Obama Outflanks GOP with Sotomayor Pick
Yes, but the press will point out how nice she is (Did I mention she would be the first Hispanic named to the Supreme Court? Sorry, my bad):
Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family — working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie.
I’m sure she’s a peach. But what about some other stuff that may impact more directly on whether she would be a good Supreme Court justice? Jeffrey Rosen writing in The New Republic:
I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with the New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”
Alright, so she’s not the brightest bulb on the legal chandelier, but that kind of thing never stops a president — Republican or Democratic — from naming someone for political reasons to the court.
And that’s what we are essentially looking at when discussing the Sotomayor choice. By being able to mute at least some of the firestorm of criticism that will descend on his SCOTUS choice, as well as pleasing a minority group that most analysts believe is still “up for grabs” electorally, the president has outflanked his GOP opponents. With one stroke, he repaired at least some of the damage done over Guantanamo, his riling the left over his resurrecting the military tribunals, the CIA flap with Pelosi, and his most recent statement that we’re “out of money.” At the very least, he has pushed those stories off the front pages and into the background as the battle begins over Sotomayor’s nomination.
Republicans, who were apparently relishing a fight that would leave blood on the floor of the Senate, now must tread more carefully. Many senators are from states with a large or a politically significant Hispanic population. Given how easily Obama was able to turn just about any negative statement made against him during the campaign into an attack on his race, it would seem logical he will repeat the tactic with Sotomayor — and probably achieve equal success. If Republicans aren’t careful, the Obama machine will make them look like anti-Hispanic bigots when all is said and done.
This won’t stop independent conservative groups from mounting a stiff campaign to oppose her. But as far as attack fodder to be found in her decisions made over the years in the Second Circuit, the respected SCOTUSblog believes most of her decisions “seem largely in line with those of Justice Souter.” It would be a hard case to make that she’s a judicial radical if the media touts her as having the same basic opinions as a justice appointed by a Republican president.
Therefore, the opposition will probably concentrate on the aforementioned statements made away from the bench in order to try and hang her as a far left activist judge. Whether the Republicans will adopt a similar tack on the Judiciary Committee or during any floor debate on the nomination remains to be seen.
One possible rich vein of attack to mine could be the fact that many of her majority opinions written on the Second Circuit have been overturned by the Supreme Court. But her supporters could point to decisions upheld by the high court which could blunt that argument.
So Republican senators are left with very few arrows in their quiver. It should go without saying that attacks of the kind initiated by Democrats against Republican nominees will not be forthcoming. Making the point that Sotomayor belongs to a group entirely made up of Hispanics or that her opinions will result in the death of poor women and children won’t get them very far and serve only to anger at least some Hispanics who might resent personal attacks on the nominee.
While the GOP is not without ammunition to use against Sotomayor, Obama has flummoxed them — at least for the time being. But unless some devastating personal peccadilloes emerge to torpedo her nomination, Obama and the Democrats have the votes to confirm her easily.
““She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” ”
same as obama, what’s the problem?
It’s important that the conservative alternative media hammer home the judicial activism/judicial progressivism points long, loud, and hard. That video would be a good start; it would help some brave GOP senator (if such a person exists) to ask about the role of Congress and the Court as set forth in the Constitution.
The fact that Sonia Sotomayor is a Hispanic should not be reason not to oppose her. We need to stop pandering to the politically correct establishment. Sotomayor is a mediocre choice—and that’s the beginning and end of the matter. This is a woman who unambiguously advocates for judicial decisions premised on identity politics. She literally does say the Law should favor some people over others! Such a position should preclude anyone form being any sort of judge. It is the rhetoric, at best, of a benevolent tyrant.
Mr. Moran:
“By being able to mute at least some of the firestorm of criticism that will descend on his SCOTUS choice, as well as pleasing a minority group that most analysts believe is still “up for grabs” electorally, the president has outflanked his GOP opponents.”
How you see this as any kind of “flanking maneuver” is a mystery to me.
This looks a lot more like an identity politics/pandering for Hispanic votes “frontal assault” to me.
“With the president playing identity politics to the hilt, naming a female Hispanic has probably assured her confirmation.”
He has the votes in the Senate, barring some spectacular misdeeds on her part, her ascension is a done deal.
Even you acknowledge this:
“Obama and the Democrats have the votes to confirm her easily.”
So why does your piece start out sounding like Obama is some kind of political Tiger Woods?
“With one stroke, he repaired at least some of the damage done over Guantanamo, his riling the left over his resurrecting the military tribunals, the CIA flap with Pelosi, and his most recent statement that we’re “out of money.”
Maybe for you.
“At the very least, he has pushed those stories off the front pages and into the background as the battle begins over Sotomayor’s nomination.”
That’s all he’s done, but the other issues are not going to go away.
The only people “flummoxed” by this choice are those without CAJONES.
Look that one up in your Latino Funk and Wagnall’s.
This bigot* needs to be thrown back onto Obama’s Farm, where some animals clearly are“more equal” than others.
* “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
# Ed quotes:
“..in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001..”
Mr Wallis, just the title of her lecture alone makes my skin wrinkle from the effects of second-hand PC. Thanks for the reference and insight.
I am with Bilgeman in this one: wherein has President Training Pants done anything except reach down into the liberal left-wing, gender-racial-identity bag of tricks and pull out a tired old gimmick?
Hardly earthshaking strategy; more like a reflex action.
If you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t act like one. Keep your criticisms in the realm of ideas. Was the nomination of Alberto Gonzales an attempt to pander? He was a very poor choice, but that had nothing to do with his race.
If the wishy-washy Republican establishment is too cowardly to oppose this obviously mediocre choice for the U.S. Supreme Court—when will it ever get the courage? Also, why are so many people unwittingly insulting Hispanics? Are these Americans so stupid that they cannot distinguish between legitimate dissent and racial discrimination? Come on, some of you need to take your core argument to its logical conclusion. You are, for all practical purposes, declaring American Hispanics of being immature and intellectually deficient citizens.
Herbert Marcuse would be tickled pink to see his “repressive tolerance” in full blown fulfillment.
(Seems one of the requirements for the O-verblown administration is a sizable chip on your shoulder…)
Being intellectually dim and a mediocre jurist will not be nearly enough to sink this nomination. Obama is a consummate politician and picking someone based on sex and racial identity rather than judicial skill is what a “good” politician would do. My hope is the GOP will not oppose Judge Sotomayor too vehemently but will save their strenght for a battle they have a chance to win. This does not mean they shouldn’t attack Obama for a pick blatantly based on demographics over achievement and/or merit.
I agree with Bilgeman #4. How is this some kind of “homerun” or “outflanking” of the GOP? This pick seems to be the expected one. With the damage Obama is doing to this country, this pick is pretty low on the list anyway. By the way if the republican dissention on this rankles the Hispanic community then that is BS. Can we please remember the disgraceful way the left attacks ALL MINORITIES that aren’t democrats!
A good jurist with comparable leanings would be more dangerous because he or she would build better arguments, but that’s hardly a consolation.
Another sacrifice to the gods of expediency!
#6 Войска ПВО and #12 JOHN B.:
Thanks for the support, fellas.
For a moment there I had forgotten that Mr. Moran is one of the number of nice folks who are agitating that the GOP should field more “moderate” candidates, and thus has taken the Leftist media demonization of conservatives to heart, so it’s not all that surprising that Moran apparently sees all the political same old sh!t as “fresh and innovative” if the Alleged Hawaiian does it.
I agree because the Dems have almost sixty votes in the Senate that she will be confirmed. However, I don’t agree that opposing her on ideological and American Constitutional grounds is not a winner for conservatives.
I think conservatives use this as an educational tool on legislating and radical judges. The Republicans in the Senate won’t of course because they actually believe you get “group” votes by pandering when in fact Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got a large number of hispanic votes by talking to them as Americans instead of “Hispanic-Americans”.
This is sickening…..just like Obama and all the other “picks” he has made thus far!
Only thing more sickening would be comments like those of “bilgeman” as he, and those like him, have NO idea! How sad!
“Mediocre choice”. 99% of her decisions have been upheld and she is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton and served on the Yale Law School Review. Give it a rest.
Rick, my assumption is that, with limited space, you couldn’t provide the context to your readers that they would need to evaluate that comment. So here it is. Now whether they read it or not, is up to them and you.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Benjamin Cardozo was of Portugese descent. Doesn’t he count as Latina? What, He was Jewish? Does that disqualify him? Anyway, Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, will not be the first SC Justice with roots in the Iberian penisula.
Before anyone attacks her, let her field the hard ball questions like Bork and see how she talks. The Republicans should not prejudge her (no pun intended) but should recognize the Libs will only stroke her. So to do their duty they should give her the same partisan treatment that Bush’s and Reagan’s picks received and expected from the left side of the Committee. I hope we get to see her show her stuff, and Judge Sotomayor should hope for that too.
BooBoo – Thanks for placing the quote in context. I doubt that the wingnuts here will stop to read the context or if they do will understand the point she was making. All judges are shaped by their upbinging and environment. All words are subject to interpretation. That is why we have judges in the first place.
This is nothing more then identity politics played to the hilt by a master of the art of political partisanship. The Republicans and conservatives will simply be unable to overcome the twin liberal arguments of her being Hispanic and a woman and trying to do so is a losing choice. Instead the focus of the Republican and/or conservative response to this nomination is to focus on her judicial temperament, her previous rulings, any and all previous rulings that have been overturned and her own statements concerning the role of the judiciary. Then couple that with the idea that the Supreme Court does not make law, it interprets law and that laws are made by lawfully elected politicians not judges who are appointed for life. This message has to be hammered home, hour after hour, day after day and in particular in the inner cities and areas of greater Hispanic population. This, of course, is dependent on whether or not the Republicans and/or conservatives have the intestinal fortitude to even challenge this nomination and instead just roll over like a puppy longing for it’s belly to be rubbed by its master.
G. Clarke.
Exactly. I’m pretty sure she’ll eat it all and come up smiling.
I guess you can add me to the list as a bigot. But when she says things like her life travels will be the basis of her rulings then she is NOT doing this country any good. She is the complete opposite of Bork and should be voted down.
Divide et Impera -
Time and again, the liberals show that they simply have no concern for the interest of this nation, by appointing a professionally unqualified figure in a top civil servant position in order to satisfy that or that segment of the crumbling pizza we call American nation.
What better illustration can we have than HuffPo’s fawning headline & article:
————————*——————-
“The Politics of Sotomayor/Dylan Loewe, 05.26.2009
As the Republican leadership gears up for the confirmation, they may be walking squarely into another political trap, carefully designed by the president. [...]“
shadow of a brain and BooBoo Netanhoohoo
what part of the sentence “a long list of her decisions have been upheld because driven by political correctness” you do not understand?
Oh, but you are soeterotrolls, so you believe every blabbing coming out of a liberal mouth.
Well time for you to grow up and realize that the liberals you love so much are caught many times lying through their teeth, and doing the opposite of what they say.
So your darling sonia said this and that and you are desperately and pathetically trying to frame her rethoric, but at the same time SHE DIDN’T PRACTICE the HIGH values she claimed to preach.
If you don’t understand, find an adult that can explain it better to you.
5. Ed Wallis:
Ed, BTW, you say: COJONES!, not cajones (boxes in Spanish), or kajunas (whatever that means).
I am tired of the Hispanic BS. Being branded around here as a Hispanic, whatever that s..t is. When applying for a job, the “hispanic” category: “people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, bla, bla, bla, ancestry…”. I look as Mexican as your mother-in-law. In fact, I am “hispanic” and my ancestors killed all them Aztecs and more, then brought the black slaves over. I ain’t wasp but as white as you can get it. I ain’t no Hispanic and no Spic.
Yes, may be Ms. Sotomayor is Hispanic, or Puertorican, or Yeworican. I can’t relate to her, while she may have some ghetto memories, I bet food was not far from the table. In contrast, I have savored Fidel’s jails, been whipped in the ass twice a day, no food. I grew so bitter that my heroes are Franco and Pinochet. Hitler sweetened more than one lonely night.
