Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Sotomayor Isn't Roberts

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 04:32
in

The debate over whether and how much Senate Republicans should oppose Sonia Sotomayor is grinding along. I personally don't think it's the worst thing in the world if Republicans got more aggressive than they currently seem to be comfortable with, and for the following reasons. 

Not Blowing the Whistle on a Solid Liberal Like Sotomayor Creates a Bad Precedent for Decades to Come. The left is trying to spin the Sotomayor nomination as a pick in the mold of what moderate conservative John Roberts was to Bush -- a moderate liberal "slam dunk." In reality, she is more like the liberal Sam Alito, whose strongly conservative tendencies were seen as a suitable replacement upon Rehnquist's death (remembering that Roberts first had to clear a lower conservative bar to replace Sandra Day O'Connor). Is there any doubt that Sotomayor wouldn't at least tie Ginsburg and Stevens as the biggest liberal on the Court?

The calculus is this: if you let a leftist judge sail through where an Alito would get at least 40 no votes you create a precedent whereby it's considered okay for Obama or future Presidents to nominate far-leftists with impunity, while conservatives always have to jump through extra hoops. The President gets his judges most of the time, but differences are made at the margins.  Republican Presidents will always have an incentive to be more cautious or play games with Supreme Court picks, as Bush tried to do in nominating Harriet Miers, which was initially seen as a play to placate Harry Reid, who wanted a non-judge.

In past years, Senate Democrats have been far, far more aggressive in stalling Bush judicial picks than even Republicans were in the late Clinton years. Republicans played up their light treatment of liberals Ginsburg and Breyer during the 2005 court fights, even coining the term "The Ginsburg Precedent" to legitimize bipartisan support for an ideologue with judicial credentials, but where did this get us exactly? The media's playing up the danger of opposing a minority is cruelly ironic in light of the Democrats' shameful treartment of Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, and their specific strategy of Borking minority conservatives to lower courts to head off a future Supreme Court pick. Schumer and Co. play for keeps, and Senate Republicans should not be afraid to do the same when we are talking about lifetime appointments. 

We Can't Be Afraid of Legitimate Criticism of the "First" Minority. Much hay has been made of how delicately Republicans will have to handle the first Latina nominee, as though the media assumes that the GOP's first instinct would be to race-bait.

Well, here's some news: Sotomayor is not the only "first" minority on the political scene today the media routinely shields with a protecting coating because of the genuine historicity of their rise. Another lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of the same reasons for treating Sotomayor "delicately" were brought up as reasons for treating Obama delicately last year, so much so that the heroic self-conception of the press as a check on the government has become disturbingly laughable.

Republicans cannot shy away from legitimate critcisms of Sotomayor's job performance and judicial philosophy, just as we will have to learn to more effectively criticize Obama. If you concede the point that criticism of an historic, "first" minority is out of bounds, that doesn't say much for GOP prospects for the next eight years.

At the same time, we will need to ostracize those who would bring ethnicity into the equation. If Republicans don't like the tenor of the opposition, we should not be afraid to nuke the bad actors on our side while amping up criticism of Sotomayor's legal record. The trick is not so much being delicate but being rough both with the left and certain people on the right to insulate against charges that our opposition is anything other than policy-based. The ideal messaging to my mind would be as follows:

  1. Tom Tancredo is an idiot.
  2. Sotomayor's decisions, her stated penchant for "making policy" from the bench, and her high reversal rate among those she aspires to join all render her nomination profoundly troubling.
  3. Tom Tancredo is still an idiot.

Remember also: Supreme Court fights are inherently elite D.C. fights. Don't expect voters, even Latino voters, to passionately engage. Most people correctly perceive the Court as being far removed and even irrelevant to their daily life and whether they will keep their job -- and that's as it should be. Has there ever been a mass movement for or against a Court nominee, even a Thurgood Marshall, a Sandra Day O'Connor, or a Clarence Thomas?

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

Comments

Why bother? You'll get trounced anyway...

Submitted by mlindroo on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:22.

There are only 41 GOP senators, and there is no way e.g. Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins will want to filibuster a female candidate that is widely regarded as within the center-left mainstream. And there would most likely be other defections too, since the Hispanic population is growing rapidly in Western previously GOP-leaning states such as AZ, NM, CO etc..

