Sotomayor Risk is Primarily on the Downside
Shailagh Murray and Michael D. Shear write that “An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP’s problems after consecutive electoral setbacks.” But on the other hand, “sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party’s base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward.” It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get the conservative base riled up about something else in the near future. I recall that as recently as last week, the conservative base was furious that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to torture people.
In terms of Latino voters, meanwhile, the problem facing Sotomayor’s critics is that she’s almost certainly going to be confirmed. And, once confirmed, she’ll be the first Latina justice on the Supreme Court. Soon after that, there’s going to be an inspirational Sonia Sotomayor biography for kids. Probably two, since one will be in Spanish. Responsible parents and teachers of poor Latina students are going to want to point to her life as an example of how if you work hard and stay in school, you can succeed in America despite many disadvantages. Indeed, look at this editorial in today’s edition of El Diaro (English translation here):
Tras la muerte de su marido, Celina Sotomayor veló por sus dos hijos. Les dio techo y proveyó el pan de cada día. Los guió en medio de las vicisitudes y tentaciones de la adolescencia en EE.UU. Como tantas mujeres latinas, es la roca de la familia.
La hija de Celina, Sonia, tuvo que seguir probándose en instituciones dominadas por hombres – en la Universidad de Princeton, en la Facultad de Leyes de Yale, en la Fiscalía de Manhattan, en tribunal de Nueva York. Cada paso requirió gran trabajo y una seguridad inquebrantable.
Para la madre y la hija, hubo pocas latinas que pudieron servir como modelos a seguir y guiarlas. Hoy, gracias a sus luchas y su arduo trabajo, podemos decirle a nuestras hijas: estudien y podrán llegar tan alto y tan lejos como la juez Sonia Sotomayor.
They’re saying that when Sotomayor was growing up under difficult circumstances, there weren’t a lot of examples she could look up to. But today, thanks to the hard work of Sotomayor and her mother, we can say to our daughters that if they study that can go as far as Sonia Sotomayor. Senators who don’t fight and scrape against Sotomayor’s confirmation will take some crap from their base. But Senators who do fight and scrape to derail her nomination are going to become the villains in a story that a lot of kids are going to hear from their parents and teachers.
74 Responses to “Sotomayor Risk is Primarily on the Downside”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
And everyone will say “Great, the first racist Hispanic Supreme Court Justice!”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
But Senators who do fight and scrape to derail her nomination are going to become the villains in a story that a lot of kids are going to hear from their parents and teachers.
Yep. I remember how Teddy Kennedy became the villain in a story that a lot of kids heard from their parents due to Kennedy’s role in righting and scraping to try to derail Clarence Thomas’s nomination. Good times…
May 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“Shut up, Al.”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get the conservative base riled up about something else in the near future.
I don’t think Matt understands how important a Supreme Court confirmation battle is to a variety of “conservative” special interest groups. This is their Superbowl, their oil gusher coming in, and it only comes every few years. There is no way they are going to back off just because it will put a few more RINOs in a bind (anyone who says differently, of course, being a RINO).
May 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Al. Take a vacation, or get a dog, or something. Your recent work just isn’t up to the standards that your readers have come to expect. If it doesn’t improve, Matt may have to start looking for replacement trolls, and nobody wants that.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
So Al, are you lamenting what you take to be a double standard, or arguing that no such double standard could possibly exist?
Because the latter stance would be a pretty big risk to take.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Al’s BS aside, the thing that I hate about the “you can’t fight her or you will be the villian in the successful latina story” arguement is that is works just as well if she is a great pick or if she is a bad pick. An arguement that is just as good for a bad pick as for a good pick is a bad arguement.
Now based on what I have seen so far I don’t like her much but I am conservative so I am not going to like anyone appointed by Obama much, unless somehow there are 55+ Republican Senators for one of his later picks and he has to go with someone he isn’t entirely happy with either. Basically, she seems about as good as I can expect to get from my point of view. But I still hate this argurement, even though I agree with the conclusion that its not worth fighting her nomination. Actually I believe in deffering to the President’s picks in general unless there is some big problem, ie Miers, so I wouldn’t want a fight anyway.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
are going to become the villains in a story that a lot of kids are going to hear
Yeah, Hispanic kids.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Which is a sad commentary on what we’re teaching our kids, really, when people taking a legitimate part in an adversarial political process become “barriers” to a Latina success story.
I actually don’t think the Republicans are going to take this bait. They know that what they say about Sotomayer isn’t going to affect the bottom line of their (lack of) support in the hispanic community much. They have less to lose here than you (want them to) think. No one is going to suddenly start voting Republican because they caved to identity politics blackmail. Give the public some credit.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I liked the part where they talked about Sotomayor donning a black mask/cape and galloping on horseback across the countryside at night to protect the common people from the soldiers of the evil Generalissimo.
And the swordfighting scene was simply thrilling.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
JD,
I think the point is that if the Republicans want to complain she is likely to go the wrong way on certain issues, or is just generally “too liberal”, and then vote against her, then there would be no particular problem. But an “all-out assault” could go (and arguably already is going) well beyond just that set of arguments.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Why do you call her a racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I don’t think the Republicans would risk being villains if they opposed her on the merits — argue that she’s too liberal, she’s an “activist”, that she isn’t honest in frank in her confirmation hearings (I’m sure they’ll be able to manufacure something along those lines like the Dems did with Estrada), etc. Not that I would agree with those arguments, but I’m a liberal. The problem is that the Repubs and their attack dogs lack the discipline and, frankly, intellectual chops to mount that type of opposition. So they’ve taken the easy, lazy, self-indulgent (if predictable), any weapon to hand approach. Which seems to be the way the base likes it.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Of course what JD ignores is that the reason why she will be confirmed is that the evidence so far points to her being a good jurist. Which is why his little wheeze about how the story would be the same good or bad is typically conservative – read stupid.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
But Senators who do fight and scrape to derail her nomination are going to become the villains in a story that a lot of kids are going to hear from their parents and teachers.
Yep. I remember how Teddy Kennedy became the villain in a story that a lot of kids heard from their parents due to Kennedy’s role in righting and scraping to try to derail Clarence Thomas’s nomination. Good times…
Look Al, I love you about as much as a liberal can love a conservative hack but this is weak stuff. Even from a crassly political perspective, Clarence Thomas wasn’t the first African American on the supreme court. The first African American on the supreme court had been appointed by Kenedy’s party.
I know you know this and are just trying to “win” an argument but step up you game bro.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I don’t know about that; the Hispanic vote got Republicans the governorships of California and Florida.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Matt, come on, those kids reading inspiring stories of Sotomayor aren’t going to vote for decades! By the time a 10 year old can vote we’ll all be dead. It’s like that global warming deal — it won’t be a problem for years, so why bother when you get the wingnuts riled up right now?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
It’s already pretty bad, with the complaints about her intelligence, the harping on the Ricci decision, labeling her as a racist because of a few remarks taken out of context. The Hill had some insanity about how her love of Latin food (shocker!) might “influence her verdicts from the bench.”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
people taking a legitimate part in an adversarial political process
It remains to be seen whether that is, in fact, the part that they play. If they treat her with the cordial respect due a federal judge of considerable accomplishment, asking pointed questions informed by facts, about her views and her record, they won’t deserve to be cast as villains. If they act like a bunch of bigoted and ignorant old crybabies, they’ll get what they deserve.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I think it is hilarious how both sides are playing identify politics to an extreme –and then criticizing the other side for ..uh..playing identity politics.
I can sympathize with Matthew being irritated by right wing attacks on Sotomayor because she is a Hispanic woman. And I think the argument for diversity on the Court is valid.
But Matthew –and the Democrats in general — would have much more credibility if they downplayed the aspect of Sotomayor as a Latino and did much more to point out Sotomayor’s virtues AS A JUDGE.
It is kinda insulting to speak of someone with her accomplishments as a kind of ethnic mascot whose primary virtue is that she will fuck the Republicans politically.
The fact she went to Princeton is of limited relevance. Lots of Fools graduate from Princeton. Which is there about her past WORK to admire? I hear little of that.
What are her views on separation of powers and on restraining the President? We should want checks and balances imposed on a Democratic President just as much as having them imposed on a Republican one. I certainly hope our Democratic Congress — and the Supreme Court — are not as spineless in challenging Obama as the Republicans were in rolling over for Bush and Cheney.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I do have to disagree with Matt though. There’s an understanding that partisan politics simply a part of our democractaic process. John McCain will most definitely NOT be remembered as a villain in the Barack Obama story. In fact, it would have trivialized Obama’s election of Republicans hadn’t mounted a spirited opposition.
What has a chance to tar Republicans as villains is a racialized assault on Sotomayor. All those folks calling Barack Obama a secret muslim will be the villains/laughing-stocks of history. By the same token, this “Sotomayor is the real racist because she thinks a Latina Judge will be better than a white man” is just bound to fail and make Republicans look bad.
The 14 year-old nerd in me can see the appeal of the “I know you are but what am I” counter argument but Repubs have to realize that they’ve lost this argument. It’s like liberals claiming that they’re the real pro-military party because they want to save the troops from pointless wars. It doesn’t convince anyone who isn’t already on your side. Calling Sotomayor and her supporters racists because they want to see Hispanics and women on the court is just going to make you look like assholes. Historical context matters; I’m sorry but it just does.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
There is no reason for this to be an adversarial process. If they try to submarine her for the reasons they have come up with so far, it will definitely be adversarial. However, if there is some legitimate concerns about her ability to serve, then that is a normal part of the vetting process.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“Matt, come on, those kids reading inspiring stories of Sotomayor aren’t going to vote for decades!”
Exactly, and by then they will ask, “Was there really a Republican party?”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
the Repubs and their attack dogs lack the discipline and, frankly, intellectual chops to mount that type of opposition.
I don’t think they’re being undisciplined and stupid per se. I think that Republicans have cocooned themselves into a world of self-reinforcing talking points which are repeated in a foreign language that only Republicans who listen to and accept the talking points understand. They’re convinced that their “Sotomayor is an unqualified racist” lines are working because they don’t know anything else and, more to the point, anyone else who indicate to them that their talking points aren’t any good. The Republicans are very disciplined, I think– disciplined in repeating arguments that are very compelling to themselves.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
What you are saying is true, as far as it goes. But Sotomayor didn’t just “go to Princeton”–she graduated at the top of her class, and received numerous leadership awards as well.
Then you just undercut most of your post. If it’s a good idea to have as many American groups represented on the court as possible, then let’s represent them.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I think Matt is right about this. I can see Hispanics turning against the GOP in larger numbers if it opposes Sotomayor, especially for strange racial reasons, and I don’t think the base will turn against the party for this. But maybe I’m wrong.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
bperk-
You are apparently unfamiliar with “adversarial” as a technical term. It just means a political system with a majority and opposition party where the opposition party serves as a review for the party in power. It’s in that sense that I’m using it. Admittedly a term more appropriate to a parliamentary system, but it applies to the US two-party system too.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Lying about her record and statements is not legitimate and does indeed constitute a barrier. What we’ve seen so far from the right is that they’re eager to play the “reverse racism” card and dismiss a minority candidate as a token.
Idiots are digging their own graves.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Seriously, the rightards are already complaining about having to pronounce her name, complaining about her choice of food, mistaking her for a single mother, calling her a hothead, and insisting that she’s an affirmative-action nominee.
What more could Democrats possibly ask for from Republicans, to make it easier to separate them from a critical demographic that is achieving majority status in states critical to the electoral college?
After forty years of the Southern Strategy, the GOP just can’t help itself. It’s gone full-metal bigot.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Re PAT at 25: “Then you just undercut most of your post. If it’s a good idea to have as many American groups represented on the court as possible, then let’s represent them.”
——————
Not really. I’m sure there are many Hispanics qualified to serve on the Supreme Court — and I am also sure there are some who are not. Alberto Gonzales, for example.
What makes Sotomayor special? Why did Obama pick her to be THE ONE?
One needs to take the long view — any political gains from her selection will be short-lived as snow on a sunny day. But she will be on the Court for decades, probably.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The politics of this is excellent for O. And fun to watch. The clueless mostly white and all rich pundit class won’t understand it, since they are deeply moved and touched to think that whites might be – sob! – victims! It is the same class that ignored the million people rallies on immigration two years ago, while slathering the comic teabaggers with attention. After all, the teabaggers want Howard Kurz to pay less in taxes – and he does too!
So they will make a fuss that will impress the Cheneyite 35 percent, find no traction beyond that, and make it that much harder for a member of the GOP to win in Florida and Arizona.
Is there a downside here?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Of course what JD ignores is that the reason why she will be confirmed is that the evidence so far points to her being a good jurist. Which is why his little wheeze about how the story would be the same good or bad is typically conservative – read stupid.
I think my point still stands. It is an equally valid arguement for both bad and good and thus a bad arguement. The fact that so far she appears to not be bad does not make the arguement better. As I am very much opposed to the sentiments behind this sort of arguement it is in my interest to oppose it when it is employed in favor of good canidates and when it is employed in favor of bad ones. Arguably, it is more important to oppose it when empoyed in favor of good canidates as a) if the canidate is good then there are better arguements to empoy and using bad ones should be discouraged and b) if you only call out the bad arguements when they are used in favor of bad canidates it reinforces a view that you can use any weapon to hand if the canidate is good, ie the ends justify the means. I am opposed to that school of thought, hence I oppose it at all times. Please explain why this makes me stupid, other than the fact that as I am a conservative you simply assume me to be a moron prima facie.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Re Roger at 31: “Is there a downside here?”
—————
Of course there is a POTENTIAL downside here. Which is that the Democrats will have such a hard-on over appointing a Hispanic woman to the Court that they do not check out whom they are appointing.
Will Sotomayor , for example, pay undue deference to the powers of the President and further accelerate the ongoing collapse of the American Republic into a global Empire ruled by a veiled dictator who merely pays lip service to the ancient forms?
The same forces that doomed the Roman Republic are blowing hard against the USA today. Will she have the perception to realize that and to fight that trend?
I don’t know. But it annoys me that her views on how our mixed government should work are being ignored and relative trivialities are getting great play.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Regarding the first sentence of this post, here’s more on the Hispanic backlash. It’s already started!
P.S. One possible explanation for MattY acting even dumber than usual is that during the summertime CAP increases the voltage on their Soros[TM]-brand shock collars. Could MattY confirm that?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
What makes Sotomayor special? Why did Obama pick her to be THE ONE?
She has a great resume (in some ways better than anyone on the Court at the time they were nominated), a great life story, and apparently he liked her in the interview (which, since he knows Constitutional Law, was apparently quite substantive).
Which is kinda how people get jobs in the normal course of things. So I’m honestly not sure why people like Don are making this sound like a big mystery. I mean, I’m not one to immediately leap to the conclusion that people are applying a double-standard to women of color as they advance if they merely ask about the reasons for their advancement, but I really think that once a person is aware of Sotomayor’s resume and her successful interview, that question should be considered settled.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
What are Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment, for example?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Please post in Japanese, so I can read it.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Re DTM at 35: “but I really think that once a person is aware of Sotomayor’s resume and her successful interview, that question should be considered settled.”
———–
That, of course, is utter bullshit.
What President –Democrat or Republican — is going to appoint a Judge to the Supreme Court who he thinks will be a thorn in his side when it comes to enforcing the constraints of the Constitution?
We the People and the Congress (the Many and the Few) need assurance that she will protect our rights just as strongly as she protects the powers of the One (the President.)
May 27th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
But it annoys me that her views on how our mixed government should work are being ignored and relative trivialities are getting great play.
You have to understand the timing of this process. Right now people are still digging through her record. Meanwhile, she is filling out an extensive questionnaire. Then she will go through hearings. So by the end of all this, she will very likely have covered those issues. And of course it is likely Obama already covered those issues in the process of selecting her, but for obvious reasons those discussions are treated as confidential (we want candidates to be perfectly candid, particularly considering they might not be selected). But this first round of media coverage is inevitably dominated by life story stuff, because that is the most immediately accessible and sellable stuff. That is how it always works.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Adverserial politics can be honest, constitutional, and legitimate while still having one of the adverseries in the right and one in the wrong. Those voting for the Voting Rights Act in ‘65 were right, those voting against the Voting Rights Act were wrong, for instance. Legislators who constitutionally and legitimately oppose good laws or support bad laws have the right to do so, and shouldn’t be, say, expelled from congress (save through losing their reelection bids). There’s room for legitimate disagreement on who is in the right on issues (including Sotomayor’s confirmation), but that doesn’t mean we must suspend judgment from a moral perspective.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
But Senators who do fight and scrape to derail her nomination are going to become the villains in a story that a lot of kids are going to hear from their parents and teachers.
Naah…the political movement those Senators represent will be judged by history villans anyway, and for much worse sins — the mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyranny that the Bush Administration embodied and they supported down the line — than opposing a Supreme Court nominee.
With Iraq, economic meltdown, Katrin and a host of other policies of Epic Fail, voting against Sotomayor would be like cutting away from the destruction of Alderann to focus on Grand Moff Tarkin kicking a puppy.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Why do you call her a racist?
You missed her racist statement that Latina women are better judges than white men, because of (among other things) their “inherent physiological or cultural differences”?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
There’s supposedly something in here regarding her stance on the 2nd. Could someone who’s intellectually honest (i.e, not MattY) look through it?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
So Al, are you lamenting what you take to be a double standard, or arguing that no such double standard could possibly exist?
I don’t understand the question.