I am from that Cuban tribe that shunts goverment, cheat on taxes, is thoroughly Republican and hates Che Guevara. The crowd of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Balart brothers and Senator Menendez.
No, please, we ain’t your Hispanic folks, we are usually racist, reactionary to the core, we have been molded in the crucible of communist BS. We did not vote for Obama, and never will.
This is Obama’s “bone” to the far-left…which he has left out in his recent decisions and policy adjustment…he has to appease them somehow..plus, he has to change the subject from possible mushroom clouds over American cities from “tiny” dictators who are thumbing their nose at his softness and cowardly stances on national security…
This will appease his left wing and distract the media for a while…..
The Republicans can’t do a thing about it..no votes, no filibuster ability…or the will…
Another bad justice on the court for 10 to 20 years.
Susan:
“a long list of her decisions have been upheld because driven by political correctness”
To begin with that’s not a sentence. Additionally, that makes no sense. What part don’t I understand? The part that reads: “have been upheld because driven by political correctness”.
The fact that Sonia Sotomayor is a Hispanic should not be reason not to oppose her.
That’s good to know! I always wondered if the southern strategy was inoperative!
Of course, the Court of Appeals IS where policy is made. Many cases go to court because the law in question is unclear. Judges clarify the law, in effect making policy.
Judges make RULINGS.
No outflanking going on here; All the Republicans have to do is scream and holler long and loud about what an incompetent racist this woman is. Just do what the Democrats would do with a Republican pick; This is “FAIR AND BALANCED” demonstration as the Democrats would do it.
#16 cliff:
“Only thing more sickening would be comments like those of “bilgeman” as he, and those like him, have NO idea! How sad!”
The only idea I’d care to gain is how Judge Sotomayor will define “torture” before the committee at her confirmation hearings, and if that definition differs markedly from AG Holder’s recently stated…uhh…definitions.
I’m officially on the fence about the woman, since I don’t know enough about her record to decide one way or the other.
#26 – Thanks … for the typo correction (though I enjoy, it is my 3rd language). You and I have more in common than you imagine. Ha! Seems like we suddenly have the Axelrod TROLLS here (drifted over from Townhall) now.
Let’s have fun with them here, too.
Pathetic, that #18 lays out for all to read the blatant bigotry of this Animal Farm “pig”, yet disregard the material.
SEE ALSO: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/video-rush-calls-sotomayor-a-racist-gets-called-a-racist-in-return/
It’s illiteracy in any language.
Good piece, Rick. Well done.
My first reaction to this is was…I don’t actually buy this. This person is a distraction, she is essentially Obama’s Harriet Miers. She will absorb the wrath of the opposite side, and the next candidate will waltz through confirmation because the other side is inept and tired. I’m sorry but doesn’t she basically scream “oppose me!” to the right?
Looks like TeleBama hopes to pacify the NOW crazies and the Hispanics in one candidate. So much for picking based on qualifications and not quotas.
I don’t see how the Republicans have been “outflanked” on this obviously political choice. I agree with Rush that we conservatives must never engage in “identity politics”. That kind of politics played in the gutter should be left in the gutter with the Democrats.
Is Rick Moran really Allahpundit? Sounds like it. Always anxious to concede points to the opposition.
She calls out the fact that she is newyorican. in other words she feel superior to puerto ricans. She judges others by their color. The white man(typical ?). Being latin does not absolve you from being a racist, hell just turn on a latin tv station and count the different folks.
Last but not least she is saying that she will make her rulings based on her rich experiences. Her decisions should be based on her interpretation of the constitution.
The further we get from the constitution the further we fall.
Bilgeman, if you really want to know about her record than go here. I think you’ll find some things being left out of the discussion here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
Such as:
Civil Rights: During her years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has decided cases involving race, sex, age and disability discrimination. In these cases, she has often – but not always – sided with the plaintiffs.
Sotomayor’s dissent in Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999), is perhaps her most strongly worded opinion addressing discrimination. Plaintiff Ray Gant, who was transferred mid-year from first grade to kindergarten because of academic difficulties, alleged that the school was deliberately indifferent to racial hostility that he suffered and discriminated against him through the transfer. Sotomayor agreed with the majority’s decision to dismiss the racial harassment claim, but she rejected their conclusion that the transfer was not race discrimination. In her view, the transfer was “unprecedented and contrary to the school’s established policies”: white students having academic difficulties, she noted, received compensatory help, whereas Gant – the “lone black child” in his class – was not given an “equal chance” but was instead demoted to kindergarten just nine days after arriving at the school.
However, in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, 196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1999), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that dismissed claims brought by a disabled black woman, who alleged that her employer did not give her the same accommodations for her disabilities that it provided to white employees, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was similarly situated to the white employees. Similarly, in Williams v. R.H. Donnelly Co., 368 F.3d 123 (2004), she wrote an opinion holding that an employee alleging racial (as well as gender) discrimination had not proven she was the victim of discrimination when her employer declined to create a position for her when the employer had never created a position for any particular employee.
In two cases, Sotomayor has voted to sustain claims alleging a hostile work environment. In Cruz v. Coach Stores, 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000), she wrote for the panel in a case brought by a Hispanic woman alleging, inter alia, claims arising from a hostile work environment, failure to promote, and retaliation. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the failure-to-promote and retaliation claims but reversed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim. Citing the allegations of racial slurs by the plaintiff’s supervisor and sexual harassment, as well as the plaintiff’s assertion that she was fired “under the pretext of fighting in the workplace after she was physically beaten and sexually assaulted,” the panel acknowledged that “Cruz might have stated her claim of hostile work environment harassment more artfully,” but emphasized that “the essential elements of the charge do appear in the complaint.” And, the panel continued, the “physically threatening nature of [the supervisor’s] behavior, which repeatedly ended with him backing Cruz into the wall . . . brings this case over the line separating merely offensive or boorish conduct from actionable sexual harassment.” Moreover the opinion noted, “a jury could find that [the supervisor’s] racial harassment exacerbated the effect of his sexually threatening behavior and vice versa.”
And in Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), she was part of a panel that considered hostile work environment and retaliation claims by a female police officer who was allegedly denied desirable shifts, threatened with physical violence, and implicated as a “rat” in front of her male co-workers. The district court had granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. In rejecting Raniola’s hostile work environment claim, it described the “camaraderie of a precinct house,” which lacks “some of the niceties of expression.” With Sotomayor writing, the Second Circuit reversed. In the panel’s view, Raniola had presented enough evidence to take both her hostile work environment and retaliation claims to a jury. With regard to the hostile work environment, it emphasized that during a two-and-a-half-year period, “Raniola was subjected to offensive sex-based remarks, disproportionately burdensome work assignments, workplace sabotage, and one serious public threat of physical harm.” And it rejected the district court’s “conclusion that ‘there is no evidence that plaintiff herself felt that the use of barnyard expletives directed to her or others made her work environment offensive.” Similarly, although all of the disciplinary actions at issue took place after Raniola transferred to another precinct, her former supervisor’s role “in prosecuting her charges, the timing of the prosecution, and the surrounding events all lend support to Raniola’s retaliation claim.”
Sotomayor has rarely written in age discrimination cases. However, she authored a forceful dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), a case involving a minister who filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after he was forced by his church to retire at the age of 70. The district court dismissed the claim; on appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which – subject to certain exceptions – prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, had effectively amended the ADEA by providing a defense for ADEA violations. In her dissent, Sotomayor complained that the majority had “violate[d] a cardinal principle of judicial restraint” when it – unnecessarily, in her view – held that the RFRA was constitutional. Moreover, she deemed the panel’s decision to remand the case to the district court for briefing on the RFRA issue “a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties.” Instead, she would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal and held that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits against religious institutions by their leaders.
Sotomayor has been perhaps most sympathetic to claims of discrimination arising from a disability. In Parker v. Columbia Pictures, 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000), she was the author of an opinion that followed decisions of other circuits applying Title VII’s “mixed motive” analysis to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), holding that the case should be remanded to the district court because the plaintiff satisfied the elements for a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability. And she has twice dissented from the majority’s decision to deny a discrimination claim. In EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc., 321 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2003), she would have held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of disability discrimination because the defendants rejected all applicants for long-haul truck driving who took certain medications. See also Nielson v. Colgate-Palmolive, 199 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly for the proposition that “the opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard” and arguing that when “a party exhibits a limited ability to understand a proceeding affecting her rights, the court must undertake even more strenuous efforts to explain the process”)
Why must Republicans “tread carefully?” Only in the RINO world of Rick Moran must the conservative position mute itself rather than “offend” the tripwire offended. There will always be something to lose if you’re conservative…but not really. Does it ever occur to the embarrassed to be conservatives that there is also something to win, everything to win, by making a stand? Or must the retreat go on forever? Yes, for Rick Moran RINOs there can only be a decorous withdrawal. After all, what could possibly be worse than being confrontational?
BooBoo Netanhoohoo, if you are intelligent enough to understand a 2 line post, you should have another job (and not posting on blogs paid by the obama machine)
I hope the GOP does try to stop this nomination. It would be a boon for the Democrats. There is no cogent argument to deny Sotomayor’s appointment, as she is much more moderate than the GOP’s recent appointments. An attempt to attack this appointment would demonstrate the bankruptcy of the GOP, and make 2010 much more attractive for the Democrats.
If the GOP is smart, they will let her go without too much fuss, and save their ammunition for a fight that can be won, or at least one that does not involve repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. The next nominee will probably be much further to the left, and with a much more forceful legal personality. If the GOP objects here when there is no reason, they will be the party that cried wolf, and future filibusters will be doomed to fail.
Obama may get more SCOTUS appointments than any president in decades – it should be fun to watch.
Peace.
DS
The Constitution is a living document. It is a living document in that the people and or the Congress can amend it any time they wish. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution as it is written and as it was intended by the writers, and that only. Any “Policy” made from the bench is a rejection of the American Experiment and a rejection of what America has stood for in our loftiest asperations.
Justice is represented as blindfolded with a balance in hand. Blind to the litigants color, wealth, poverty. Balanced by the law applied equaly. That is the goal (often not reached) and that is the mark that sets our nation apart from it’s inseption. Anyone who thinks their race will make their rulings superior is not fit to be a judge at any level.
David S. indeed. Like many of the people posting here, Republican legislators would only be able to say that they oppose Sotomayor because she is too liberal. And then they would be forced, in the absence of a liberal record of judgements, to admit that they are trying to impugn her as liberal simply because she is Puerto Rican-American. It really has been a blast to watch that process occur here; I can’t wait to watch it on CNN. Or hell, why not, Fox.
44 David S: You scare me. “She’s more moderate than the GOP’s recent appointments”…”The next nominee will probably be much further to the left.” What are your STANDARDS??? Holy Crapola….
it matters not. stacking the court will not change my thought processes one iota, and probably wont change yours either.
like most things, the courts influence on our day to day life is minimal, with petty local rules and economic conditions having much greater sway.
the supreme court will not deliver one gallon of gasoline to your local gas station or one head of lettuce to the local walmart. you have more to fear from a corrupt cop or criminal than you do from just about anything the judicial branch does.
of course many of you will say that this rulling caused this and that, but did it really? aren’t lawyers a bunch of over paid wind bags that cant produce anything and need the rest of us to survive?
regarding roe vs wade. my experience is that you will never tell a woman what to do with her body. she will decide if and when she wants to give birth, if at all, and will if she wants get her tubes tied. republicans need to get over reproductive rights the way most democrats have gotten over gun control. reproductive rights are a womans right and what the court rules is simply not relevant.
so chill out. it doesn’t matter. there are many things to worry about and this isn’t one of them.
TO: Rick Moran, et al.
RE: B—S—
This isn’t a ‘flanking maneuver’. It’s a frontal attack.
The only reason to put a racist-sexist on the Supreme Court is to assault the Constitution of the United States by activist judges. Like it’s been assaulted since the Warren Supreme Court. [Note: Another Democrat 'president'.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Be Prepared. -- American Boy Scout motto]
TO: All
RE: Another ‘Idiot’….
…heard from.
Maybe David S learned English as a tertiary language. Or maybe he’s just a simple ‘fool’. However, I suspect he is much, much worse. Why? Because he can’t ‘read’ or ‘comprehend’ English to the point he recognizes racism or sexism.
So, considering he’s a tad more erudite than he puts himself forward as, he MUST be an outright liar.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
The reasons to challenge her confirmation lie solely with the facts.
Does she believe that the Court of Appeals, “is where policy is made”?
Does she believe that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”?
Does she believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and not states or cities?
Stick to the facts, don’t get hysterical. There is no trap and no Rick, the GOP has not been outflanked. The situation is Judge Sotomayor has been nominated for the SCOTUS and our senators need to do their job vetting the nomination.
Let’s just all stop being willfully naive. Yes, Sotomayor’s decisions will be influenced by her gender and ethnicity and a whole host of other things. Just as have the decisions of Roberts, Thomas, Ginsberg, and basically everyone who has ever held this position before her, left and right. It is inescapable. One’s formative experiences matter. This is a losing argument for the right (an examination of Robert’s record in corporate cases and his support for the prosecution over the past few years is pertinent here). Those on the left see the right playing indentity politics by opposing this nomination on those grounds–and why wouldn’t they with a history of overwhelmingly white males on the court. Identity politics is NOT just a game played by non whites/ non-males.
If opposition to Sotomayor is to stand any chance, it has to rest upon qualifications and record.
Sotomayor’s quotes do not differ much from what David Duke would .. or has said.
Ah, playing the racism card and the sexism card. Feel outraged? Feel righteous? Feel ignored? Feel denied? Go figure. Not to worry, she’ll only be on the bench for about 30 years. I’m guessing his next pick will be even younger. Wow, this is going to be something to see. Tell me, do you think the Republicans will fillibuster? You all remember the grandstanding during Bush’s picks – “all we’re asking for is a simple up or down vote” – no links required. Who’s willing to go out on a limb and frame the Republican rationale for fillibustering?
42. ricpic:
Why must Republicans “tread carefully?”
No doubt.
What Repubs.. what the Tea Party needs to do . Is replicate the “March on Selma”.
Only this time on Washington. It is well past time to oppose.. on the street, todays racists. Including Uhbama.
#41 BooBoo Netanhoohoo:
Thanks for the link…interesting stuff.
Frankly, she seems all over the map, swinging one way with one case, and then the other way with another.
Not really surprising when you consider that the facts are different in each case the Circuit hears.
I was particularly intrigued by this from her individual dissent in Hayden v. Pataki:
““[t]he duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. . . . But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.””
Sounds good, but oddly enough, she was dissenting to the circuit’s dismissal of a challenge under the Federal Voting Rights Act that a New York State Law is discriminatory, in light of past racism, in denying convicted felons the right to vote.
I’m afraid I’ll have to go have about a dozen bong-hits and sit in the paint locker’s fumes for a few hours before I can wrap my mind around how such good strict-constructionist writing could be employed in such a manifestly dipsh!t dissent…
#51 mshatto:
“Does she believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and not states or cities?”
I’m not defending her, but at the time the decision was written, Heller v. DC had not been decided…furthermore, the appelant’s attorneys may have failed to stir 14th Amendment “flavoring” into their 2nd Amendment “serving”.
Do yopurself a favor and check out that SCOTUS Blog link that B-B N provided.
As I told him…she’s not so easy to categorize.
Right now I am speechless, we have lost so much of America and it’s sad, very sad. I could say more but the government is tagging this stuff. so Good luck folks we no longer have a voice in this government.
I’m afraid,
MJR
let the divisive and immature games begin!! be sure to run this woman thru the mesh of conservative hypocrisy and trash her at every turn. be sure to use all the code words that motivates “the base” – don’t forget to include the usual racial and misogynist innuendo as told to you from the hate radio and faux news infotainers. and be sure to point out that a REPUBLIC must have ALL supreme court male only justices thinking and speaking as one voice, the voice of true conservatives that will once again own this nation. after all, only conservatives have the moral standing and the superior intelligence to run our nation. only conservatives know that their authoritarianism will rule the day. and only conservatives know the true meaning of “support our commander in chief.” may all the gods forgive the USA for its immaturity and irrelevance; a falling empire is never a pretty sight.
Let us see the last 5 years of tax returns. If she owes money…she is in. Obama “owes” La Raza a payback for votes.
Another point of contention comes from Jeffrey Rosen in the New republic who wrote, “A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.”
Just the facts ma’am.
Mshatto:
I applaud your clear eyed rationality. However, you’re going to lose on those arguments.
Her statement was normative. Despite the fact that the clip you’re all using cuts off that last part, she actually takes longer to clarify the statement, than she does making it. When people see the entire statement on Youtube, they’ll resent the false implication.
No one cares about the 2nd amendment but Republicans. Republicans have no power at the moment. You’ve got to find a wedge issue on Sotomayor, but you won’t be able to. Her judgements have found just as often against extremely liberal issues–the US denial of aid to international organizations that perform abortions, etc–as they have for them. What people will see when they review her entire record, is someone with actually very little bias.
As far as the “wise Latina” “schtick; you’ve got a better chance on this one. In fact, she does clarify this issue, but judging from the poor reading comprehension that people on this site showed when I posted the full context, its a safe bet that most people will fall for your version. Hold on to it tight, its all you’ve got.
And you’re going to lose.
If and when Republicans regain control of the kindergarden, they should appoint Rush into some high level spot. Good for the goose, good for the gander………..
Not to push anyone off their bike on the way to school, but we weren’t expecting anyone with jurist ability, were we? This administration was 7 for 12 twelve in avoiding tax-cheats in their cabinet picks. This admin gave the Queen of freaking England an I-Pod. This is not exactly a well-oiled machine. The fact that she is actually a judge was a pleasant surprise. On the bright side, that should be a wrap for identity-based Supreme Court appointments. Indians and Asians don’t count people – way too self-sufficient. Don’t get mad, amigo, you are the ones who went Obama, you have only your weak-assed selves to blame.
David S.