Besides, things could be worse. Would you really prefer Obama picked someone like Pamela S.Karlan instead? Sotomayor is hardly the most liberal candidate imaginable.

 

MARCU$

MaKing a record is important

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:52.

We need to make sure we establish that an experienced appellate jurist like Sotomayor is the minimum that we will accept on the court. Otherwise, we will be on the slippery slope of less and less credentialed candidates being proffered whose material qualification is a desire to inflict their personal agendas on the rest of society.

We also need to establish where she stands on the second amendment, eminent domain, racial preferences, the death penalty and other issues important to conservatives.  No Republican nominee has gotten away without having to deal with Roe v. Wade in elaborate detail;  there's no reason Kelo , Grutter and Heller  shouldn't get the same treatment.

I see some First Amendment types are irked at Judge Sotomayor over the Avery Doninger case; can't say I am; the snot nosed punk got exactly what she deserved.

   

it's worth noting

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:42.

that this current court is the most credentialed one in the history of the Supreme Court -- and that many people were calling on someone who wasn't a judge to join the august body (Granholm perhaps?)

The questions you want answers on seem fair. I want some questions on eminent domain, myself.

Mostly good

Submitted by banana on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:24.

This messaging sounds good. I'd be careful with part of your second point, though; Sotomayor's reversal rate isn't actually high, but significantly lower than the average for appeal court judges. This was a mistake people made in the initial excitement and frenzy of research.

 

The Senate Republicans aren't going to be able to oppose her confirmation on the basis of things where the Dems can just say "no, that's wrong. here are the facts", so they need to focus, as you say, on the decision record.

Indeed, Patrick Ruffini hasn't got the facts on that one right

Submitted by Mike Poole on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 08:14.

 

As this Next Right blogger puts it:

 

They have made an even weaker argument in dishonest claims that sixty percent of her cases were overturned by the Supreme Court. This argument is so deceitful that it might help open a few more eyes as to the dishonest tactics regularly employed by the right wing noise machine. They leave out the important facts that she only had

five cases reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court typically

reverses 75% of circuit court decisions that rules on.

Having three cases reversed is hardly meaningful. This actually represents 2% of her total cases, far less than the 60% number misleadingly cited by the right.

The attackers also claimed that Sotomayor has a far more liberal record than she actually has. Her decisions have offen been based upon narrow technical grounds specific to the individual case  as opposed to ideology. The conservatives who have actually looked at her record are finding that she is far more centrist and far less ideological than they first heard. She has a very limited record with regards to abortion, and opponents of abortion rights found that her record was not what they expected. Steven Waldman wrote:

One has to assume Obama wouldn’t have appointed Sonia Sotomayor without some indication that she’s pro-choice but — based on very, very little information — I wonder if she might not end up being an abortion centrist.

First, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she actually ruled against the pro-choice group on Constitutional grounds.

Second, in Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, she ruled in favor of the rights of anti-abortion protestors.

Neither of these cases dealt with the merits of abortion. Nonetheless, it’s interesting that in the two cases we know of that related partly to abortion, she took the position that pro-life groups would have wanted (albeit for reasons unrelated to Roe v. Wade). At a minimum, these cases would seem to indicate that, if she is pro-choice, she didn’t let those views affect her view of the relevant law.

While some bloggers and right wing pundits will repeat any attack, the arguments are appearing to be too weak even for the Senate Republicans. Mike Allen reports that any Republican opposition to her is fizzling out quickly:

More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation.

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

So far there is certainly no ‘there’ there in the accusations being fabricated by the right. The attacks upon Sotomayor are so weak, and so transparently false, that if they have any impact it should be to increase the backlash against the Republicans.

 

Is there any doubt that

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:52.

Is there any doubt that Sotomayor wouldn't at least tie Ginsburg and Stevens as the biggest liberal on the Court?

Erm...yes.  In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointees agreed on the outcome 95 percent of the time.

Can't help but notice your complete and total lack of references to her actual decisions to back up your  claim.

her stated penchant for "making policy" from the bench

Let me quote to you the words of Antonin Scalia from the 2002 decision Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White:

In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.

How is what he said so very different from what Sotomayor said?

