Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House Cheat Sheet: Five Senators to Watch on Sotomayor

Forty-eight hours into the confirmation process of U.S. appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, there remains little reason to think she will not ultimately be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

That doesn't mean, however, that there won't be real drama over the next two months with opportunities taken -- and, more deliciously, lost.

The major players -- Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and sherpa Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- are well known to any political junkie worth that title.

But, who else in the Senate is worth keeping an eye on as the Sotomayor confirmation ramps up?

Given that Democrats are expected to line up solidly behind their popular president and his pick, most of the action will come on the Republican side as GOP senators use the Sotomayor selection to forward their own political futures -- whatever they may be.

Our five senators to watch are below. Keep the list handy.

John Cornyn (R-Texas): As a member of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a senator from a state where the Hispanic vote is big and getting bigger, there's a lot at stake in the Sotomayor confirmation for Big Bad John. Cornyn has made a point at the NRSC of recruiting moderate candidates in places like Pennsylvania, Florida, Delaware and Illinois but his own politics are far more conservative. How does he balance those competing interests? And, if nothing obviously disqualifying comes to light about Sotomayor, can he keep his colleagues in line to avoid a perception problem for his candidates on the trail next November?

Jim DeMint (R-S.C.): The South Carolina Republican has been viewed as the conservative leader-in-waiting for the Senate GOP for some time. With the conservative base absolutely up in arms about Sotomayor, DeMint is the most likely figure to channel that anger onto the Senate floor and, in doing so, emerge as the next hero of the party's base. Conservatives could do far worse: soft-spoken and unfailingly polite, DeMint is hard to demonize, even for those on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum.

John Ensign (R-Nev.): Ensign has publicly acknowledged an interest in running for president, which will be formalized by his trip to Iowa next week. That interest would suggest Ensign might be one of the leading voices in opposition to Sotomayor. But, Ensign also represents a state where one in every five residents is Hispanic, a number sure to increase by the time the Nevada Republican is set to stand for reelection in 2012. How Ensign positions himself on Sotomayor then will tell us much about how he sees his political future. Does he hold back on criticizing her in order to preserve his chances at another Senate term? Or does he go all-out in opposition to Sotomayor to raise his national profile and prove his conservative chops to Republican activists who have an outsized say in the identity of the next presidential nominee?

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): The Sotomayor selection is a gift for Gillibrand. Not only is Sotomayor from New York -- meaning that Gillibrand will get some national attention as one of the two home state senators -- but she is also Hispanic, a fact that should allow Gillibrand to make peace with a Hispanic community upset with her past positioning on immigration. Gillibrand -- with a MAJOR assist from the White House -- has done well in clearing the 2010 primary field of serious opposition and, if she plays her hand right in the Sotomayor confirmation, may close the window of opportunity entirely for any ambitious pols thinking of challenging her next year.

John McCain (R-Ariz.): Even if McCain didn't have a primary challenge from one of the founders of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group, his status as the GOP's most recent presidential nominee would make him a major player in this debate. Like him or hate him, most (and we emphasize most) of McCain's colleagues respect him and will watch where he comes down on Sotomayor. If McCain ultimately gets behind her, it gives cover to other Republicans to do the same; if he opposes her, it makes life for the nominee -- and the president -- more difficult.

What to Watch For:

Thursday's Fix Picks: Barca wins!

1. The Macker: profiled.
2. Peter Baker's masterpiece on Bill Clinton. Read this twice. At least.
3. Understanding Chris Dodd.
4. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox (R) is in the Michigan governor's race.
5. AT&T wireless access is going to get faster. iPhone owners rejoice!

2012 Like It's Tomorrow: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will make a stop in the nation's capital today to headline a panel sponsored by the Workforce Fairness Institute on the potential negative impact of the Employee Free Choice Act. Romney has worked with WFI before -- appearing on a conference call in April to voice his strong opposition to the bill, which is almost certain to reemerge later this summer for a fight in the Senate. The legislation is regarded by the business community as THE critical fight of the 111th Congress and Romney's central role in the pushback against the bill is -- yet another -- sign of his prime positioning for the 2012 presidential race.

Follow Me: A trio of would-be senators worth following on Twitter -- Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bill White (D-Texas), for his live tweeting of Houston Rockets games, and, of course, Stormy Daniels (R-La.).

