Sotomayor: Rules for the Nomination Battle
The battle concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is heating up. Republicans are badly outnumbered in the Senate and the chances of halting the nomination are not great. Nevertheless, there is much to learn about Sotomayor and much to be gained by a robust discussion of some of her controversial views and of the proper role of the judiciary.
However, Republicans and their conservative allies outside Congress could well fritter away the opportunity, or worse, create a backlash against themselves. There are, I would suggest, four rules for the nomination battle which will go a long way toward preventing both.
First, the conservative foot soldiers would do well to avoid shooting themselves — or the meager Republican forces in the Senate — in the foot. A Politico report provides a prime example:
[I]n an interview with POLITICO, Manuel Miranda — who orchestrated the letter — went much farther, saying that Mitch McConnell should “consider resigning” as Senate minority leader if he can’t take a harder line on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
Miranda accused McConnell of being “limp-wristed” and “a little bit tone deaf” when it comes to judicial nominees.
Miranda, now the chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference, served as counsel to McConnell’s predecessor, then-Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist. He left that job in 2004 amid allegations that he improperly accessed thousands of memos and emails from Democratic staffers — circumstances McConnell’s supporters recalled as they pushed back hard against.
Such blather not only has the distinction of being wrong — McConnell has reined in his troops from rushing to approve of the nomination and held firm on the potential for a filibuster — but also has the added “benefit” of feeding a distracting media story (“conservatives in disarray!”).
Second, insist that the process be robust and thoughtful. There should be no rush to a vote on a judge who has served seventeen years on the bench, has authored thousands of opinions, has delivered speeches, has written law review articles, and has been an advocate in numerous organizations that impact the judiciary. The president is trying to ram home the confirmation before the August recess but there is no reason to do so. If the same schedule that was utilized for current Justices Roberts and Alito is employed, then the confirmation hearings should begin, not end, in August.
I appreciated the fourth point the most.
It is important to NOT be “sidetracked” (if that’s POSSIBLE on the matter) by Sotomayor’s “wise latina” rubbish.
An Animal Farm “pig” is EXPECTED to say, “four hooves good! Two legs bad!”
The OTHER QUOTE, which is pertinent to point four above, is EVEN MORE TROUBLING :
(I paraphrase) “…appellate court is where policy is made.”
AHEM.
*U*N*I*T*E*D*
*S*T*A*T*E*S*
*C*O*N*S*T*I*T*U*T*I*O*N* , anyone?!
It’s NOT “all about race/gender”…
IT’S ABOUT STANDING UP FOR AMERICA’s MOST PRECIOUS DOCUMENT.
“In Robert Bork’s America blah blah blah…..”
Remember that? Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor 45 minutes! after Bork’s nomination.
Did it hurt the Democratic Party? A big fat no.
Have at her Republicans. With both barrels.
The Dems are trying to jam this nomination through ASAFP. They’re attempting to deny the Republicans the time needed to review all of her decisions. She’s been involved in thousands of cases over the years and I sincerely hope that the Republicans have the guts to delay this process for a while to have the needed time to make sure that she will be impartial if confirmed. That’s the key word here: impartial. From what we’ve seen and heard so far (Ricci case, Berkeley speech, member of La Raza) that doesn’t seem to be the case.
regards
Whether she truly believes in the superiority of Latina women over white males, she will be confirmed, as anyone able to count knows. This does not mean Republican Senators should roll over. They ought to challenge her on her record (such as the brushoff she gave to Ricci and the other New Haven firefighters), on her public statements and on the Obama proposition that “empathy” is an important quality in a Supreme Court Justice. The questions and criticism should be tough and to the point, carefully worded to applaud her accomplishments while disapproving things she’s done or said. While Teddy K could get by with the outrageous slander of the Bork’s America speech, Republicans are not Democrats; hopefully they have higher standards and certainly they will be held to a higher standard by the media.
Rush Limbaugh is the only Republican with both a brain and a backbone, either in or outside of the GOP officially.
The rest of the GOP pie is made up of round shouldered, broad ass, soft spoken, do nothing, smell better than everyone else, too fat to be riding a horse, country club losers, who by slamming Limbaugh are doing the Devil’s work for him, the Devil being Obama.
The associations of this Neworican judge to the hateful and racist La Raza must be investigated and brought to the discussion and forefront.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
Not doing is cowardly.
“” … she truly believes in the superiority of “latina” (whatever the Hell that is!) women over white American Men, she will be confirmed, … “”
I pray and trust you underestimate the ire aroused in the majority of We the Sovereign People by that remark, by the many others as bad and by the rest of the simply bloody awful track record laid down these past few decades by the lawless — and 83%-of-the-time-reversed-to-prove-it — social-worker socialist savant, Sotomayor.
You might recall that the “Dubai port’s deal,” for example — and amnesty for the millions of American-culture-threatening “Democratic” party voters (AKA invading and hostilely-colonizing criminal-alien hoards) were for a time thought by their promoters, propagandists, polemicists, pamphleteers, shills and barkers, to be lay-down grand misères, too.
Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles Califobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad
“Republicans should remind voters that there is nothing objectionable about opposing, or if need be, filibustering a nomination on ideological grounds — especially if that judge also fails to match up to Roberts’ standard of impartiality and legal excellence.”
This implies that people consider a standard of impartiality and legal excellence to be ideological demands. If so, our legal system is in great trouble.
Excuse me, but there is a fifth rule: thou shall mention the name of Frank Ricci at every opportunity! He is our poster child. Is there a picture available of this man? We must make sure that he becomes famous. It will doom Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. Furthermore, it will place Obama in awkward position regarding his next pick. Is there really such a thing as a liberal judge who doesn’t believe in racial preferences—and sticking good and hard particularly to white guys? I don’t think so. Am I being overly cynical?
(1) Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are doing the heavy lifting – they are forcing the Republican party to show backbone and stand for principles.
(2) If we depended on Sen. Lindsay Graham and Mitt Romney for standing guard on our freedoms, we would be lost!
(3) Sotomayor is a bad candidate for the Supreme Court and unqualified based on her own statements and her judicial record.
(4) But, you are correct, the Republican Senators must show temperance in their comments and professionalism in their conduct. However, in the end, if they want to preserve their base and save their party, the Republican Party must stand together and vote against her by using Sotomayor against Sotomayor! It is easy to do, but will require courage, which the Republican Party has shown little in the past.
I’m with you fellers,especially Carl [5]. They got Obama elected without veting. They got the porkulus bills passed without reading. They will get Sotomayor confirmed without really discussing her qualifications. The former mainstream media and congress have failed and continue to fail. Most are in on the fix. Some are in on the corruption. If the people fail,America will fail and Obama won’t.
I say this…the republicans want far right wing conservatives for the bench and the democrats want liberal judges. So…if the president is a democrat he has a right to appoint one.
Bush appointed two of the strictest right wing judges outside of Scalia in the last fifty years. Some of the decisions Roberts and Alito have written are the most conterversial to date so why should anybody be suprised that they were investigated and challenged.
I don’t know what the fuss is about. All the judges on the bench has abided by the Constitution and they will continue to.
Actually the libs are half right in saying that this Confirmation Hearing will make or break the Republican Party, just not for the reasons they think though.
How many loaded cannons have the RINO’s already tossed overboard, eh? Let’s see there’s Wright, Phleger, Resko, the Birth Certificate, the scholastic Transcripts, the sweetheart deal BHO got on his house, BHO bowing to the Saudi King, BHO saying it’s A-OK for Iran to have a nuke capacity, BHO calling America a muslim country, and that’s just to name a few of them.
If the RINO’s stay true to form and wimp out during the Judge Sonia Seltzerwater process, you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of them will be feeling the kiss of the guillotine come the 2010 elections
ricpic – “Have at her Republicans. With both barrels.”? The Republicans don’t have barrels. They have the Marquess of Queensberry rules.
I would kill (figuratively, not literally, Mr. FBI reader), to see the Republican’s get up there and make the same asses of themselves that the Democrats do for every Republican nomination. The Republican’s need to get on the floor and make Kennedy’s exact speech, swapping out the names only, just to prove what hypocrites the Dems really are.
They’ll take the “high road” again, and get kicked in the butt again, and then wonder why their base is abandoning them. Oh well.
Marge – Maybe you’re not following the bouncing ball here. I’ll reiterate.
Republican’s have never said they want “far-right conservatives” on the court. They want what are termed “Strict Constitutionalists”, which means that the justices will interpret the law to render verdicts.
