: We just filed a motion asking the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay in our lawsuit challenging California's ban on so-called "assault weapons," which, if granted, would allow the judgment striking down the ban to go into effect. Read it here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller

Stole the image from a reddit post, but it appears to be an accurate summary.

The losers in Sacramento are throwing a temper tantrum in response to the ruling in Bruen. Now that they have to issue carry permits, they want to make basically everywhere a "sensitive place".

Load More


January 2003



pencil linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram