« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

BREAKING: Obama Picks Sotomayor

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 26th, 2009 at 09:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Conservatives rejoice. Of all the picks Obama could have picked, he picked the most intellectually shallow.

Even the New Republic has been rather scathing about her. It’s like Obama decided he wanted a Souter to replace Souter.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tankertodd

    From the Propaganda Shed AP:
    As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

    Of course Republicans do SUCH a good job selecting judges, so having Bush ’41′s imprimatur on Sotomayor makes me FEEL SO MUCH BETTER! I for one am ready to ROLL OVER and support this selection.

    Horse Hockey! And I don’t even know the woman yet.

  • mikefisk

    Affirmative action President selects affirmative action judge.

    And the great lowering of standards continues apace.

  • http://deafconservative.wordpress.com Cheetah772

    By the way, isn’t a Supreme Court Justice supposed to interpret the Constitution properly and judge fairly regardless of who may stand before him or her? What’s this about “common touch,” or “empathy”? I’m totally lost on that one!

  • bk

    by yelling louder

  • psyop_hic

    …Sotomayor publicly admitting her beliefs in the role of the judiciary. Judge Sotomayor believes that “courts make policy…” I’m not kidding, watch the video… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo

  • Section9

    Althouse is right, however. Save the big fight for the next pick when it matters and when we’re stronger. Make some statements right now on Sotomayor’s Guevarista tendencies and get some stuff on the record, marvel at Arlen’s retreat into Scottish Law, but don’t fall for Obama’s bear trap with Hispanic voters.

  • txaggies911

    is people like you who use it as a crutch to bash ANY minority of note that they disagree with. What about Sotomayor suggests that she is an affirmative action pick? She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, was editor of the Yale Law Review, has 30 years of legal experience, and received her first judicial appointment nearly 18 years back. She has credentials whether or not you like her.

    PLEASE don’t use AA as a crutch. If it’s the best you’ve got, just keep quiet.

  • djemi
  • Toneman

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q&feature=related

    She claims that she’s not promoting it, but by even acknowledging it, she is endorsing it.

  • mikefisk

    …refuse to play identity politics.

    I don’t care what constituencies she might represent… if she’s a bad judge (and even TNR seems to think so), then we need to resist her being there.

    End. Of. Story.

  • http://www.buzzbrockway.com Buzz Brockway

    According to the AP:

    Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

    Did we think the most historic President ever would not pick the best nominee ever?

  • Common_Cents
  • mikefisk

    …is that she’s a pick to satisfy certain demographic bases, irrespective of her soundness for the court. Nobody’s arguing her legal credentials; I will admit they are incredibly impressive. What I am arguing is her temperament for being a Supreme Court justice, which is a position that it seems manifestly obvious that she’s not cut out for.

    She’s a successful and powerful litigator, but she doesn’t have the chops for a jurist, and her overbearing demeanor does no one any favors, especially in having a hand in deciding the most crucial legal arguments of our day.

  • Sundayjack

    . . . where I wouldn’t mind having Perez Hilton ask the questions.

  • Common_Cents
  • SG_Lominac
  • red4ever

    It would be a trifecta of special interest groups.

    Not that I have anything against a woman, a hispanic or a lesbian being on the Court. But, those should not be the overriding considerations in choosing a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Sotomayer is not even liked by her own colleagues. She is not the Left’s answer to Scalia. Plus, she is so activist that I can’t even begin to describe it. She thinks that the judicial branch makes policy.

    I do wonder if she was the extreme pick so when her nomination goes down in flames, the next one will seem wonderful in comparison.

  • nonameteapot

    Do we have to take the blindfold off the symbol of justice now?

  • Common_Cents

    We will pick a nominee with the highest regard for the law, not by their positions on issues or political leanings!

  • Kyle-MI

    As Obama’s first pick, everyone will be paying attention to this. This is a chance for Republican Senators to educate the public about judicial activism and advocate for the conservative judicial philosophy. It is free publicity. The GOP needs to get its act together and not just mindlessly bash her. They need to ask tough questions that will put her on the spot and make her judicial philosophy look bad. Of course we don’t have the votes to stop her, but we need to set the climate for the next candidate as well as for the Senate races in 2010 and beyond.

  • Kyle-MI

    keep repeating the phrase ‘first Hispanic’ on the Supreme Court. Obama made this a political pick as his top priority. Do you really think she is the best qualified candidate for the Supreme Court?

  • jeffreywturner

    “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

    This quote is from her Senate confirmation hearing upon her elevation to the Circuit Court of Appeals a decade ago. If this is her true and honest feeling, I would say she is the best nominee any of us could hope for from any President. However, given Obama’s track record of letting ideology drive any and every decision, I just can’t bring myself to believe that he would nominate someone who actually thinks that way. But hey, I could be wrong, she could very well end up being to Obama what Souter was to Bush 41.

  • stang

    From Domenico Montanaro at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

    “Two, would Republicans dare vote against the first Hispanic, especially after their rhetoric during the immigration debate of 2006-2007 clearly hurt them with this important voting bloc?”

    The lib’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. Miguel Estrada

    ?The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.?

    Peter Brimelow

  • red4ever

    By assuming that all Hispanics will support her. That assumes that all Hispanics think alike, have no individuality. They not a solid voting bloc that just votes en masse as they are told. If we are truly the party of individual responsibility, that means we see everyone as an individual, not as a mindless voting bloc. Therefore, our decisions should be based on principles, not sterotyping.

    Given how strongly Catholic some Hispanics are, I don’t seem them supporting Judge Sotomayer given her probably positions on abortion and gay marriage. Yeah, I am making assumptions too.

  • antisocial

    This was pure political pander. Remember her “policy” making comment?

    I think Affirmative Action is the best way to describe it.

  • nonameteapot

    During her confirmation hearing I would love for Republicans to bring up the torture issue and tie in to partial-birth abortion or botched birth abortion. Is torturing non-Americans only a crime, or could it be considered torture to leave an aborted born-alive baby to die in a trash can for 2 hours torture?

  • Kyle-MI

    From what I have seen so far, it seems she is a target rich environment for conservatives. There are plenty of issues on which to attack her before bringing up racial preferences. However, if the MSM wants to level that charge against Republicans, then we should be able to say that we are only defending ourselves against their charges. There should be plenty of times that the MSM will ask the question.

  • davidscott

    May I suggest that instead of leaving her description at that (“Intellectually shallow”) that we add…because she supports racial preferences in the Connecticut fireman case(which is a racially shallow positiion)…because she supports homosexual marriage (unless she wants to state in response to numerous questions regarding that issue that she does NOT support homosexual marriage and does not believe the Constitution mandates such). If we leave our criticism of her that she is “intellectually shallow” we play into Obama’s hands in terms of being -ist as “clearly” we believe any non-white male is not intellectually competent. Rather that we state that anyone who supports racial preferences and homosexual marriage is clearly intellectually shallow.

  • mikefisk

    …she won’t be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, unless you use a narrow definition of “Hispanic”. Benjamin Cardozo beat her to it by 77 years.

    (They try to clear that away nowadays by referring to Hispanic as solely of Spanish heritage, although Hispania was the entire Iberian Peninsula, meaning that Cardozo, who was of Portuguese descent, would have been first).

  • davidscott

    That she was a George HW Bush nominee? I am sure that will be the lead introduction on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. HW delivers for us again, one HW nominee replaced by another lightweight HW nominee who supports racial preferences and homosexual marriage. Who needs enemies when we have the Bush legacy?

  • davidscott

    to bring up homosexual marriage, over and over again.

  • davidscott

    Obviously she said something completely different once ON the court (for a lifetime). Which raises the question? Why would someone say they believe in Justice Scalia’s “Dead Constitution” to win support, and revert to the “living Constitution” once safely on the bench? Almost as if someone believes to garner support from the people, the dead constitution resonates?

  • Kyle-MI

    n/t

  • rfpzzzzz

    Do you remember that statue of the blindfolded judge holding the scales of justice in the balance? Fa -getta-bout-it!

  • Marcus_Traianus

    This should be a fun intellectual confirmation process.

    Obama picks a liberal activist judge whose own career aptly displays the failure of quotas. Sotomayer has an extraordinarily high rate of reversal and made several statements which reveal her extra-constitutional proclivities.

    Republicans better get their act together for this confirmation hearing.

  • Tbone

    Hopefully, her abrasive poersonality will marginalize her influence.

  • stang

    Republicans will be called racists for opposing her. For any reason.

    Need more coffee?

  • Common_Cents

    “She was appointed by a REPUBLICAN! George HW Bush.”

    The gifts that keeps on giving.

    Read my lips. No more taxes!

    Souter and now Sotomayor.

    We need some game!

    Read my lips, No more liberal judges, ever.

  • bs

    “Another result of Failed Bush Policies” and point out what a glaring screwup it was for GHWB to nominate her.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/05/26/on-empathy/

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • davidscott

    about what type of SCOTUS nominee Obama would pick, so I am sure he is as surprised as the rest of us that Obama nominated a homosexual marriage, racial preference, abortion on demand supporting left-winger (that, oh yeah, was a George HW Bush nominee, too!).

  • snewb098

    Just one liberal replacing another.
    And when Ginsburg goes same thing.
    Vote will be still 5-4.
    Curious on the timing of the announcement
    to take Korea & Iran off the front pages.

  • chrisie

    The MSM is touting Sotomayor as a bipartisan pick but is she really? This is an interesting tidbit on Michelle Malkin’s site.

    …The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a ?bipartisan pick? because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton?s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

  • juumanistra

    Though I suppose that depends on how you define “better”. Currently doing my three-year tour of duty in the trenches of law school, I’ve got an acutely personal knowledge of the pain caused by the appointment of mediocre jurists to the High Court. (Casey v. Planned Parenthood, both in its holding and sheer unreadability, is a testament to that.) The appointment of another serviceable but undistinguished jurist from the federal appellate bench is simply a waste and is likely to produce another generation of lackluster opinions that are bereft of either consistency or coherence.

    Not every justice can have a Scalian intellect or command of the English language. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t demand substantive intellectual heft from nominees to the High Court any way, regardless of the party that nominates them.

  • juumanistra

    Invert the parties in Casey. Brain took leave of me.

  • leftylurker

    It’s a pretty strategic pick in my opinion.

    I’m not familiar with her opinions, but it could put Western Republican senators in a bind, right? It’s not fun to oppose the “first” of any demographic group, and in reference to earlier comments, I’ll say Latina rather than Hispanic. As much as you want to make it about the issues, the MSM will make it about race. Then you get Colin Powell and Tom Ridge up there saying she’s a great pick…

    You know the rest. It’s BS, even I can see that now, but that’s the story.

  • Section9

    Republicans won’t be able to run her off the Reservation for political reasons.

    Aside from Scottish Law and other things, K Street is concerned about the reaction in the Hispanic Community in 2010 if Republicans start beating up on a Hispanic Horatio Alger.

    So, they won’t necessarily stand in her way. What they will do is make her lay out, chapter and verse, her posiitions on aborition on demand, affirmative action, the Fire case, Hamdan, Extraordinary Renditiion vs. Gitmo, etc., etc,. etc.

    If the GOP listens to little ol’ me, which they won’t, they will frame thier questioning in a way to cause maximum confusion and division within the Democratic Party.

    The point is not to defeat Sotomayor. We can’t. That’s for the next “swing vote” nominee. The point is to adversely affect the intellectual terrain for 2010.

  • jeffreywturner

    She may just be making a statement of fact. In other words, she may be simply saying that is the way it is, and not that SHOULD be that way. In which case, she would be correct, because as much as we hate it, the SCOTUS does make policy, at least until Kennedy or one of the liberals is replaced by another originalist and they can return to interpreting law rather than making it.

  • Kyle-MI

    The GOP can be dumb about it and play into their trap, or they can attack it in a smart way. Liberals will always call Republicans racists, but we need to fight for the swing voters.