In 2000 she wrote the dissent in a 2 to 1 decision that favored the families who were suing TWA after the crash off of Long Island. Yes, that's right - she was the dissent, she sided with TWA, not the crash victim's families. She wrote that the crash had not occurred within US territorial waters, and therefore the victims families did not have the right to sue the airline. She criticized the other two judges for ignoring legislative history and case law. She said their decision was:

clearly a legislative policy choice, which should not be made by the courts.

In other words - she is dissenting against the majority's judicial activism!

this is hilarious. the Right

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 08:58.

this is hilarious. the Right is too lazy to read her opinions so they fall for the same identity politics they claim to decry. From what I've seen of her opinions, Soto is looking to me to be another clarence thomas and I say that as a liberal.

this woman is going to surprise the left.

LOL

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:08.

you and your "facts"

it's different when republicans say it. when a republican appoints her to the bench....it's good! when bush says clarence thomas has empathy...it's good! when scalia says courts make law....it's good!

Well said, Patrick

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:44.

Frankly, your approach is the sanest I've read on this blog site in weeks about any subject, let alone how the GOP ought to proceed on a question of governance.  Good for you, Patrick.

Frankly, I'm particularly enamored with your candor and advice for GOP leaders to admit the farRight, anti-immigrant base inside the Party (but mostly outside the Party agitating like it's inside the Party) ought to say forthrightly, Tom Tancredo and his Nativist bigots are idiots.

First, last and always --there is no road back to political redemption without admitting the course those Nativist kooks took the GOP during immigration reform/Summer 07 was pure political suicide.  I think it was a reversal of this Nation's greatest historical theme: welcoming immigrants, absorbing them into the culture, society, Nation.

moderate conservative John

Submitted by lgm on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:49.

moderate conservative John Roberts

Oh please!  O'Connor was and Kennedy is a moderate.  Here's how you tell.  Go to a wingnut blog like townhall or michellemalkin.  Anyone they're not heaping scorn on is very far to the right.  McCain, and Collins are RINOs.  Roberts was a leading light of the Federalist society.

Tom Tancredo, an idiot?

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 08:17.

I really don't know much about Tom Tancredo beyond your link. The article you referenced had him comparing La Raza (The Race) organization to the KKK, which is a little bit over the top. But then again, I don't know how you would consider La Raza's motto: "All for the race, Nothing for the rest," as being anything but racist as well.

I, for one, would be very interested in knowing Sotomayor's views on illegal immigration.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

yes, an idiot

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:16.

in the sense that he has one issue (illegal immigration) that drives his being, but rather than working to a realistic solution, he lets the ugly side of his supporters be the loudest voices in the room. clearly not everyone against illegal immigration is racist, but tancredo's supporters tend to bring race into the discussion. In my opinion, he is an idiot for allowing that to happen because we can't solve the problem because the loudest (not the majority) of the people are racists, and it outweighs all of the economic, legal arguments.

as for the La Raza thing...I don't know much about it. i'm interested in hearing more, but it's hard to imagine someone like sotomayor (ivy league nerd, prosecutor, future judge) joining a racist organization. did she join recently?

La Raza Responds

Submitted by ToddLuvsLounging on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:59.

But then again, I don't know how you would consider La Raza's motto: "All for the race, Nothing for the rest," as being anything but racist as well.

La Raza responds to Tancredo's charge, "It was a phrase that was found in a document from a college student group more than 40 years ago but has nothing to do with our organization."

And throws out some digs, too, "Two years ago, before giving up his failed presidential campaign, Tancredo famously sang “Dixie” standing in front of Confederate flags in Columbia, S.C. His audience: a secessionist group and others called bigoted hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“He has hung around with a lot of bigots,” Navarrete said, “that’s where he’s getting his information, or misinformation from.”

This would be a dumb fight for Republican senators...but I'm a liberal, so there you go.

ToddLuvsLounging: Fair enough.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:30.

So the correct translation for "La Raza" is not "The Race," but "The Hispanic People," and the "motto" of the NCLR is not, "All for the race. Nothing for the rest."  Fair enough.

But whether the correct translation of "La Raza" is "The Hispanic People," or "The Race," is irrelevant to the motto's intent:  "All for the race (the Hispanic People), Nothing for the rest." It would still be a racist statement, in my book.

In addition, I find their statement: (the motto) "...has nothing to do with our organization"  far from a condemnation of the statement's intent, a curious omission.

