EYE have two words to say about #JeffSessions nomination for #AttorneyGeneral, Lani Guinier

Lani Guinier and President-Elect Bill Clinton

Before EYE type another word please accept my apologies for the sparse postings.  EYE must admit the "election" of Donald Trump through me for a loop.  EYE was so sure there were more of us than there were of them.  Time will tell  if my faith in the American people is justified.  EYE  still refuse to believe the majority of the American people hate President Obama more than they love their country.  But EYE have my groove back and EYE am fired up and ready to go.  

So, Donald Trump plans to nominate Alabama's own Jefferson Beauregard Sessions as the chief law enforcement officer of the land as payback for his loyalty while giving African Americans, women,  veterans,  and immigrants the middle finger.

Who is Lani Guinier?

Guinier is probably best known as President Bill Clinton's nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in April 1993.[7][8][9]
President Clinton withdrew his nomination in June 1993, following a wave of negative press that was brought on by her controversial writings, some of which even Clinton himself called "anti-democratic" and "very difficult to defend".[10]
Conservative journalists, as well as Republican Senators, mounted a campaign against Guinier's nomination. Guinier was infamously dubbed a "quota queen," a phrase first used in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Clint Bolick, a Reagan-era Justice Department official.[11] The term was perceived by some to be racially loaded, combining the "welfare queen" stereotype with "quota," a buzzword used to challenge affirmative action.[12] In fact, Guinier was an opponent of racial quotas.[13]
Some journalists also alleged that Guinier's writings indicated that she supported the shaping of electoral districts to ensure a black majority, a process known as "race-conscious districting." One New York Times opinion piece claimed that Guinier was in favor of "segregating black voters in black-majority districts." Guinier was portrayed as a racial polarizer who believed—in the words of George Will—that "only blacks can represent blacks."
In the face of the negative media attention, many Democratic Senators, including David Pryor of Arkansas, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois (the only African-American serving in the Senate at that time)[14] informed President Clinton that her interviews with senators were going poorly and urged him to withdraw Guinier's nomination.[15]
President Clinton took the senators' advice and withdrew Guinier's nomination on June 4, 1993. He stated that Guinier's writings "clearly lend themselves to interpretations that do not represent the views I expressed on civil rights during the [presidential] campaign."[16] Guinier, for her part, acknowledged that her writings were often "unclear and subject to vastly different interpretations," but believed that the political attacks had distorted and caricatured her academic philosophies.[16] William T. Coleman Jr., who had served as Secretary of Transportation under President Gerald Ford, wrote that the withdrawal was "a grave [loss], both for President Clinton and the country. The President's yanking of the nomination, caving in to shrill, unsubstantiated attacks, was not only unfair, but some would say political cowardice."[17]

Here is what the New York Times had to say about the Lani Guinier Mess:

Although he handled the nomination miserably, the President had good reason to drop it. Ms. Guinier's writings suggest that, despite her obvious talents as a civil rights attorney, she was not the right person to be Washington's civil rights enforcement chief. Mr. Clinton, already wobbling from other setbacks, had no stomach for a fight he couldn't win on behalf of a candidate whose views he now says he does not entirely endorse.
Without question the nominee herself created the basic problem. Her law review articles about voting rights -- poorly written, provocative and easy to caricature -- gave right-wing snipers a broad target for charges of radicalism. But they also alarmed moderate readers, including longtime supporters of the Voting Rights Act, who feared her extreme-sounding enforcement notions would discredit and imperil that valued law.

Here is what they have to say about Jeff Sessions

Donald Trump ran a presidential campaign that stoked white racial resentment. His choice for attorney general — which, like his other early choices, has been praised by white supremacists — embodies that worldview. We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions’s views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.

If Lani Guinier was characterized as a racial polarizer and therefore deemed unfit, certainly the same applies to Jeff Sessions. Let's see if republicans and the white male dominated media apply the same standards to Sessions. My guess is they won't because there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy.