  • jeffreywturner

    However, at least that statement is better than any Ginsburg ever made as far as I can tell. What I am saying is that there is at least some doubt as to her lockstep liberal judicial activist philosophy, so we can at least hope she turns out to be a good judge. God only knows, the Democrats deserve a Souter. We have had our fair share.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FjY2I2ZTk5ZWVhMTgyYjI0ZTEzMzViM2EzOTk4YjA=

    Perhaps it was a misprint and NRO meant DNC?

    Way to rally the troops, Michael.

  • jeffreywturner

    “Same-sex marriage”, not “homosexual marriage”. There are lots of “closeted” gays who are currently married to people of the opposite sex, which is perfectly legal.

  • Joe_Cor

    “surrender” is not only an option, it is the only option. Maybe “RNC” stands for “RINO National Committee.”

  • smitch61

    Well… I am not sure how the republicans should handle this. I can tell you though that as much crap as the democrats give republican nominees a fight is probably deserved. However; lets face it, republicans do not stoop as low as the democrats,and for whatever reason can not fight as nasty,probably to our credit. Part of me would like the republican leadership to say aloud that we will question fairly and speak out against all of the shinanigans the dem’s have pulled over the years in regard to previous nominations. I would also like them to bring up Obama’s decent in all previous nominees. Then approve the nomination with class. again, just my two cents.

  • smitch61
  • skorrent1

    As long as affirmative action is an accepted government policy the accomplishments of any minority individual will be viewed skeptically. The left is eager to use the same stick against any conservative of color — “They’d never have made it without affirmative action!”

    Much as I enjoy the objective measures of sporting events, there is still a tendency, as Rush pointed out about black quarterbacks, for the media to lower expectations for the minority figure.

  • wennejunk

    I do wonder if she was the extreme pick so when her nomination goes down in flames, the next one will seem wonderful in comparison.

    That’s what I thought as well. Put up a candidate that the GOP will bash themselves to pieces on and then withdraw that candidate for the ‘real’ candidate

  • texas214

    The Republican tack should be to let her defend her words. Don’t line up against her, let the public see what they are getting, then allow the process to move wherever is should at that time. In the art of war timing is everything and by coming out to soon against her, without the voting public completely understanding what they have here, will make her an empathetic figure.

    Allowing her to hurt herself, either in how she defends her statements or in her potentially shallow arguments, will allow the Republicans the oppurtunity to “take the high ground” if and when they oppose her.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    I find the timeing interesting too, but for different reasons. (I’m not sure wherether the timing is adventageous to Democrats or Republicans.) As always, the first few days of each party’s response are critical.

    With the California Supreme Court decision on homosexual marriage due out any hour, you could look at the timing several ways: Will this take away coverage from Obama’s SCOTUS pick, take away coverage from California Supremes decision (whatever it may be), and/or highlight the importance of Obama’s SCOTUS pick?

  • peters

    Standards are slipping around here. C’mon now, second?! This is Red State gosh darn it. This comment should have been made immediately, not a full 5 minutes after the story was posted.

  • citadelsdaughter

    Definition of catholic (adjective)
    ….free from provincial prejudices or attachments

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Spell check doesn’t solve everything. Implementation is also important. I spell checked this in Word and made the corrections, but forgot to replace the original version.

  • Achance
  • mikefisk

    These newfangled troll traps are fantastic!

  • red_oakster

    D”Amato and Moynihan had an arrangement whereby the each Senator would get every fourth trial judge nomination when their party did not hold the White House. Sotomayer was a Moynihan slot that Bush nominated. They had this arrangement to ensure New York got all of their judicial appointments filled and avoided any blue slips.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    I would have needed the extra clarification to avoid the ambiguity.

  • Lords86

    in an effort to portray this transition as a victory for liberalism.

    Indeed, the less-learned media will argue that this announcement is a potential swing on the Supreme Court. This pick, however, is really a non-starter from a Supreme Court jurisprudence standard. Replacing one liberal with another does nothing to change the direction of this Court.