Moreover, according to the NCLR's website, the statement:

"It was a phrase that was found in a document from a college student group more than 40 years ago but has nothing to do with our organization,"

leaves one wondering how a phrase that was uttered some 40 years ago by a "college student group" can still be associated with this La Raza group if it hadn't been picked up and carried forward by the members of this group?  Sadly, the NCLR doesn't go into detail as to just who this "college student group" was or what part they may have played in the organization's foundation.

ex animo

davidfarrar

check wikipedia

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:49.

NCLR has routinely condemned that slogan.

(I dunno, maybe one of the gangs that likes to use La Raza in their name, maybe they're the ones with that as their slogan?)

Okay...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 12:03.

I am now satisfied that this NCLR has officially reputated this “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" (“For the community everything, outside the community nothing”) issue on their website at "Reconquista and Segregation”.

ex animo

davidfarrar

FarFar, now that you've pulled your big foot out of your mouth

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:38.

on your stupid comments about LaRaza... you ought to go back and learn a little bit about the other item you mentioned: Tom Tancredo's stupidity.

Tommie2GunsTancredo was a candidate for the GOP 08 Prez nomination --who his MinuteMen and MilitiaMentalMidgets pals first proclaimed as the farRight's anti-immigration Messiah.  He makes the 19thC America Nativists look tame by comparison.  Oh, and he's a darling of the LibbieLoon-atics, too.

For someone who comments so frequently on political affairs, David, it is stunning to read that you don't know much about Tommie2Guns beyond what Patrick linked in his post... but then, informed opinion requires more work than just spouting off at your mouth, doesn't it?  Much easy to prevent you putting that ample foot in that wide mouth than having to extract it latter when proven wrong... again, no?

Hey, where were you during the 08 campaigns to have missed Tommie2Guns?  Probably at home in Mom's basement in your pj's making red-white-&-blue kleenex pom-poms for Bob Barr's parade vehicle.

You ought to know by now that informed opinion is so much better to post that stupidity parading as opinion, FarFar.

 I would not be to worried

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:18.

 I would not be to worried from a GOP perspective about hard questioning of Sotomayor. She's in the big leagues and its expected. They should stay away from the Limbaugh/Gingrich "racist" tag. Far, far away.

Two very legitimate questions:

1) Have her respond to her quote about legislating from the bench

2) Ask her about her membership in La Raza. And about La Raza. They certainly are not the KKK but they are controversial.

I wouldn't expect any bombshells here.

I'm also wondering if Obama is really getting what he wants in this candidate. This from the NYT yesterday:

Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision. In a letter, Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=2&hp

So this could be interesting. The left is asking for a litmus test on Obama's first pick.

By all means, ask her about "legislating from the bench"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:25.

I hope the very first question she gets is about "legislating from the bench" - because she will hit the ball so far out of the park that they will have to call a recess while a staffer goes out to look for it.

In 2000 she wrote the dissent in a 2 to 1 decision that favored the families who were suing TWA after the crash off of Long Island. She was the DISSENT -  she sided with TWA, not the crash victim's families. She wrote that the crash had not occurred within US territorial waters, and therefore the victims families did not have the right to sue the airline. She criticized the other two judges for ignoring legislative history and case law. She said their decision was:

clearly a legislative policy choice, which should not be made by the courts.

In other words - she is dissenting against the majority's judicial activism!

While we are at it, you had better get after Antonin Scalia for his support of judicial activism. Here is what he wrote in the 2002 decision Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White:

In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.

How is what he said so very different from what Sotomayor said? Or is it another cause of IOIYAR?

No

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:43.

Its a case of "let her respond to her critics".

But by all means keep hyperventilating.

Lonestar Bill, always quick with the "witty" comeback

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:50.

If you by "hyperventilating" you meaning looking forward to the hearings, then that is exactly what I am doing.

I'm looking forward to them too

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 11:02.

I really would like to hear what she hs to say. I hope that the GOP senators on the committee will not blow this. They need to be toiugh but fair.

I do not see a reason that she should not be confirmed.

La Raza Question

Submitted by ToddLuvsLounging on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:55.

I've seen the La Raza question posted at a other right-wing blogs and don't see the strategy involved. If she was a member in her youth, do conservatives believe this would be their opportunity to 'showcase' La Raza's supposed bigotry and torpedo her nomination? This will not work, except to damage Republicans' image further in Latino communities.