Not playing the "race baiting race" card

Sending the Azalea Trail Maidens as Alabama's one and only official representative to the Inaugural Parade of the First African American President is not playing the race baiting race card.

Calling the first African American President of the United States a Kenyan born, Muslim is not playing the race card.

Calling the first African American President of the United States a Tar Baby is not playing the race card.

Calling the first African American President of the United States your boy and an ol'boy is not playing the race cards.

No really racially charged words here. No Siree.

Nope, those are terms used to disrespect the first African American President of the United States of America but they are not meant to be racist.

I declare, some people just go around LOOKING for reasons to be offended.

Just look away

Look away

Look away

Jesusland

Hello this is Hank Sanders, Alabama state Senator, and I’m still mad as hell. I say hell no! I ain’t going back to the cotton fields of Jim Crow days. I’m going forward with Ron Sparks, Jim Folsom and others who would do right by all of us. I hope you are mad as hell and will not go back, and you have the power to choose. I will stand until hell freezes over for Ron Sparks for Governor and Jim Folsom for Lt. Governor on November the 2nd.

Democrats likely need a strong turnout among black voters in Alabama to elect Sparks to the governor's office and Folsom as lieutenant governor.

When asked about the calls Friday, Sparks said, "If you believe there is not racism in this state, then you are not living in the same state I am living in."

Republican governor candidate Robert Bentley said the calls are an attempt at race-baiting, and Sanders and Sparks should apologize for them.

Translation-It's not race baiting unless we say it's race baiting.

Nod, nod, wink, wink.

I cannot let these brazen lies stand

Since I am being accused of hacking into mooncats LiA account and posting a diary calling out Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III(R. Azalea Trail Maids) for his opposition to the DREAM ACT like that's a bad thing, I am compelled to correct some of the brazen lies contained in comments by Sessions apologist/supporters.

mooncat

Jeff Sessions opposes educating brown kids (+)

Jeff Sessions is the GOP point man against the DREAM Act, which is pretty fitting considering his past racist statements. Sessions has authored a "white paper" with 10 point talking points against the act.

Brazen lie #1

While I support any immigrants right to become a citizen, why should we make it even more complicated than it already is by adding loopholes to naturalization process? If a Democrat had come up with the "white paper" instead of Sessions, I would agree with it still, just the same. And by the way, the majority of Democrats support Sessions points.

I don't know what "majority of democrats" the commenter refers to, but here is the OFFICIAL Democratic Party position on immigration reform.

We will extend the promise of citizenship to those still struggling for freedom. Today’s immigration laws do not reflect our values or serve our security, and we will work for real reform. The solution is not to establish a massive new status of second-class workers; that betrays our values and hurts all working people. Undocumented immigrants within our borders who clear a background check, work hard and pay taxes should have a path to earn full participation in America. We will hasten family reunification for parents and children, husbands and wives, and offer more English-language and civic education classes so immigrants can assume all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. As we undertake these steps, we will work with our neighbors to strengthen our security so we are safer from those who would come here to harm us. We are a nation of immigrants, and from Arab-Americans in California to Latinos in Florida, we share the dream of a better life in the country we love

Brazen lie #2

First of all, pandering to immigration by the Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives is just a vote buying game. The majority of Democrats oppose naturalization of illegals and support some type of substantial border protection.

First of all, unlike republicans, democrats don't do things in order to "buy votes", which I assume is another way of saying pander for partisan political gain, democrats support the DREAM Act because it's the right thing thing to do. The second point has already been refuted.

Then you have people like Mo Brooks that didn't go overboard with his immigration rhetoric like Peterson & James, but they still campaigned on something they cannot possibly deliver. But they sure did drive home the point of how the illegals take American jobs and such. (trying to appeal to the racist voters) When finally Mo Brooks, Robert Bentley and others outlined just how they would solve the immigration problem, all they came up with is e-freekin-verify. That idea's not worth the paper it's printed on. All that does is create a bigger market for hackers and fake ID makers. The only way to stop illegal immigration would require at least one million troops along the border. And that would be MUCH too expensive.