    Furthermore, this pick can hardly be called heavyweight. There is always the prospect that a new justice, even though most junior, assumes a latent, partisan leadership role on the Court, principally because of who the justice is, in stature, as much as in judicial philosophy. Based on what I have read, I don’t presume that this is such a pick.

  • blooch
  • pappyman

    …like Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzales. In comparison to those potential disasters Obama did pretty good.

    Republicans should hold their fire for the next nominee, who is bound to be a hell of a lot more liberal and activist. Attacking Sotomayor for no good reason will just further alienate the party to Hispanic voters and women, who will be needed in order to regain the status as a national party.

    Keep your powder dry, boys!

  • pappyman

    dissent?

    descent?

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    n/t

  • Lammo

    . . . so we won’t be able to see Justice crying.

  • Lammo

    but I believe she is likely her own little personal 9th Circus. How does her record of reversal, which I understand to be significant, compare to the most reversed Circuit in the country?

  • Lammo

    shouldn’t “botched birth abortion” be “botched abortion birth”?

    :-)

  • Lammo

    when Kennedy goes, or, God forbid, Scalia or Thomas (or Roberts or Alito but that shouldn’t be soon as they are much younger).

  • The_Gadfly

    Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

    The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.

    Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice.”

    from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2258334/posts?page=3

    Make her defend the public statements she has made since being appointed to the court and explain them with reference to her earlier commitment to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.

    Make her explain how it is that she will now not rule erroneously on SCOTUS when she was so frequently overturned in the past.

    Make her explain the philosophy on which she will base her decisions.

    And never forget the Leftists in charge will never, ever, under any circumstances keep their powder dry. We must meet them with the same ferocious defense of our constitution if we are to defend our God given liberty. Bullies tend to back down after they’ve been beaten to a pulp by a person they tried to bully.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    significant without knowing more, but she has been reversed 88 times in 12 years I think, which is quite a lot.

  • WallySobchak

    The ‘policy’ comment you refer to was taken out of context. She was describing differences between clerking at the district court vs the appeals court levels. Since any decision handed down by the appeals court is in fact policy for the district courts in the circuit, I fail to see the problem with her line of reasoning.

  • WallySobchak

    She’s saying that appeals court decisions are policy for the district court in that circuit. Is that controversial?

  • itrytobenice

    If republicans don’t spell out clearly what is wrong with picks like Sotomayor, we have abdicated our responsibility as citizens, as representatives of the republic, and as upholders of the Constitution and the rule of law.

    We should do extensive research and pull out every single poorly written, unconstitutional writing she has ever made and present it to her with a clear statement as to how or why such statement is unconstitutional and a demand that she justify it.

    If we fail to do that, we have enabled the democrats in their quest to destroy our justice system for one of ‘empathy’.

  • Lammo

    I agree. You do have to look behind the curtain, but in this case it does sort look like a smoke/fire situation.

  • DONTREADONME

    Did you just drop by to defend Zero? I watched the video and she was indeed talking about the application and policy of the law not policy applied to the district court. The only district court policy part is that the appeals court interprets the application of the law or makes policy from the law and hands it down to the district court to remedy the case if applicable.

  • evanm

    Because when normal people make non-controversial descriptions of well-known distinctions, they don’t follow it up with:

    …and I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t “make law,” I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m . . you know.

  • blooch

    so take your time answering:

    What is the most enchanting, exhilarating, liberating, non-patriarchal thing you have felt about your nomination to the Supreme Court?”

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    followed liberal court precedent and were not reversed!

  • Swamp_Yankee

    They probably heard of Ricci. Explain to them Soto’s role and her callous dismissal of the claims. Her opinion alone sucked, but the rude and indifferent manner in which she dismissed valid claims is another story.

    Firemen talk.

  • red4ever

    No, it is not policy. Policy is something the executive branch sets that determines the tone or approach. What the ppeals court hands down is binding interpretations of the law. As in, this is how the law is interpreted in cases of this type. All lower courts under that appellate court are bound to follow it, unless an argument can be made that the particular binding law does not apply in this particular case. Surely, as smart a person as Sotomayer allegedly is (since she has such a great personal story) knows the difference between executive branch policy making and judicial branch interpretation.

    So, she is either an idiot or someone who believes in the judicial branch encroaching on the other two branches of government.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    the context that I heard in the soundbite and even more so the laughter and wink and nod response as she giggled at the public faux pas, she revealed the not so secret modus operandi of liberal judges.

    Now, there are narrow circumstances where judges do properly make policy, where the constitution or statute law intentionally uses vague language that invite the court to inject their judgment like “reasonable” searches, etc

    But sometimes statutes are so vague that the proper response from the court should be to dismiss the case.

    But the main thing liberals do is re-write constitutions to make law improperly, and they know it, hence the nervous laughter in the soundbite.

  • red4ever

    that if Republicans fight this nomination that Hispanics will hate us. That is assuming all Hispanics think alike, vote alike, care exactly the same about everything.

    Since they don’t, we should fight for Republican principles — less government means no activist judges either left or right. Let’s not waste time worrying about how the “Hispanic Voters” will feel about it.

  • red4ever

    Everyone would have been calling him a racist and demanding he be impeached — then tarred, feathered and run out of the country on a rail. Racism is wrong whether coming for an old white guy or an old white lady of hispanic descent.

    When the Dems start calling me a racist for opposing her, I can’t wait to throw this in their faces.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • 6eorge Jetson
  • Ezekiel

    Obama messed up on this pick.

    First, the time was ripe for him to pick as rabidly liberal a candidate as he could.

    The GOP does not have the votes now to filibuster this pick. That will change in 2010 as we gain a seat or two. Wood was the pick I was sure he would make for this very reason, as I viewed her as the worst of the worst.

    Second, Sotomayor may end up being the Democrats’ Souter.

    She has no major opinions on abortion and two minor ones actually saw her supporting the side of abortion protesters. As a Hispanic Catholic, she may not be pro-abortion. It’s about time the Democrats got Soutered on a SCOTUS pick.

    I was bracing for Obama to pick Wood and am grateful he did not. I think it behooves us to keep our powder dry on this pick in preparation for the next one, which undoubtedly will be more liberal.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • papalee

    In the New Haven Firefighter case that she is an anti-white racist. In short, she is a leftist who believes that the federal courts are for making policy which the legislators know better to touch and a functional illiterate because she can’t understand the meaning of equal.

  • blooch

    pappyman…as in “Pappy Bush”. Can’t believe this humpback is still here.

  • papalee

    The left savaged all the much better Hispanic picks of W so any attempts to pander to the Hispanic vote will only alienate the votes of those who have been the prime victims of leftist racism, i.e., whites and especially white males.

  • papalee

    Or are you completely unaware of her record where even Democrat appointed judges have verbally spanked her for not being either to the point or to the law?

  • blooch
  • Swamp_Yankee

    Left having fits over it. Little do they realize that no one really cares. We admit Huck is a doofus.

  • its_a_right_wing_thing

    Forget about this “red herring” pick or “once she gets defeated it will make the 2nd choice look better by comparison”. She”s gonna get in easily due to the overwhelming Democratic majorities in each chamber.

    That and the Republicans are too passive to actually fight a pick from The One. They have no organization and no leader. They’ll let her roll on through. The worst part about all this is the PC President makes a typical PC pick having made no bones about a woman and a “Hispanic” (PC term at that) choice. A woman was nominated just to reflect the changing demographics of this country and His vision of “change”.

    Wonder when Spanish will be forced upon the people or at least be required to do business? Probably the same time the Quran is which should also be coming.

    Also, I expect her to be a bleading heart open borders advocate seeing how she can “empathize” with them as they share her culture? Isn’t that what The One said all along? HE wanted someone who felt people’s pain and struggle (pverty BS). Government programs will probably also be expanded (taxpayer cost) as we continue to advocate socialism and social welfare.

    On the positive, it could have been worse. At least she’s 54 and not 35 or 40 meaning she’ll get about 15 years shorter time. Also, I fully expected someone from the Democratic machine or a black Muslim so this isn’t as bad but conservatives are being delusional if they actually “like” this pick and think it has any chance at defeat.

    She’s from the Bronx so you know she’s rough, pushy, and liberal. Safe pick from The One. Now if only GW Bush was smarter instead of choosing a New England (NH) nominee back in 1991 in Souter. He should have played to his base and got someone from the South but that would have made too much sense.

  • truthseeker77

    But the author of this diary conveniently doe snot mention that, as if TNR represented the “left.”

  • philojunius

    Like everyone else!

  • DONTREADONME

    You can celebrate diversity all you want, I prefer to celebrate individuality which looks at the individual and not the color of his skin or sexual preference. Please tell me you are being snark.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    If that’s not a word describing liberals, it should be.

  • DONTREADONME

    Philo junius, if this is you http://influencepeddler.blogspot.com/2009_04_26_archive.html
    I apologize for the quick jump down the throat, but there has been a number of posers and troublemakers dropping by to dirty up the comment boards on the Daily Kos birthday.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Kid, be grateful that I don’t ban people for inadvertent irony.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    That’s an instant-ban right there.

  • stang

    Which swing voters are you referring to? And what is this “smart way” to attack?

    Please explain.

  • stang

    Which is the lib’s stock in trade. They gave up trying to make intellectually honest arguments long ago.

    What matters is whether or not you believe she will adhere to this:

    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    And that’s what we need to continue emphaize as the “story”. Period. Arguing anything else is accepting and validating the the lib’s identity politics narrative.

    I do agree with you on the MSM and BS. Your blindfold is slipping. ;-)

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    +Identity Politics – Identity Politics
    +Hispanic SCOTUS nominee – first Hispanic on SCOTUS?
    +SoSo NOT the first – Yahoo: Is Sotomayor the First (or Second) Hispanic Pick for the Supreme Court? A:second (First was a Republican appointment)

    I hope today doesn’t turn into a pick on Lefty day ;-) but Lefty you really have to not be paying attention or really too ingrained in the PC racism definitions to not see the obvious with SoSo’s pick….

    She was over-turned on siding with another court about a Reverse-discrimination case (oxymoron, of course, no such thing – discrimination is discrimination and we are supposed to have EQUAL JUSTICE not Empathetic and/or Redistributive Justice…. the 14 Legislative agenda items (and other things) Obama wants to distract from

    Take care friend

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    you are 100% correct the Liberally biased MSM will be making this all about RACE-baiting. Republicans MUST NOT fall for the BS yet again and stay focused on how it is about JUDICIAL ACTIVISM (SoSo and Obama) over EQUAL JUSTICE (Republicans)

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

    there is a difference. Justice can see, but chooses to be blindfolded in the application of the law.

  • Kyle-MI

    They are the ones who vote more on feelings and impressions rather than follow the issues. I believe the 30/30/40 rule, that is there are about 30% liberals, 30% conservatives, and 40% who are swing voters (not to be confused with so-called moderates). We need to protect our base and win over a majority of those who do not have as strong a philosophical foundation – those who don’t think things through as much.

    The dumb way to fight this is to attack her as an affirmative action pick. (Yes, she is, but it is only playing to our base.) You can attack her on her stance to affirmative action but it will not resonate as well as some other attacks. We need to hit her were she is most in opposition to the majority of public opinion on issues like private property rights (Kelo) and 2nd amendment issues. Also we cannot just assert she is wrong on these positions. Our Senators need to ask tough smart questions and get her to admit her positions.

  • Kyle-MI

    If we let this nominee go through without a fight, then the Dems and the MSM will ask why we are fighting now when we were ok with the last liberal judicial activist.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit
  • philojunius

    Yes that is I, I thought the irony of celebrating diversity in mindless conformity was apparent. My mistake.

  • DONTREADONME

    if you have seen what we have been putting up with today, and I am in the middle of another one over on another thread, you would understand my quick trigger finger. I hope you took my apology as sincere, it was.