I see La Raza as the Latino version of NAACP. I'm fairly certain millions of Latinos see La Raza in the same way.

But, if the purpose is to solidify conservatives' anti-immigration credential, then I could see why conservatives would bring up La Raza.

I think that if it were a

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:03.

I think that if it were a white male going through the process that it would be fair to question him about what organizations he belongs to, from the Knights of Columbus to the Masons.

Would you rather she just be rubberstamped? Doesn't that show discrimination?

Like I said, I don't expect any bombshells.

Good luck...

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:21.

 

...with this one:

 

If Republicans don't like the tenor of the opposition, we should not be afraid to nuke the bad actors on our side while amping up criticism of Sotomayor's legal record.

 

I want to see someone on the Right try and "nuke" Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Beck, Levin, Ingraham, Malkin, Redstate, and the rest of the right-wing media.

John Cornyn musta been at the same meeting you went to, Patrick.  He trashed some bad actors last night.  Let's see what today brings.  My money is on an apology, unless the fix was already in with the "bad actors".

Besides, Sotomayor IS Roberts, based on yesterday's poll, where their approval numbers were almost exactly the same at the same stage of nomination.

That must have made some heads explode at the GOP, and is probably the reason for Cornyn's little venture out.

All this sturm-und-drang talk of "La Raza KKK!!!" and "reverse Racism!!!" and the Latina Judge's poll numbers show America is on her side, and rapidly gaining even more approval.

Cornyn reaction

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:28.

A DK diarist has summed up the reaction to Cornyn from the right thus far - link. First comment on Free Republic:

RINO girlyman Cornyn needs a primary challenger.

 

Quoting from a Daily Kossack??

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:06.

You know, for nearly all American political activists of any stripe, the Daily Kos folks are generally discredited as being farLeft, Blame-America-First, near-anarchistic agitators of the worst ilk.

For you to reference that kind of "authority" on anything said or written by anyone of an equally irresponsible, equally hyperkinetic, equally unstable perspective is pure silliness and intellectual dishonesty off-the-charts.

There is this cute little game played out on farLeft and farRight blogs here in "AlGore's internets" whereby each radicalized group tries to discredit the other by posting the worst of the worst idiocies from their ideological opponents... and in so doing, prove that BOTH are unworthy of any serious respect.

NextRightNannie, thanks for joining in that game... we can always count on you to take the discussion on a downward plane; no disappointment on that score from you here.

anarchistic would be free republic.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:10.

i think you want quasi-socialistic, or corporatistic communists for Kos. just an fyi (and sardonic too!)

Kozzacks love to show off how incapable the right is of policing their websites. The Kozzacks manage to keep their site pretty damn clean, in terms of removing the really dumb trolls (smart right wing folk welcome, but figure to get tackled a few times, they play a little rough.)

I've said it before and I'll

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:37.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Watching the Right right now is like watching Jonestown before the kool-aid gets handed out.  All you can do is watch the suicide unfolded.

Read this analysis of a Soto

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:05.

Read this analysis of a Soto opinion and ask yourself if this sounds like a liberal: http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/sotomayor-sides-cops

Guys, Obama just handed you a gift and your side is too locked into the race issue to see that he just tipped the court in your favor.

I am inclined to agree

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:16.

I would say "too locked into the liberal issue".

This opens a whole other conversation on hispanics and the GOP.

 

Ruffini, read some of her actual opinions and revise your post

Submitted by BWall on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 11:05.

This is sloppy posting and, since you're one of the token few who gets to have your posts prominently displayed on the front page, this site deserves a better effort from you.  Sotomayor is anything but a flaming liberal based on the opinions that I have read: she favors judicial restraint in policy-making, has not ruled to extend rights beyond their constitutional basis, and favors consensus with conservative colleagues (consensus, by the way, is a trait that the current Supreme Court, which almost always votes 5-4, could desperately use).  This pick should be viewed as a great pick by conservatives: while Sotomayor is not the second coming of Bork, she is much more judicially sound than many of the options who Obama and Senate Democrats could have railroaded through the nomination process. 

Republicans = Yasser Arafat

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 11:10.

Like Yasser Arafat, the Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. There isn't anything in her resume that is actually offensive, but the Right commentariat is going ape shit anyway - and will end up with yet more egg on their faces.

Sound and Fury signifying. . .