I do agree with you for once. There really is no point on fighting too hard on this nomination. Now, if the Dems get bitchy on Repubs asking tough questions in a process lasting two-three months, well they are hypocrites. They were given two-three months worth of whining on Roberts and Alito, so a good turn in-kind is warranted. Hell, repubs are responsible for that grand poobah of jurist Idiots Souter and there is no way in hell she is as bad as that clown.
I still think you are bugnuts quasi-communist, David S. and your sign-off is on the all-time gay list, but credit is given when earned (this is a conservative thing, you wouldn’t understand).
DTOM
BooBoo Netanhoohoo,
We ask that you cease and desist. It is getting awfully crowded in here.
Remember, “brevity is the soul of wit.”
Sincerely,
PJMs Server Memory
I think Republicans and conservatives will be making a GRAVE mistake by attacking Sotomayor personally.
Whatever her opinions and record may be, her personal biographical story is truly inspiring stuff…rising out of the New York projects by God-given gifts, a little luck, and a lot of hard work.
Her story is very similar to Clarence Thomas, and she should not be treated as scandalously as Thomas was by the Democrats…especially since the Dems have the votes and she is going in regardless.
An attack upon her personally would serve only to alienate Hispanic/Latino voters…and a few of us White guys who don’t like seeing someone’s undeniable accomplishments denigrated in a scurrilous manner.
But here’s how the GOP game plan should unfold:
She should be asked to expound on the Constitutional qualifications for holding the Office of POTUS, (are you feelin’ me, Col. Pelto?).
She should be asked to define “torture”.
She should be asked about her views on contract law.
The committee should seek her views on the legality of “Sanctuary” cities and the limits of Federal vs. State powers.
She should be asked about the uses of unproven and disputed scientific theory in the making of public policy.
And she should be asked these questions as respectfully as possible, for tactically and strategically offensive reasons.
1) This is a GOLDEN opportunity to put some screws to the Alleged Hawaiian’s agenda, and to use his handpicked nominee to turn the screwdriver.
2) If she later votes to reflect a different philosophy than what she answered in committee, she can then be beaten over the head with her own words
3) If she’s as stupid and abrasive as some have alleged, I reckon that her and her viewpoints will be ostracized when the Justices go into chambers…she won’t do her case any good by being a shrew among that gang.
4) She’s relatively young, and she should be on the court for a long time. Now this may be a reflection of my own admittedly limited experiences, but as Latin women get older, they rarely get more Liberal in their viewpoint, rather the opposite is true.
It isn’t just GOP Court nominees who can turn around and disappoint the Party that nominates them.
“Now this may be a reflection of my own admittedly limited experiences, but as Latin women get older, they rarely get more Liberal in their viewpoint, rather the opposite is true.”
Its probably less a reflection of your limited experience than it is your limited intellect.
“Outflanks GOP” ?!?!?
How can you “outflank” a randomly scattering chickens? Doesn’t a group have to have an organized front of some sort before you need to “outflank” them?
Mr. Moran,
I am a Latino male, more especifically, I was born in Venezuela and now live in the USA.
PLEASE! stop falling for the identity politics that the left loves playing!
Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court is an insult to well educated latinos and it should be an insult to all minorities since the ONLY reason he picked her was to get people like to vote for him.
Believe, it did not work!
I am sick and tired of the gutless, spinless Republicans who are terrified of the media and the left!
Cono, que no saben pelear los malditos Republicanos. Cobardes!
As long as Conservatives and Republicans allow the media and Democrats set the agenda and define Republicans and Conservatives, the Right will be in trouble!
I am sick and tired of individuals like Rick Moran who claim this is a win for Obama. FOOL! this is a win for him ONLY if Conservatives and Republicans allow it to be.
STand up! for once and fight back!
Latinos like me and many other Latinos would follow AND lead if your party would grow a backbone and stop playing the identity politics that the racist Democrats love playing.
Flanked? She is an utter mediocrity and will be, once on the USSC, its most stupid and least influential member. Then again, she will be the perfect embodiment of the dimwitted mediocrity who appointed her.
Raise money, expose her more insane views, and pick up House seats. It it won’t be hard to do all with this uninspired choice.
#57 Bilgeman – Thanks for pointing out the link to the scotusblog site. Upon reading the summaries of her opinions it seems that she is not the wild-eyed activist that Obama would be inclined to pick. From my amateur perspective, it looks as if her rulings are a bit uneven and not an automatic for the liberal cause. Her ruling in an abortion case supported the Bush Mexico City Policy and a ruling cited on free speech, seemed to uphold the rights of a plaintiff in a 1st Amendment case, which dealt with racist comments he had made. In other cases she ruled against the EPA and in favor of business. Her actions in racial discrimination cases though do present an opening for the GOP and her behavior in the New Haven firefighter case is troubling, but WTF do I know. It seems that the SCOTUS will rule for the firemen, probably in a 5-4 decision. In other racial cases, it does appear that she she typically sides with minorities in racial discrimination cases but I;m not sure this is an area that the GOP wants to make a lot of hay. I’m inclined to agree with donttreadonme who wrote that the GOP might be wise to let her slide but It’s not my decision. One can only hope that the clown car called the US Senate does its job right this time.
But has she paid her taxes?
#62 – BooBoo – thanks for the link you provided. It provides a bit more perspective. As far as the 2nd Amendment, are you sure that”no one cares about the 2nd amendment but Republicans,”? I’m pretty sure the NRA could bring a ton of pressure on this one. If she expresses views against individuals’ right to own guns, then I think you’ll have a lot of worried Democrats. There was a column in that bastion of right-wing ideology, the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 17, discussing Democrat, even Obama’s fear of getting trapped in a 2nd Amendment debate. So, it appears that you’re right, “no one cares about the 2nd Amendment” becuae that debate appears to be settled.
As for “schtick”, my post indicated that only the facts would work on this one. Attacking the woman on anything but her ruling would be a mistake. If there are problems, it is the job of the GOP senators to bring them to light, although I don’t think this group is capable of doing such. All we can hope is that the GOP doesn’t act with the the loonacy exhibited by the Dems in past SCOTUS hearings.