    Today has been quite the circus around here, it is like killing a slug in the garden you kill one then it seems three more pop up the next day. Again, I did get you wrong. Oh, a happy face would have helped prevent me from making a horses butt out of myself :)

  • 6eorge Jetson

  • Lammo

    I received an RNC solicitation in today’s mail. I’m sending back marked $0.00 contribution and a “not yet” on my renewal indicating I was going to wait to see whether they actually opposed “So-So” and the rest of the left’s train wreck of an agenda.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    I don’t blame GOP Senators for not stating the obvious yet, as I usually do on most issues (like Pelosi, etc) given that she is a nominee and should be given a chance to explain before senators declare their opposition, although, given her record on the bench and her statements, I would not consider it unreasonable for senators to declare qualified opposition pending the hearing.

    One thing is clear: Sotomayor makes policy from the bench based on race and gender, etc. She destroys the rule of law.

    And quite frankly, I actually think she might go down on this issue.

  • TNJim
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    that I am judging her soul, whether one harbors hatred based on race or has simply bought into the liberal grievance, get even mindset with a pure heart, the damage of such an opinion is the same, and so what matters is whether one will make decisions and policy based on race and gender, etc rather than merit and facts and law.

    By that standard, most libs and dems should be rejected for the court and for any political office. In fact, identity politics defines libs and dems as much as any other two words could.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit


    and thank you for stating it plain…. hope people will be paying attention… especially those who may have been your former Liberal friends but I doubt they’ll “get it” or be even open to hearing it.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    I was a public fighter against racism along with my parents who helped integrate Spartanburg in the late 60s and 70s; I hired two of the first black paralegals in my hometown; and was democrat activist for 18 years, and recently denounced a racist comment on a conservative blog that many of my liberal friends saw and applauded.

    Moreover, this case is so stark, that I am certain that 3-4 dems at least will vote against her.

    Pray I can employ the right strategy, because we have the raw material to really expose the libdems on this issue now and shame many libs into seeing it clearly for the first time.

    I am telling you all, this kind of raw racism in her statements are not popular. These are the kinds of things they routinely cringe at and welcome the msm’s cover ups, but given the Ricci case and the statements and her long record, I think there is a real chance she could go down.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    Another PRO-UNION stance give away they will focus on…. can’t be bothered with the important stuff like her “Judicial malpractice,” we’ll be hearing that term eventually more and more, over the Firemen discrimination case where she basically IGNORED the Constitutional grounds for/of their argument (because it didn’t fit with the Ruling she wanted for the Liberal Activism from the Bench Cause she was more concerned with/about)…. and then this CLOWN could be around on the SCOTUS if/when it gets kicked up to the SCOTUS?!?!?! (That part, I’m not hearing ANYONE but me mentioning)

  • Diogenes314

    Actually she was a Moynihan pick.

    The higher courts are often the stage for ideologically-based confirmation fights. The lower district courts, are, in the words of one former Bush official, “darn near patronage jobs.” Senators, even those in the opposing party from the White House, wield great power over who is nominated to the district court seats in their states. And in 1991, when Sotomayor was nominated, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D’Amato.

    By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D’Amato had a longstanding arrangement. “It was a special deal whereby D’Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats,” another former Bush official told me. “That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees.” That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.

    And at that moment, in 1991, it was Moynihan’s turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. “She was not our first choice,” recalls a third Bush I official, “but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position — essentially someone we had to go with.”

  • Diogenes314

    And apparently forgot how to do html at 330 in the AM…

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Why-did-George-HW-Bush-pick-Sotomayor-for-the-courts-46094732.html

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Only by a very liberal definition might Cardozo qualify as “Hispanic.” His ancestors emigrated from LONDON before the American Revolution.

    I suspect that in order to actually find Hispanic blood in Justice Cardozo, you’d have to go back to the 16th century or so. His ancestors were reputedly Maranos, secret Jews masquerading as Christians in Portugal, and IIRC they were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula in the early 1500s.