Submitted by cr on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 12:06.

* She's not that Liberal

* Conservative points are mostly hot air

* GOP should ask tough question (for which all appointees are ready to address or duck)

* GOP should give her a big high-five when she is confirmed.

*  Conservative media/pols should start lining up the next 'liberal agenda' issue to attack so as to raise money, maintain ratings or define itself.

-----------------------------------------

prediction Latinos will vote about the same or slightly more for Dems in 2012. Fact is, Reps are still on defensive and have not yet figure out how to be on the offensive without being offensive. Actually check on some of the Reps on Politico 'Arena'. Some good conservative opinions on this matter. Despite the wingnut crowed, there's are some good conservative opinions starting to gel . . .  Cheney isn't one of them.

Can someone please explain Sotomayor's statement:

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 12:15.

"...I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

We all know, if the tables were turned and a white, male, Republican associate justice nominee had made such a statement, his chances of getting confirmed would have been completely destroyed, if not his career.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Alito said about the same thing...

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 12:23.

that he makes better decisions as a result of his immigrant heritage, among other things (including fatherhood).

It was an incredibly dumb choice of words, that's for sure!

what maleficent said...

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 13:38.

that quote is taken out of context. she is ultimately saying her life gives her a better understanding of certain circumstances. that would be like me saying i could make a better judgement about being a woman than a man. Her mentioning race just makes it a "hot button" issue.

Easy

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 16:48.

..when you place it in the context of what was being discussed: 

Race and Sex Discrimination cases! 

There is no question that a Justice who is a woman and a minority would have a different perspective on cases where Race and Sex Discrimnation is involved, would be able to understand the issues better, and therefore be more equipped to render a better conclusion.

big deal

Submitted by cr on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 13:44.

Of course this has been brought up again and again. It won't stop her from being confirm nor should, though she probably wishes should would have amended her words.

Huckebee had it right on Hannity when he basically said,  you'll find something to pillor with any public speaker. What really matters is her judical record. Unless she said 'all white people are going to hell' then this is just fodder the already committed. No one else will care about it. Probably it'll be brought up in confirmation and she'll say it was taken out of contexted, that she meant that her unique personal experience lends itself to here judicial experience . . . as all judges. Lets face it, in America a good personal story sells . . . particularly on the right being anti-elitist?

tch. just look at Reverend Wright!

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 13:44.

(who is NOT a racist, but is a rather kooky guy)

Tom Tancredo steps in it again---MSNBC

Submitted by gunthestops on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 19:20.

Go Tom Go!!!!  Tom said on MSNBC the media is helping the minorities keep the white people down (in so many words)--lol.   Will Tom and Rush destroy the republican party all by themselves---lol--------go Rush go!!!!

Sotomayor Ain't No Meyers Either

Submitted by SeattleCitzen on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 14:34.

With months to prepare, this is the best challenge any one can come up with?  Reverse racist?  At least Turd Blossom had the foresight to try and  paint her as an idiot in the first week. Commentary like that in this article is too little, too late, and off-point.  This is now offically a GOP circular firing squad of the worst kind. At least the Dems didn't introduce siestas and ethnic stereotypes--veiled or otherwise--into their attacks on Oh Boy Alberto Gonzales, presumably someone the Republican stalwarts still consider a "fine legal mind." 

When the question finally comes to her, Sotomayer will have had months to prepare her slam dunk.  And any legitimate questions will simply look like attempts to re-frame and dress-up this pervasive, mean-spirited BS.

When the question finally

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 23:16.

When the question finally comes to her, Sotomayer will have had months to prepare her slam dunk.

What is the question and who will ask it?

I assume you mean in the confirmation hearings. And you do know that Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and right wing bloggers are not on the committee?

So which senator will ask "the question". Whatever it is?

A liberatarian view on the Right's reaction to Sotomayor

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 09:01.

Will Wilkinson on the reaction to Sonia Sotomayor

God, I hate politics. It really does make people stupid, especially those whose tribe is out of power. When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated, I knew nothing relevant about her judicial philosophy or, much more importantly, about her actual record as a judge. You’d think you’d wait to learn something about this before saying something about her, but no. People just proceeded to go crazy on cue.