I am arguing that Teddy Kennedy didn’t suffer any adverse consequences from aggressively attacking the second ever black nominee to serve on the Court. And, likewise, Republicans will not suffer any adverse consequences from aggressively attacking the first ever Hispanic nominee to serve on the Court.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Nope. That’s not even close to what she said.
Then again, if you weren’t stupid, you wouldn’t be a conservative.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
That’s because Sotomayor is neither an intellectual lightweight nor a sexual predator.
Analogies are supposed to be analogous.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
You missed her racist statement that Latina women are better judges than white men, because of (among other things) their “inherent physiological or cultural differences”?
Missed largely because it only exists as a figment of the imaginations of dishonest Republicans…oh, hi, “Al”!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
The only person here who has suggested that anyone suspend moral judgement is Mr. Yglesias, who suggests that Senators should consider Sotomayer’s narrative and the image of opposing it before, say, any principled disagreements they may have with her legal philosophy. See the last two sentences in his post for the reference.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
You missed her racist statement that Latina women are better judges than white men, because of (among other things) their “inherent physiological or cultural differences”?
That really just isn’t what she said. Even the Conservative Rod Dreher thinks this interpretation is unfair and out of context.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
And now we have Barack Obama’s Orwellian Press Secretary stating that everyone needs to be “exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation”!
But dissent is patriotic! When will this Administration learn to tolerate dissent?
The Obama Administration is now censoring what everybody can say about the nomination. Totalitarianism is coming…
May 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Nope. That’s not even close to what she said.
It’s exactly what she said: physiological and cultural differences (among other things) make Latinas better judges that white men. Pure, unadulterated racism.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Really Matty, this is your weakest defense of Racist Sonia yet:
Do it for the chilluns!
I think the fact that her decisions have been overturned on appeal 60% of the time and that she is about to get another ass wooping from the Supremes far more important than her off the cuff racist comments, though her racist thinking is no doubt contributory to her failures.
But at least Clarence Thomas will be happy… finally a Supreme he’s smarter than!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Will Sotomayor , for example, pay undue deference to the powers of the President and further accelerate the ongoing collapse of the American Republic into a global Empire ruled by a veiled dictator who merely pays lip service to the ancient forms?”
In response to this, all I can say is “Thank God for the Scalia five. They’ll never allow a Democratic president to get away with the abuses they would have greenlighted under Bush.”
May 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Barack Obama’s Orwellian Press Secretary”
“Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told CNN Radio Tuesday the party that he hopes will include more Hispanics must be cautious in how it scrutinizes a groundbreaking Latina judge.
“You want to be careful,” he said when asked about juggling Hispanic outreach with potential opposition to Sotomayor…”
I tell ya, they’re not making those Orwellians like they used to.
“The fact she went to Princeton is of limited relevance. Lots of Fools graduate from Princeton.”
Funny, I don’t recall anyone saying that Alito’s attendance at Princetone was of limited relevance. What I recall from the Alito nominating process was how inspiring it was that the son of poor Italian immigrants could work hard and attend Princeton. Sotomayor won the prize for best graduating senior in her year; I suppose that’s of limited relevance, too.
Oh, and here’s what El Diario said:
For mother and daughter, there were few Hispanic women who could serve as role models to follow and to guide them.
Today, thanks to their struggle and their arduous work, we can say of them to our daughters: study, and you too can go as high and as far as Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Who wants to take a shot at that one? Can’t someone make an argument that it’s anti-American to have role models?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Gaaaaghhh, RRrrrrroooowwwwwrrrrrrr! Press One for English? MUST KILL TONIGHT!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
That’s a lie, that isn’t exactly what she said and you know it. Will one single week go bye without Al accusing someone of being racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
You see, Al? Do you really want us to have to make do with low-quality trolls like JT? That shit isn’t even worth mocking. Shape up, for the good of the blog.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Al’s jumped the shark.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
JD:
Given the number of stupid things that one is required to believe in order to be a conservative, it is a reasonable starting point to assume that those who hold such idiotic beliefs are, in fact, stupid. For example, this nonsense about Sotomayor having made a racist argument, but in this case it stands on your insistence that we worry about the hypothetical case of an unqualified jurist when you have already admitted that no such jurist is being put forth. Sure, it would be terrible to use Matt’s argument if it were the only reason to support Sotomayor’s appointment. But in that case it would be stupid to support her. What you have there, young man, is a straw man. See how easily you knock it down? See how it catches fire at the first sign of a spark? That’s not really much, but I guess it’s what you have.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
DTM writes:
So, which way will they go? Hmm, let’s look at a list of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
— Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
— Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
— Charles Grassley (R-IA)
— Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
— Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
— John Cornyn (R-TX)
— Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Ouch!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I was hoping you would include a link. Because, frankly, I doubt she said anything of the kind.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
That is simply laughable. I invite anyone to read what she actually said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
May 27th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Hoy, gracias a sus luchas y su arduo trabajo, podemos decirle a nuestras hijas: estudien y podrán llegar tan alto y tan lejos como la juez Sonia Sotomayor.