Brazen lie #3

The white exodus from the Alabama Democratic Party is for exactly the same reason, only here mooncat is playing the role of Joe Reed.

Nope, the reason for the white exodus from the Alabama Democratic Party is there are more of them than there are of us. There are more white democrats (and I use that term loosely) who care more about sending them there illegals back to Mexico than they do their city, county, state and country. The playing the role of Joe Reed race baiting was meant as a slam but it's actually a complement to mooncat for calling out the racist racism.

Brazen lies #4,5,6,7

I'm tired of trying to talk reasonably with Democrats. You guys complain about previous administrations spending habits but are now ok by doubling down on the spending. You argument? They spent us into this recession... We can spend ourselves out.

The fact of the matter is, our social entitlements programs are struggling as it is. You want to pour millions of more people into these programs without finding a way to shore up our current obligations. Its just plain ignorant.

Why is it impossible to work to improve the situation for all Mexicans? Not just the ones who break our laws? If all you bleeding heart liberals out there really stood behind what you say instead of just pandering for votes then you'd be pushing for America to work with Mexico to improve its impoverished. To improve its economy, to improve its job market so that suddenly America isn't as appealing to break into. But nah, if they are in Mexico, then that means they can't vote democrat.

is type of rhetoric. The ADP converted an 100+ year reign in the majority into a republican super majority. I guess all us racist white folk got tired of the status quo.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of to talk reasonably with democrats IS, if it's listen to and adhere to right wing talking points and tortured logic, no we democrats aren't hearing it. We democrats were right (no pun) to complain about the previous administrations out of control spending on all war all the time, raiding the deficit to give the rich a tax cut and creating debt as far as the eye can see.

The fact of the matter is without those "social entitlement programs" righty's rail against like Medicare, Social Security, and aid to dependent children people would suffer and die.

Instead of trying to tell another country what to do, why not enact comprehensive immigration reform in this country? In other words let America run America and let Mexico run Mexico. We don't believe in "nation building", remember? It's Country First. A country founded by immigrants. Remember? If you want immigrants to vote republican instead of democrats, give them a reason to vote for the gop instead of against the gop.

Please do continue this type of rhetoric. The ADP converted an 100+ year reign in the majority into a republican super majority. I guess all us racist white folk got tired of the status quo

Translation: STFU and let us continue to oppress black/brown and red folks and maintain the status quo.

mooncat asks

What would the GOP do without Southern racists to carry their water?

What indeed.

Let them define themselves, let them reveal who they are~Rep. Maxine Waters

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Makes Alabama Proud

Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions makes Alabama proud! Not. Is anyone surprised Alabama Senator Sessions is leading the charge of the gop brigade attacking the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall?

It was Marshall who, with Howard Law School Dean Charles Hamilton Houston, his mentor, conceived and then painstakingly effectuated the jurisprudence that led to the striking down of the odious "separate but equal" doctrine that threatened to destroy this country. While many decry "activist judges" (by which they seem to mean judges who uphold civil rights for minorities and women), those judges who undermine civil rights often demonstrate the most extreme forms of activism. Judges such as those who declared in Plessy v. Ferguson that racial segregation was constitutionally sound turned the Constitution on its head and made a mockery of equal protection. Those activist judges subjected an entire segment of Americans to more than half a century of state-imposed degradation, subjugation and humiliation.

I'm not surprised, after all Beauregard threw the first salvo when he made sure The Azalea Trail Maids were the ONLY official representative from Alabama the Beautiful in the Inaugural parade of the first African American President. State NAACP President Eddie Vaughn tried to tell y'all....

MOBILE -- Katie Henson hopes when she and the other 49 Azalea Trail Maids stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue in their hoop dresses and matching bonnets that the nation sees them as they see themselves -- the embodiment of Southern hospitality.

For the president of the NAACP's Alabama chapter, though, 50 young women -- 39 of them white -- wearing costumes reminiscent of the time when slavery existed doesn't conjure up an image he thinks is fitting for the swearing-in of the nation's first black president, Barack Obama.