What we have observed about justices that are appointed from the left is not so much their political ideology, but their willingness to disregard the intent of the law in favor of their own ideology in making legal decisions, thereby “making law”, as the current candidate has admitted to.
Democrats have always had a “litmus test” for their candidates, usually centering on abortion, although that has not been much of an issue this time. Republican’s have never had a “litmus test” for this issue, they have always been more concerned with how a candidate reaches a decision rather then what the decision was.
I hope this clears things up for you as to the concerns of conservatives. Try not to call me homophobic in your response. Thanks.
Re: [13.] whataloadacrap08:
“How many loaded cannons have the RINO’s already tossed overboard, eh?”
Limbaugh gave the correct message to the GOP recently, but there is no indication anyone in the know either heard it, cares or has the guts to use it.
Limbaugh: “How’s that Hope and Change going for you people?”
When the puppy is bad you rub his nose into it.
- Do you still have a job?
- Does your spouse, son, daughter, brother or sister still have their jobs?
- Are they afraid that they are going to lose their jobs?
- How about their house?
- Is it in foreclosure?
- Is it worth less than what you owe on it?
- Do you like $4.00+ a gallon gasoline?
- How about $10.00+ a gallon – is that okay?
- Are you one of the “patriotic” 20,000+ employees of GM and/or Chrysler that lost your job?
- Do you like the idea of your President running around the world telling everyone else what a bunch of creeps and losers Americans are?
- Does anyone know if Obama has put in one (1) honest to God day of work since he took office? So far all the man has done is pat himself on the back while the MSM drools and slobbers.
The list of things that Obama is doing to crush and destroy our country is endless..
Pick one item GOP – just one. Then proceed to take that item and pound Obama and his harem of misfits out of existence. Politically of course.
We wouldn’t want anyone to think anything bad about us – hee, hee!
So it is, life in the big city. I just ripped another one of those postage due RNC mailers up and threw it into the trash.
I don’t have much faith in the Republicans in the Senate. I think they would be better at selling Girl Scout Cookies then defending the Constitution of the United States of America.
A sort of funny and at the same time sort of pitiful aside: This white firefighter, Ricci, has a “cognitive disability” (dyslexia) and still passed the test. None of the black firefighters passed the test. What’s the matter with them? Are they disabled or just stupid? It’s a sad day in this country when a disabled white guy can do better on a test than supposedly normal black guys. I know, I know. I’m a raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist! I’m not being nice…
Just sayin’…
regards
@5. Carl:
I guess this means that you are lacking one or the other? I’ve got my suspicions.
I wish you luck in your purge of the party. I am certain the GOP will be quite successful once the membership has been reduced to a party of one. I wonder what all the expelled losers will do with themselves?
Peace.
DS
Rule #1 . . . Feign civility while directing proxies to smear nominee.
Rule #2 . . . Mock nominee with repetitive accusations veiled as questions.
Rule #3 . . . Fillibuster because it’s constitutional, unconstitutional, constitutional . . . . doesn’t matter . . . . just fillibuster
Rule #4 . . . Sit down, shut up and confirm her . . . direct proxies to whine
Let’s take Ms. Sotomayor at her word that a Latina woman is smarter and makes better decisions than a white male. Okay, I bet Maxine Waters thinks she is smarter than white men as well. So by extention of their twisted logic, all white men are inferior to them and their ilk. What reason is there for a white male to vote Democrat?
Conclusion: The Dem party is now officially the party of color. Where does that leave all the white male liberals in Congress and the Senate? Should they not run for re-election or resign their seats in favor of a person of color since they obviously believe and support the Sotormayor statement? And since these same white male liberals support affirmative action, they should show their solidarity and resign. But white male liberals only talk the talk, they never walk the walk.
Take a look at university professors: They support affirmative action to the disadvantage of white students but yet they occupy positions where they are the majority gender and race. Only white liberal males will support platforms, programs and statements that are inherently racist against white Americans, and ultimately, make them look foolish, subservient, cowardly and dumb.
#19 My dear and loving friend Davis S seems to have a bit of a reading problem today. That is perfectly understandable. How would your reading skills be if you had to read Kos and Muffpost for your marching orders early every mourning. However, if David would look more closely he would see the word “officially” in Carl’s sentence and cut some slack.
But there is another thing that David S. should be concerned about. His President and, God help us, ours has played two tricks on his acolites like David. One, the has changed his mind on numerous stands he took during his campaign. Two, he has taken new stands he never mentioned in his campaign. Folks like David, Kos, and Muffy must be privately biting themselves in the back of the next because it is so hard to cover this trickster President’s tracks with the spin machine.
Peace be upon you, David, and on all your loved ones as well, you foxy devil you.
Oh, Sheets, look I’ve made two spelling blunders. It should be, morning and acolyte. Will you ever forgive me? I’m going to consider firing my secretary. He needs to catch these errors that get by my editor.
@20 – sheesh – straight out of the democratic playbook. And the Republican’s NEED to do this if they want to stay relevant. I’m SO tired of them being nice guys.
The American people have to be awakened to the threat Obama and his appointees pose to the rule of law. If the Republican Senators can’t get that across to anyone outside their own circles, they have failed.
Ms. Rubin:
“The message here: inflammatory invectives get the GOP nowhere; they will need to let the public hear for themselves what Sotomayor believes and reach their own conclusions.”
That’s why this confirmation hearing should be used as the opprtunity that it is to allow Sotomayor to embarrass herself and her patron, the Alleged Hawaiian Tyrant.
Questions should be put to her that would highlight how much of the agenda being dictated by Mr. Obama is unconstitutional.
I would LOVE to hear her expound on the Constitutional qualifications for holding the Office of President as set forth in Article II, Section 1, and then field a follow-up asking her opinion of Obama refusing to release his vault-copy birth certificate.
If they think that this issue would hurt them with American citizens of Hispanic extraction, they’re woefully ignorant of facts on the ground. Can you imagine the amount of crap that a natural born American citizen whose surname happens to be “Garcia” or “Lopez” has to put up with?
“And if they really want to avoid being tagged as “racists” Republicans would do well to avoid throwing that, and equally incendiary terms, around themselves. (Yes, there is a terrible double standard for conservatives, but what of it?)”
Here’s what is of it: the GOP is going to tagged as racist REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAY.
This is not a level or impartial playing field, Ms. Rubin, so there’s little to be lost in shying away from the racist “paydirt” that exists in Sotomayor’s record.
If I had a chair on the dais, i would invite Mr. Frank Ricci to appear and share HIS side of the story, as I would likewise invite Judge Jose Cabranes aboard, to expound on why he reversed Sotomayor’s unsigned rejection of the White and Hispanic firefighters’ appeal.
If Judge Sotomayor bears some animus against White men, the public has a right to know this, and if she does not, then she deserves the opportunity to clear the air and explain herself.
She’s been a judge for 17 years and already been confirmed by the Senate twice (7 current republican senators including the ranking minority member of the judiciary committee have voted for her at least once)
She’s not going to “embarrass” herself. You aren’t going to find any mysteries in her past. Your best bet for holding up the Sotomayor nomination is to see what the supreme court says in the Ricci case. If they come out strongly against Sotomayor’s reasoning, then you have renewed ammo. But still not enough to sink any nomination. Maybe just enough to allow for extra scrutiny if Obama gets to pick another justices.
Anything else is wishful thinking.
The best chance for getting someone to embarass himself is to give him the chance to explain what he meant by something he shouldn’t have said. Sotomayor has given us at least a couple of those chances, and I hope the GOP senatorial leadership can come up with a few that we haven’t yet heard of.
I don’t think the Republicans can stop her nomination from going forward. The strategy has to be to think of the future. When Sotomajor is on the Supreme Court her true left wing radical agenda will be on view for us to really see. That is the time for Republicans to call it to the nations attention as a reminder of what they have voted for in the previous election and to prepare for the 2012 Presidential election which promises to be a bloody battle.
#1 Ed Wallis: Exactly: The United States Constitution.
As far as I can see, that’s the only rubric needed for examination of Sotomayor’s abilities as a supreme court justice.
The Constitution, while being very passionate about freedom, is also dispassionate about the law. It isn’t as subjective as our leaders would have us believe.
I am so tired of Congress RUSHING through decisions without a chance to review and debate. Just because the Almight One Obama says so- it is a cause for extreme care and review. As President for such a short period he has proven himself as a person to distrust and one who has lied to the American public. Take this appointment with as much time as needed to get the facts out. Please.