Why did Spanish-speaking mothers have to wait for Sotomayor to become a judge to have a role model when already there are women heads of state in Latin America? And why is this propaganda being peddled in ungrammatical Spanish? It makes it seem as if there has never been nor are any women in prominent positions in government, the arts, professions, business, etc. in Spanish-speaking countries and Alberto Gonzales had never existed.
The whole role model concept is a gringada.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
What President –Democrat or Republican — is going to appoint a Judge to the Supreme Court who he thinks will be a thorn in his side when it comes to enforcing the constraints of the Constitution?
Given whom he has nominated for the OLC, I am going to go with President Obama.
And, of course, Obama might just be smart enough to figure out that whomever he nominates for the Supreme Court is likely to be a thorn in other Presidents’ sides for a long time after he is on the lecture circuit.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Al, tell the truth, did you read her whole speech?
I think we know the answer. You used to be so much better at this.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:47 am
I am of two minds on this. On one hand, being absolutely cross with her probably does not aid the Republican revival. That is quite true, and absolutely undeniable.
Having said that, however, the greater matter is, do we make a stand with her, or do we not? I think we have to make a stand. The difficulty the Republicans had in the 50’s and 60’s, when the welfare state exploded, was the lack of will. It was pure will that turned back multiple invasions of Western Civilisation. And it will be by the sheer force of will that conservatism is to be preserved.
I find her intemperate; she can’t even control her own eating habits, having a clear and very large problem with bulimia. I also understand that she has savings of less than a quarter of her annual income. Both indicate a lack of self-control and restraint. A judge, of all people, must have restraint and self-control aplenty. She isn’t cut out for the top job.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Miles: read 538 for a total and utterly debilitating take-down on your bullshit proposition that she doesn’t save 25% of her income. WTF? That impacts her judicial temperament and ability HOW?
May 28th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Now to say what I actually came here to say:
Conservatives like to say that affirmative action is corrosive and creates dependency.
I have read nothing that indicates that Sotomayor was admitted to Princeton or Yale as an AA applicant. She got in on the merits of her brain and educational attainment.
She then rose through the ranks of employment, working in a D.A.s office, a corporate firm, and then got an appointment to the federal bench.
She played EXACTLY by the rules laid out by the right on how you get ahead in life. But because she is brown, she is assumed to be an affirmative action kid.
Tell me: where did affirmative action specifically benefit her?
That she is smart, able, and played by the rules of “pulling herself up by her bootstraps” appears to be totally dismissed ONLY BECAUSE SHE TURNED OUT LIBERAL.
And that has me calling total Bullshit on the GOP for going after her as an Affirmative Action baby.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Exactly. Why do black kids here feel like there’s some difference in role models with Obama being President when there have already been black heads of state in Africa?
May 28th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Are you suggesting that African governance and the people who bravely sacrifice their livelihoods to lead are somehow lesser in importance, you racist bigot?
May 28th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I find her intemperate
Well, that’s nice. Do fuck off, braying undergraduate scrote.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am
The difficulty the Republicans had in the 50’s and 60’s, when the welfare state exploded, was the lack of will. It was pure will that turned back multiple invasions of Western Civilisation. And it will be by the sheer force of will that conservatism is to be preserved.
Ah, the triumphant return of Green Lantern foreign policy! Maybe you ought to make a movie about the triumph of the will.
Well, if someone who descends into completely unsubstantiated personal attacks at a moment’s notice finds her intemperate, I guess there’s no point in analyzing her judicial opinions or anything like that.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Don, check your battery. Barack Obama wants someone who will pay undue deference to the powers of the president. If he nominates someone who disagrees, it’ll be by mistake. Greenwald claims that she has pretty much no record on executive power.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I think the Republican plan, which we very much saw in action in 2006 and 2008, to ensure they continue to lose elections while getting a majority of the white vote, is still going strong. Afterwards, ‘pundits’ who are the guys that ran the losing Republican campaigns (see also: Karl Rove) can go on MSNBC and Fox and say that Republicans only lost because scary colored people voted for Democrats and the voters that count voted for Republicans.