Again, thanks for the link.
Mr. Moran, “The One” did not outflank anyone. He telegraphed this pick a long time ago, having empathy for all those he considers suppressed by the “white” establishment.
Now judges won’t just apply law, they will have empathy for those who make bad decisions because of their socialization. They were born poor, of color, lived in bad neighborhoods, didn’t have a father. They were VICTIMS. Nevermind that they perpetrate crimes on society, we have to have “empathy.”
I like Flip Wilson’s defense from the ’60′s comedy “Laugh In.” “The devil made me do it.”
It is always someone else’s fault with liberals. Personal responsibility? What the heck is that? I have my rights and I am victim of society. Kept down by the man! It’s time for a little payback. Word.
The only man or woman who will get my vote in America, for ANY position of authority, is the one who is determined to see Obama Barack behind bars…And I do not mean the kind of “bars” that a fake ID can get you into..he’s already slipped into that crowd, and taht accounts for most of his supporters.
They ‘outflanked’ the GOP only because the GOP allows themselves to be outflanked.
The GOP should go after her based on her poor _qualifications_ and _record_ and not her race. But then the GOP never would have gone after her for her race/gender anyway (no matter what the MSM reports).
What Obama is doing is appointing a SC Judge by Affirmitive Action and not qualifications. She is obviously unqulified for the job.
I think a lot of legal hispanics would rather be judged by their character and record then their race.
The republicans will undoubtedly spew more bigotry and hatred on this woman. This woman’s credentials are excellent. The beasts in congress will try and destroy her but only wind up pissing off Hispanics and women. Keep it up guys, there will not be a party worth a dime the way you republicans are behaving. You all need to let this one go at a minimum. Qualifications…remember Myers by DUBYA. My, how quickly we forget. Were were all the objections to that!
We’ll see how “outflanked” the GOP was when she is asked simple questions about her more racist remarks. My guess is this will further diminish the Obama Administration in the near and short term. The fact that she is a mediocrity doesn’t help matters, either.
Finally, does anyone really, really believe Obama has read let alone understood the political implications of her more extreme opinions and statements? It emerged today that Sotomayor had praised prejudices brought to the bench. Wow. Just wow.
73. WhyamInotsurprised? . . . “But has she paid her taxes?”
Have you?
79. ratting: . . . “Finally, does anyone really, really believe Obama has read let alone understood the political implications of her more extreme opinions and statements?”
Have you?
This well calculated (Get even with The White Man )”Pick” has more to do with Obama’s since his Birth Teaching by radical Friends , far leftist Socialist Professors at Columbia , Harvard .
Countless Associates , Mentors and taught to him steady diet and Beliefs by the Rev Wright’ , Acorn , Community Organizing by Saul Alensky’ , Bill Ayers , James Cone and Franklin Marshall Davis (own wife )than it ever did the Rule Of Law “Sickly ” .
In reality with that kind devout radical Socialist list of hate anti Americans Obama agrees with himself .
We could have not expected any other different kind of outcome sadly .
Sotomayor’s ruling fits his Not Legal Constitutional Thinking and beliefs even though he himself is a Constitutional Lawyer .
So Much for Harvard Law !
This Pick was never about holding stead fast to our Constitution , Bill of Rights or Federalist papers it was always about this Women will do the ‘ Complete Opposite ‘ . She proved just that many times her Record clearly shows .
She has also been over ruled 5 of 6 times and will be over ruled in the reverse Discrimination white fire fighter case in Conn.
Her Conn. decision was a racist and Bigot decision by Sotomayor without question and in a ‘equal ” numbered Congress could give her a Totally “”Unqualified “” To be a Supreme Court Justice must less a Traffic Judge .
Maybe Child Custody cases or gets to keep the Dogs and Cats .
Outflank? MSNBC has started the charge. Let her be confirmed, then publicize and let Obama defend her opinions in 2010.
Why is there such a rush to appease every nationality out there EXCEPT Americans? My ancestors were of Polish, Czech and German descent but noone EVER tries to appease US!!!
I am going to file a lawsuit for reverse discrimination!! Just because I am not black or Latino, suddenly, I cannot get a job in any city government office or Federal government office OR in a doctor’s or attorneys office or a bank because I am not BILINGUAL!!!!
WHERE DOES THIS BS END?
WHAT THE HELL DO WE OWE THEM ANYWAY? Are they going to pay MY BILLS when I am unemployed as I have done for them for the last 30 years???? I think not!
Truth is, my fellow white Americans, that we are plainly being targeted for extinction by a New World Order of racist, radical scumbags who only want to take every last dime we have and any hopes of ever finding suitable employment in an effort to make us suffer for the deeds committed by those who lived over 200 years ago!
Sad but true! If we don’t do something NOW, we will face certain extinction.
I say we cling to our guns and the religion that this country was founded upon and kick their asses once and for all!!!!
Republicans and conservatives are right to point out Sotomayor’s judicial activism, and her conviction that courts “are where policy is made” and not where you uphold the law, as nicely expressed by Roger Kimball. However, it would be a strategic mistake to attack her or go so far as a filibuster to oppose her. In fact, Obama has offered us conservatives an opportunity. We can satisfy his one-time desire to appoint a minority, knowing he’s not likely to do so again without appearing such a panderer. He has made this shot. Sotomayor will also be a weak influence on the Court, and unlikely to sway other opinions. And of course she’s replacing a doctrinaire liberal, so it’s a zero-sum game now. So we should hold our heavy guns for the next time, when the nation will be more prepared for our message and Obama will have to be much more careful.
sheesh: “Have you?”
As a matter of fact, Ricci for starters (due to the good graces of cert). I again ask: has Obama, who appointed this incompetent slug, read her racist and other ignorant rantings? If so, he should resign.
David P: “Sotomayor will also be a weak influence on the Court, and unlikely to sway other opinions.”
True, and in this sense she would probably cause the court to veer slightly rightward. But principles do matter, and she is not qualified due to her left-wing extremism. I know some conservatives are laughing that she is secretly pro-life–and she very well may be and the irony would be rich–but again, principles matter.