Jennifer:
I do not doubt that Sotomayor could be a competent judge. However, I also believe that due to questions about her idealogy, the confirmation hearings need to expose her true feelings about race and the law. She needs to get a little “emotional” about the issues, otherwise we will not be able to see clearly what her true intentions are. The need to delve more into her idealogy is important for 2 primary reasons; Obama claims to be choosing the judge based on the “unprecendented” qualification of empathy, and she has a recorded history of speaking about legal idealogy in a way that differs from previous justices. If Obama had defined exactly what “empathy” is, or if she had not spoken about race and law the way she chose to, then it may not have been such a contentious issue.
There are questions about the legal character of Sotomayor, and to some extent her personal character, and her sense of duty to the US to explain herself as a candidate who has at times been outspoken about racial and legal issues. If she lacks the courage to define or stand up for her legal idealogy, she would be a very poor judge indeed.
While I would not condone any vicious personal attacks (unlike the Democrats) I think that it’s the responsibility of the Republicans to vigorously question Ms. Sotomayor about her past performance, judgements, opinions rendered and comments made. They must not be afraid to vote no on her nomination if her answers/demeanor do not reassure them that the Judge is prepared to execute the job as envisioned by the founders.
I believe there is a large number of american voters out there waiting for some honest conservative leadership to show itself. You can see this in the deeper polls that show support for the President at remarkably high levels however support for most of his policies in negative territory.
I don’t believe that Lindsay Graham or Mitt Romney have the atitude or the skills to lead on this issue. I believe that they are more symptomatic of what the Republican party has been over the last 10 years, sort of a “conservative light” (very, very light as it’s turned out).
While this is a difficult time for Republicans it’s also a marvelous opportunity for renewal of the party based on conservative values that the party was formed on. Stop trying to be liked and start standing up for principle.
In the bigger picture of course, I know you all question my mental perspicacity, but with various dolts in your own party attempting to further muddy and conceal whatever remaining principles you hold dear that they haven’t trashed by now, how’s your sanity picture right now?
Sanity never was an issue with me, having abandoned for pragmatic reasons any false hope of an improvement in any given mental status possessed by left, center, right, or first door on the left down the hall. I rely solely on intestinal fortitude as I step out on the tight rope of media fueled uncontrollable ambition, keeping in mind that there’s no net and the absurdity of what I’m doing at any given juncture, considering the average attention span of various idiots who want to argue the indecipherable. Huh? Yes, I rely on that and little post-it notes of sanity, serenity, and delight from some erudite, and what I’m sure is well intentioned people such as yourself. I mean everybody’s a little cracked, right? Sounds impressive but I wouldn’t plagiarize and hand it in to my semantics teacher, not unless you’re basing all your hopes on the certainty of being head fry cook in six months at your local Mickey D’s. People I meet and engage usually come away with the impression that I haven’t a care in the world, which not only is diametrically the opposite of my true nature, but is a rather clever subterfuge, wouldn’t you agree? Cause in the poker game of life, you can bluff everybody at the table except yourself. Heavy, huh? Yeah, all that Sartre, Camus, and Nietzsche, as well as an empty glass (of water), is starting to pay off.
But as far as politics go (such as is the sad state it is in), the die has been cast, the dog has been hung, the bell has been poured as a strange looking Russian walks around mumbling some kind of enigmatic gibberish and the subtitles flash by too quickly to give most educated people a clue. But not to worry, as recently the worm has turned and, yes, what was only a pipe dream of cryptic scrawls rendered by the nubbins of a discarded Ticonderoga #2 pencil in some smoke filled opium den of iniquity is now poised to be a reality, whether it’s your nightmare or my comeuppance. It is my hope, even to you, the loyal opposition, that someday men and women who embrace the better angels of their nature will commence repair of the Washington shit pipe, whether for deluded do-gooders or livid uneducated poor sports, with final sealing and inspection instigated on some future date, with all of us (for the most part) being able to once again (if ever in the first place) look towards that city on the hill (or in the malarial swamp) with a modicum of respect, either for differences or collusion. The next step? The realization of a dream as seen through a smoky dark glass of tethered ambitions.
Republican Senators should, as much as possible, quote the words used by democrat senators in their railing against conservative nominees. By using the same words aqainst Sotomayor that democrats, especially senator obama, used against conservatives, the liberals and the media will be shut down. What is good for the goose is good for the gander
#34 Carl Gordon: We told you not to take the red pill, for having ingested of its corporeal capacity to render one’s cerebral cortex void of logistical and primordial thought, the partaker of the ruby capsule will find himself enthralled by the whimsy of Carol’s Jabberwocky slayer and will ultimately snicker snack his way to a filmy vorpal cognition of unambiguous incongruity as he gimbols his way through the condensation covered slithy tothes who dwell in the pumice of his mind.
P.S. I love writing this kind of crap.
As someone who clerked on the 2nd circuit for the 1968 term for a hugely famous judge who should have been elevated but was not because of his religion, and someone who is conservative in most matters, I offer the following: We are going to get a liberal judge no matter what. While she certainly should be vetted fully, I really don’t see anything truly disqualifying as of yet. And, from a conservative perspective, we may be better off with this one for very simple reasons. She is intelligent, but not brilliant. Her opinions are well crafted, but hardly of the sort that influence distinctive changes in the law. I wonder how many of her opinions have found their way into law school texts. She is hardly the intellectual equal of Scalia or Thomas and the same probably goes for Roberts and Alito. There is nothing in her writings or her opinions that suggest an awareness of overarching principles or a vision of the ongoing development of the law. She writes well, but not with greatness. A Learned Hand or a Cardozo she is not. As for Ricci, while I strongly agree with the dissent, she was one of I believe seven judges voting against rehearing en banc. It is unreasonable to hang the entire case on her, particularly when there was no reasoned opinion. Perhap the court wanted the case to be taken up by the SCOTUS as the issue is very complex and difficult and a final resolution was and is very desirable. The SCOTUS may well dispose of disparate impact and that would be a great result from my standpoint. She is claimed by some to have been abrasive and impatient from the bench. If those are her characteristics, she will have a difficult time having much deliberative influence in the rarified intellectual atmosphere of the SC, let along building concensus around her views. In short, she will be another Ginsberg, present, but not particularly influential. Expect lots of dissents!
It is too much to expect that this POTUS is going to nominate someone who is satisfying to those of a conservative persuasion. However, a weak liberal candidate is a victory of sorts in the bigger picture.
I do think it essential that the Republicans be civil and hold their powder for the fights that they can win. The Obamamaniacs will see her confirmation as a great victory. They fight for her not because of her excellence, but out of their blind support for their President. I strongly agree that in vetting this candidate, the Republicans must seek the higher ground and leave the insults, name calling, and in persona attacks to the dems and the Obama supporters who wallow in that filth as a matter of principle and as a matter of course. We must stay on the high road.
disturber
Marge – don’t expect any of these wingnuts to be convinced by logic or facts. They never let facts get in th way of their delusions
37. disturber:“She is hardly the intellectual equal of Scalia or Thomas and the same probably goes for Roberts and Alito.”
I will completely agree with you on that point – they are not of equal intellect, as Scalia and Roberts have the intelligence of barnyard livestock.
The rest of what you wrote is just baseless, speculative garbage.
Free Hat, what does that say about the Senators who voted to confirm Roberts as Chief Justice?
Free hat: You see, just as I could have predicted, you immediately jumped into the sewer acting precisely as a typical leftwinger. Insults and ad hominim attacks. Have you read any of the decisions of either the nominee or of the judges that you criticize? I doubt it. I don’t know what your experience and education are, but if that is what you call an intelligent argument you might consider further study. I spent a year on that very court clerking for the chief judge and wrote many opinion drafts, numerous of which became the opinions of the Court with some modification. I feel that I know something of how the appellate courts work. Several of the judges in that circuit are former classmates of mine. Ginsberg was a graduate of my law school. She is a result oriented jurist who leaves little by way of legacy and will be forgotten by history. I have read many of the nominee’s decisions and practiced law in relevant areas for 35 years. I believe the same will be true of Sotomeyer who exhibited virtually no leadership on the second circuit and will probably have the same significance at the SC.
Moogie!
You don’t know the half of it. I lived in D.C.. I have tales of tragic ambition lost. I have sagas resplendent with the littered bones of the best intentions scattered like so much disingenuous dross cast into the darkness of the soul, the heart of darkness whence all hope is lost of any victory ‘gainst the reefs of degradation, forever abandoned in a colony of squalor and disgrace. And that’s just the first two years of Boosh’s first term!
Butt, I digress….
Things could be a lot worse. The earliest people of Scotland arrived stoned, some nine thousand years ago, after the last lancination, once the land had enough ice and the climate had swerved. They were nads who hunted, fisted and gathered from their groats, bad livers, head rests and Portland, and their lice persisted for a least four millennia before the establishment of scented farting. Caroline Wick ham-Jones dismisses the evidence that exists for his taint, and spewed together with viral and pseudo-morphologies evident to look at such things as: the contempt for already established ass-hats of Scotland, the prigs, of the eely staplers, and just what was the methodology the cow people used for the scoured livers, and what stains have survived, combined with a stoical and comical hissy-fits, while tasting as she dives into distilleries and questionable men, maltmen and lawn blowers of renowned national dinks. Thank you.
Take my advice; Take the red pill.
She’s already played her hole card; She’s going to ignore poignant questions with silence.
38. The Shadow:
Right; The new drug of choice-Liberalism.
Help me out here – I keep hearing how she should be admired because she had such a hard time ‘coming up’.
How did she have such a hard time?
If I recall correctly she went to two Ivy League colleges – they aren’t cheap, and if you are going to them you aren’t suffering financially!
Talk to some of us ‘white bread’ folks, we can tell you what it was like to really have a hard life coming up.
#42 Carl Gordon:
Indeed, sir, you did digress, but as a blood carrier of Scottish descent I was able to discern your intent as it pertains to the persnickitiness of those Scots who, with visceral ascending, were able to proclaim loudly, despite the copious volume of liquidous hemoglobin gurgling into their tracheas: “FREEDOM!”
What we saw once as the clearances of the highlands is now eminent of visitation upon our own great land of purple mountains and shining seas – the over-reaching and pompous hand of the state as it encroaches and insinuates its pervasive and intrusive interference into our very core of being… who will withstand? Who will draw upon those hidden wells of rebellion and dissidence to defy those of evil intent who desire the all-encompassing inebriation and intoxication of control and power over other beings of equal bearing?
Will you?
I doubt so, kind sir, where upon your strength relies upon that which is instant and gratifying, but empty nonetheless – that which is but a mystic vapor of nothingness and emptiness and that which can neither deliver the soul from mediocrity or insignificance, but can only manipulate and pulverize the very seed of hope that is left in those who strive for excellence.
P.S. I’ll toss out more verbiage of nonsense after another glass of vino.
If we are fated to lose, we should at least profit by it. We should so expose the Leftist agenda and their base and stinking prejudices that they lose their grip on the American people.
Let the GOP wear the Spanish moss, if that is all that is left to us, but make the Dems pay a price for judges who will flay and dismember the Constitution.
disturber. I agree with your assessment of Sotomayor from the limited amount of information I have on her. I have only read one of her opinions and haven’t really analyzed her record, temperament, or philosophy. However I disagree with your conclusions about keeping their powder dry. Supreme court nominations have not been about the individual nominee for some time they are about packaging a Judicial Philosophy The left has successfully cast the activist philosophy as a dominate one and at the same time has redefined originalism as “dangerously” radical right wing extremism. This is the argument that needs to be brought to the fore in the confirmation debate. In this instance Sotomayor is a stalking horse for Obama and the left’s view about the court. The Republicans should use three lines of attack:
1) How does empathy apply in a decision and what does it mean? Ultimately for the left this means that the power of government can and should be used to adjust the outcome towards “Sympathetic” groups. The problem is the law is not suppose to make those kind of judgments. In fact ultimately those judgments will as we have seen in Kelo work against the politically weak and despised and toward the politically strong and favored. As we strive for a concept of equal protection that can’t mean that the Sympathetic win and the despised loose. When the court acts in this manner bad things happen: Dred Scott, Plessy, Kelo, etc.
2) What is the proper role of the Judiciary. Sotomayor states clearly at Duke that the appellate courts are where policy is made. She is right; however, that is not the way the constitution envisioned it. If courts promote policy then all nominees must be opposed on partisan grounds as they are appointed for life and thus cannot be forced to account by the voters in fact as we have seen this can lead to courts perpetuating policies the public rejects. The effects of the courts role in the government is that certain policy decisions will be made in the judiciary; however, that does not mean that a Judicial oligarchy should exist or that people support that. An aside to this that the nature of the lifetime appointment and the political classes general cowardice has led to the abuse of the federal judiciary it is far easier to kick politically unpopular questions to the court rather than take the risk of solving them so the court acts as a immunization to the Congress and President as well against public opinion.