Some thought Mr. Vaughn and I were making a big deal out of nothing and accused of "attacking the young women" and told to SFTU because it was a "diverse group".

With all of the problems and challenges facing this country and President Obama, fifty Alabama women (including some African-American ones) marching in a parade wearing strange outfits and freezing their tusses off, is not high on my "to worry about" list.

Kathy said it best;

Mr. Vaughn has an undeniable point. When you see a single young woman, let alone fifty, as a neon-colored caricature of Miss Scarlett at the Barbecue, it calls to mind, well, Miss Scarlett at the Barbecue. I’m sure girls north of the Mason-Dixon line wore hoop skirts too—we’ve all seen Little Women—but the silhouette of the big ruffledy Barbie-cake skirt and parasol is forever linked in the American mind with the antebellum South. And not just any aspect of the South, but the sprawling, colonnaded white plantation house, where in the evening by the moonlight you can hear those darkies singing. And when we choose to present that as the single representative image for our state, it looks like we’re yearning to hear ‘em singing again. It just does, y’all.

Let's rewind to the Sonya Sotomayer confirmation hearing when Senator Sessions slammed her for not voting like other Puerto Ricans

This morning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) castigated Sotomayor for not ruling with her fellow Puerto Rican colleague, conservative Judge José A. Cabranes, when she decided to deny an en banc appeal in Ricci v. DeStefano, a process in which all judges of a court hear a case (as opposed to a three-judge panel of them). Sessions seemed to indicate that people of the same ancestry should vote the same way:

Thought for the day;

I would pay good money to hear Sonia Sotomayor say, “Senator Sessions, I think it’s ironic to be facing these questions from a man whose judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that he’s a huge racist.”

Update Seriously, though, when the Republican Senate Conference was meeting, did nobody say "if we're going to oppose the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, maybe we shouldn't have a giant racist leading the charge?" This seems like a situation in which Mel Martinez might have been able to offer a useful perspective. Or they could have called up JC Watts out of retirement. What were they thinking?

Can you say circular firing squad?

But back to 1986. During the debate over his nomination, committee Democrats questioned Sessions' prosecutorial discretion, focusing in particular on a case he pursued against three Marion, AL civil rights workers--Albert Turner, Turner's wife Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue, Jr.--whom he accused of voter fraud. Sessions was unconcerned with claims of fraud outside the so-called Black Belt, but he alleged that the trio had falsified absentee ballots in Perry County during the 1984 election. After conducting an exhaustive investigation, though, he was able to account for only a small handful of questionable examples, and even those he couldn't pin on his defendants, who were acquitted after only a few hours' deliberation.

Of course none of this is mentioned in the MSM or by the Talking TeeVee Pundit Heads.
Senator Sessions was right (pun intended) on the money to question Elana Kagens qualifications, but he is dead wrong to use the confirmation hearings to call her a liar and to lead an attack on Thurgood Marshall.

Sessions is engaging in what the Supreme Court engages in, interpretation of the law based on an interpretation of the Constitution. He says it in a very self-assured way, in a way that says "I know I'm right" but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment is just as unclear as the 8th.

In Sessions' world it's only activism if he disagrees with it. I'm not a big Kagan fan, but the GOP is off the fucking rails.

What nelliah said;

This racist won't care what he says no matter how bigoted. His constituency will still elect him. That is the reason for this appointment. He will enable the other Republicans on the committee and Senate keep their hands clean. Sessions will do all the name calling innuendoing and bring up nothing but bullshit to muddy the debate. It will be easy for the Republicans to scream about what Sessions says even if is is unadulterated crap. They will have every argument they have used in the past; communist, pro-gay, pro-abortion pro-taxes, anti-religion. And many more wedge issues they are fixated on. Pitiful. Especially with the mild mannered wimps the Democrats have leading this Senate. If they once took the gloves off and said this is how it is going to be and used the reconciliation ploy as the Republicans did and only needed 51 votes I would croak! Especially for SCOTUS justice nominees.

Look away. Look away.