Like Damon Root, I’m in favor of libertarian judicial activism. But I know that Barack Obama is no libertarian, and I knew he wasn’t going to nominate Kozinski or Posner. Too bad! So I was hoping for a relatively centrist liberal who sees some merit in libertarian arguments, especially about the protection of economic rights. As far as I can tell, there is nothing especially worrying about Sotomayor. She’s obviously super-qualified. And from what I’ve read, she seems like a highly competent, fairly moderate liberal who sticks pretty close to the law (which nobody really likes when they don’t like the law!) and is perfectly willing to side with Republican-appointed judges when that seems to her the right thing to do. What are people going batshit crazy over? I don’t get it. And I really don’t get why many Republicans have taken this opportunity to reinforce the already widespread impression that they are morally odious morons. God, I hate politics.

I’ve already given my reaction to the ridiculous Republican response to Sotomayor here. With all the Republican whining about judicial activism, which generally means they oppose judges who promote liberal ideas but love judges which promote conservative ideas, it is good to see someone express a different point of view. As our views of liberty have expanded since when the Constitution was written I am perfectly okay with judicial acts to expand upon our liberties. For example, while abortion rights was not something which the Founding Fathers would have specifically addressed, Roe v. Wade was the right call by the courts to apply their ideals of individual liberty and privacy to today. While I think it is a stretch to think the Second Amendment provides a personal as opposed to a collective right to bear arms, I wasn’t especially disturbed by the recent act of judicial activism to declare that such a personal right does exist. In reality virtually everyone supports judicial activism, as long as they are pleased with the decision.

 

  In reality virtually

Submitted by Mike Poole on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 00:36.

 

In reality virtually everyone supports judicial activism, as long as they are pleased with the decision.

Exactly.  The average person doesn’t think about the law in terms of precedent or intent anyway, only whether they like it or not.  Besides, if judicial appointments weren’t made w/r/t opinions there wouldn’t be such predictability about who falls where.

This is actually the reason why the Right had such animosity for Souter for the longest -- he surprised them.

Judicial activism

Submitted by Libertarian Bob on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 05:21.

 

‘Judicial activism’ is merely the modern GOP attack phrase intended to discredit the theory and tradition of judicial review and judicial prerogative. In our system of checks and balances, the judiciary’s role is to prevent the legislature and executive from violating Constitutional principles. This makes ‘judicial activism’ pretty much necessary. It is also important to note that judges are not only expected to uphold the law, but also principles of justice that frequently conflict with the law.

LibbieBob, next time think b4 writing, ok? Learn history 1st.

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:21.

You need to pick up a history book and read if you think judicial activism is some "modern GOP attack phrase", LibbieBob.  Unfortunately, like most LibbieLoon-atics, you too have your head stuck up your ass too deep to be able to read anything, it seems.

Judicial activism was first discussed in the context of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which divided the USA into 13 circuits.  Writing from the Merchants Exchange Bldg in NYC, shortly after his appointment and confirmation as Chief Justice, Ambassador John Jay wrote: "It should be the policy of this Court and the General (then Prez Washington) that the courts will review legal matters without touching upon the sacred provinces of either the Executive or Legislative branches. We will hold to interperting, not creating, the Nation's law."

Maybe if you took a class or course in early American history at your local community college or evening high school you'd be better versed in understanding what the Founding Fathers meant when proscribing the Courts' duties in deference to the Executive and Legislative branches?  And how the Court first saw it's proper role.

But you'd need to get that inflated head out of your ass, first.  That may be the bigger problem, eh?

Besides that, bogus

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:28.

Besides that, bogus complaints about “judicial activism” let the right pretend to be taking the high ground when they attack judges they disagree with, pretending that it is over a high principle such as this rather than over ideological disagreement.

So, those who have concerns about LaRaza...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 13:15.

...are idiots?  Problem with Patrick and his ilk, in their own minds they're already defeated by the left.  And they have contempt towards anyone with any fight remaining in them.  Folks who realize its time to stop compromising w/the left.  Like Tancredo. 

Its simple.  Vote NO! Sotomayor.   Reason and Rallying Cry?  "Remember Miguel Estrada".   'Nuff said.  Now go play a round or 2 of golf.  DD

Those who have concerns about LaRaza

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 14:49.

don't know anything about LaRaza, except for the garbage being strewn about on the Right. Among the things they fail to mention - Bush, Rove and McCain have all addressed LaRaza's annual convention.