3) What are proper limits on government authority. This allows a hearing of the entire issue of positive and negative rights. The court has generally held based on new deal precedents that the Interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses grant boundless regulatory powers to the Federal Government while the 14 amendment is held to demand the absolute sovereignty of Federal law. You have constant attacks against the 2nd amendment, elements of the first amendment, the 4th and 5th amendment have been stripped bare of most of their meaningful protections on property rights and the 10th amendment may as well be an archaic relic of a bygone era. As an activist Sotomayor should be made to explain these positions they are not widely held or popular and while they are certainly in the judicial mainstream they are far from the public’s perceptions of how the constitution works.
By taking this tack the Republicans have the chance albeit slim of changing the tide pushing toward confirmation. At the very least they have the chance of changing the debate back towards originalism. It lays the ground work for protracted fights on future nominees if circumstances change and puts the Democrats and the media on the defensive trying to defend some of these positions which most Americans will find somewhat extreme. The Democrats will try to make this all about race and identity politics and so will be likely be ill prepared for such an line of attack. Plus in truth race an identity politics are a loser in the long run anyway. It would endear the Republicans to their base and start staking out some positions for regrowth in the party. Eventually you have to contrast yourself from your opposition or you are doomed to perpetual defeat. That is the kind of strategy the Republicans should take with respect to Sotomayor. After all Clarence Thomas was confirmed in the end; however, his voice was neutered and he is still maligned (unfairly) by the left. If Sotomayor renounces these positions then they can vote for her with a clear conscience if she embraces them and the arguments made are effective it diminishes her influence and by extension Obama’s.
I posted this in response to Hanson’s article about Postmodernism in the Obama administration. I think it fits here, too, and I hope The Powers (Pajamas?) That Be will excuse the repetition:
Let’s see if I can distill Sotomayor’s logic:
We can never achieve perfection. We can never be wholly virtuous. Since virtue fails us, let us fall back on vice, which is always abundant. Let us embrace and praise vice, so that we need never again fear imperfection.
This is the meme that we need to counter Sotomayor-speak. We need to bring this weapon to bear whenever we are faced with the argument that since we’re never good enough, we should stop trying to be good.
Uriel, I agree largely with your analysis. However, given the political balance in the Senate and the makeup of the Judiciary Committee, I am doubtful that such a broad based development will be allowed. I also agree that the Republicans should address any and all of the issues that you raise, but in a respectable fashion. I watched the Thomas confirmation hearings and felt that the country and its traditions took an awful hit and I was right. I would be nice if Ricci were decided before her confirmation hearings, but that is a pipe dream I suppose.
Disturber
Disturber, You may be right about the make up of the Senate. Plus I agree with your earlier analysis that the Republicans are going to pick their fights very carefully. This is a shame because only by staking out new ground are you going to rebuild, you can’t do it around the margins. I agree completely about the Thomas confirmation hearings they demonstrated all of the worst characteristics of partisanship, political pandering, and grandstanding. Unfortunately those who engaged in it have not paid a price and have in fact been lionized for it. That is the real shame.
Uriel
From NPR
“As a judge, Sotomayor has ruled in 100 cases that involve questions of racial discrimination of one sort or another. Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court advocate and founder of the leading Supreme Court blog, has read all of those decisions. He says that Sotomayor does not seem to put her thumb on the scale and has in fact, most of the time, ruled against those charging discrimination.
In only 1 of out 8 cases, he says, has she favored in some sense claims of discrimination.
“The fact that she so rarely upholds discrimination claims I think answers the idea that she is always angling for minorities,” he says. “
Way to go to insure that the Republicans stay a minority
“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Sonia Sotomayor?
Fav Unfav
All: 56 29
Dem: 81 6
Rep: 18 73
Ind: 57 25
White: 48 38
Black: 70 9
Latino: 82 5 (See that, Manny?)
Northeast: 67 16
Midwest: 59 25
West: 57 26
South: 45 44
“
45. Walt: You obviously had it hard, not graduating the 5th grade and all.