Obama has revealed himself to be a race hustler, something I really hadn’t seen until this appointment, and unworthy of the office.
@50. Chuck Pelto:
You failed to even address my point. Just calling me an idiot and a fool without any evidence is pretty funny. Do you have a cogent argument to deny Sotomayor’s appointment? Apparently not. Just more comic relief.
Proving a judge is a racist and a sexist is going to take more than the say-so of Chuck P. Taking statements out of context, and misrepresenting the words of others is your only “evidence”. Then you have the temerity to call me a liar.
My point stands. The GOP attacking Sotomayor is a boon for the Democrats. A filibuster would be even more so. She is possibly the most qualified judge nominated to the SCOTUS in the past forty years.
I recognize your racism and sexism, Chuck, and your difficulties with reading comprehension. But then again, by your estimation I’m an idiot. So go ahead and make my day, ask your congressperson to shoot their load now attempting to stop Sotomayor’s appointment. You will come to regret it if you do.
Peace.
DS
Short of finding a picture of her in a compromising position with a horse, there is absolutely nothing the republicans can do to derail this. She is a shoo-in. Reasons:
1) The republicans are cowards. While the democrats will indulge the most liberal members of their base, republicans will throw conservatives under the bus, and “reach across the aisle” to prove they are not “mean-spirited, narrow-minded” conservatives.
2) They think they can pander to hispanics by playing nice with Sotomayor. HA! John McAmnesty was a panderer extraordinaire, and few Hispanics voted for him. You can never out-pander a democrat
3) If some “rogue” republican does attack Sotomayor, the press will be all over him that he hates HIspanics, and is a racist misogynist.
Watch for Obozo’s next pick for the SCOTUS: a black Muslim paraplegic lesbian. Then let the fun begin to see who wants to be an “Islamophobic racist homophobic misogynist who hates the disabled” by criticizing that pick.
Welcome to the new America, the next Balkans, where membership in an aggrieved “minority” is sacrosanct. Unless you have conservative values. Look what the democrats did to savage Clarence Thomas, who had a similar background to Sotomayor. Yet over 95% of blacks voted democratic in the next election.
89 Trainwreck . . . Yeah, I know. Isn’t it great!
From Kimball’s thread:
Kimball & Rosten can’t hide their racism. It doesn’t take long to feel their constricting bellies churning desperation.
10. WhyamInotsurprised?:
“Sotomayors’ comment about “making policy” at the Appellate level is very telling, and all I need to know about her.”
Take a toothpick and make it a baseball bat. How Repug.
11. Northern Light:
“Republicans have been opposing Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court for weeks now. I guess they’re happy that they now know the identity of the person they’ve been opposing.”
That says it all.
14. susan: jealous
17. David Thomson:
“Sonia Sotomayor is another shallow and poorly read individual”
Another racist using Puerto Rican stereotypes.
41. Ozzie:
“I don’t think racists should be allowed to serve on the supreme court.”
What about the ones already there?
47. BooBoo Netanhoohoo: good posting!
55. susan:
“but she’s surely maliciously biased.”
And . . . you aren’t?
111. MiamaMan:
“I am from that Cuban tribe that shunts goverment, cheat on taxes, is thoroughly Republican and hates Che Guevara.”
I knew you were pretty crappy. You’re right, you’re not Hispanic, you’re Cuban, pure and simple. And Miama is spelled Miami . . . or you mean “miasma”?
Bottom line: Repugs going crazy because they are rapidly becoming a minority and are going to get a dose of their own medicine.
5. Ed Wallis:
“The only people “flummoxed” by this choice are those without CAJONES.”
Cajones means boxes; cojones means testicles.
Better shape up your Spanish.
67. Bilgeman:
You forgot one question: what’s her favorite Sofrito recipe?
70. Javier:
“I am a Latino male, more especifically, I was born in Venezuela and now live in the USA.
PLEASE! stop falling for the identity politics that the left loves playing!”
Another Nazi Venezuelan. Don’t blame him for moving here: there you either work hard or get bribes for everything.
84. Christine:
“Why is there such a rush to appease every nationality out there EXCEPT Americans? My ancestors were of Polish, Czech and German descent but noone EVER tries to appease US!!!”
What’s your definition of Americans?
Read some history: discrimination laws were written because whites held most position of power and hiring and blacks or others were simply bypassed regardless of qualifications. Laws are not perfect, so now you feel discriminated. Well, write better laws.
“we will face certain extinction.
I say we cling to our guns and the religion that this country was founded upon and kick their asses once and for all!!!!”
Either that or join the World in the XXI century.
OH YES! Il Duce Obama picks SONYA SMARTERTHANAWHITEMAN and those evil republicans are defeated… he’s such a smart guy! You know, he was probably listening to Rush back when Mr. Limbaugh predicted Sonya Smarterthanawhiteman was going to be a prime candidate for SCOTUS! That, by the way, was BEFORE Il Duce Obama went to launch his Political Carreer in the Ayers Livingroom!
Obama must be a Dittohead! That would make him smart!
Poor Latina girl who went to private schools then on to Yale? Her “poor” mother worked as a nurse 6 days a week. Yes, that’s the schedule most nurses work – she neglected to mention the multiple days in a row OFF nurses also enjoy.
But aside from the marketing hype for her – It’s her own words which clearly demonstrate her bias and racism. Nothing new for the O Administration. 60% of Sotomayor’s decisions were overturned. Great track record.
70. Javier:
Javier, dale, HITITWITHAWHIP!!!!
Partia de pendejos.
Republican blame themselves endlessly like crying babies, and will doom themselves in the process.
Don’t pay attention to “vivo”, el socio es Fidelista y comuñanga. He is a commie Troll.
vivo: Yeah, I am American-Cuban (not the opposite). America first. I am white and don’t care for the Hispanic BS label. Latino either, I don’t speak Latin, nor was born in Latio, Italy.
On the political spectrum, I seat to the left of Hitler, a little to the right of Gengis Khan.
Really, Miama spells Miami? But the original Gringos that came with Flagler, pronounced it Miama, so I live in Miama, Florida. Got me?
Sie wertlos stück scheiße, schweinehunde!