Jeb Jr. For Rubio: Kremlinologists of the Florida political scene had a field day yesterday when Jeb Bush Jr. (a.k.a. Jebby), the son of the former Florida governor, threw his support behind former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in his Senate primary race against Gov. Charlie Crist. "Marco Rubio represents the best in what our party should strive to be and who it must engage -- he is young, conservative and believes in the principles of our Founding Fathers," Bush Jr. wrote in a letter to supporters. Jebby's endorsement is rightly read a tacit blessing of Rubio's candidacy by former governor Jeb Bush and a rejection of Crist, the man who followed him into office in 2006. It remains to be seen whether Bush himself will publicly support Rubio who is a decided underdog in the race against Crist.

Flanagan to Connecticut: Colleen Flanagan, who handled press for Sen. Kay Hagan's (D-N.C.) successful 2008 presidential Senate campaign, is returning to the best state in the union -- Connecticut, as though you had to ask -- to serve as communications director for the state Democratic party. Flanagan is returning to her roots in the Nutmeg State, having worked for the state Senate Democratic Caucus and for the presidential bid of Sen. Chris Dodd. Dodd's reelection race -- the toughest of his career -- will almost certainly be Flanagan's top priority at the state party, as will trying to knock off Gov. Jodi Rell (R). What is Flanagan most looking forward to in her new job? "Openly cheering for UConn over UNC or Duke in the office and not being shunned for it," she wrote in an email announcing the move. Well, no one's perfect -- GO HOYAS!

Say What?: "I did not do it." -- Illinois Sen. Roland Burris denies allegations that he engaged in pay to play politics to win an appointment to the Senate in an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 28, 2009; 5:32 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sestak (Likely) In Against Specter
Next: Specter's (Potential) Primary Problem

Comments

North Carolina went blue in 2008. The business community isn't exactly riding high in national esteem right now, and about time. I think it will take more than a little edge here and a little edge there to keep a GOP Senator in his seat.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

CC, I will add 1 more senator to your list here. NC Senator Richard Burr is one to watch. With a very large Hispanic population in this state, and with Burr being up for reelection here in 2010...Burr will consider this vote carefully. A bunch of conservative commentators are noting that the late NC legendary Senator Jesse Helms voted for Sotomayor when she was up for appealate court judge. That's right, Jesse Helms voted for this woman. If Burr votes for Sotomayor he wins big points with Hispanic voters and can tell Conservatives "Jesse voted for this woman to the appealate court." This helps Burr win major points with Hispanics and conservatives alike. Besides that, Burr has the full support of the conservative base on Defense & fiscal issues. Burr especially has the support of the business community & fiscal conservatives, as a reason he is so well funded. Burr has never been a favorite of social conservatives. Burr bucked the party and supported stem cell research and will likely buck the party here to support Sotomayor. It is votes like these that help Burr win independents & moderate democrats, while keeping excitement down in the democratic base to vote against Burr. Burr is a crafty & very well funded candidate, and the Sotomayor fight is going to help Burr in his reelection and maybe for a long, long time to come as North Carolina's Senior Senator.

Posted by: reason5 | May 29, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Have to defer to Chris about McCain but it does seem hard to believe that after so daffy and shabby a campaign that anyone would still care what he has to say. I can't help but see McCain stop in mid-sentence about Sotomayor to go lateral about the bridge to nowhere and earmarks. The campaign suspension, the Palin pick, the whacky economics .. McCain is a clown. He's also the poster boy for the loser brigade, the Senator Emeritus who lost to the upstart one-termer from Illinois. Maybe Lieberman (Joe, not Avigdor, though sometimes it's not easy to keep track) still likes him but so what.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 2:48 AM | Report abuse

Though there may be some posturing by a few conservatives, this is not the right fight for Republicans. First of all Sotomayor is hardly a radical, all protests by the right wing groups aside. Second she's replacing Souter, who already votes against the interest of right wing groups on the hot button issues like abortion. So she really represents no major change from the status quo.

The fight will come if there is a nomination to replace Kennedy, a swing voter, or one of the two older conservatives, Scalia or Thomas.. That's when the fireworks will fly, if President Obama gets the chance to nominate someone who will really represent a change in direction for the court.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | May 29, 2009 2:42 AM | Report abuse

"if anyone would like to discuss my idiotic questions, let me know"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Sheesh. Far worse than trying to fool others is succeeding so well in fooling yourself, eh?

Posted by: nodebris

==

Yeah and he's so enamored with himself that he actually does not understand why nobody believes his absurd claim of being summa cum laude from Stanford caliber, exhibiting as he does in every post a mind that is barely even mediocre, much less in the same league as our next Supreme Court justice.

Oh if only we could get him out of here so just once in a long while we could have a halfway decent discussion without his f*cking trolling

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 29, 2009 12:59 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 wrote to jaked: "hahhahaha you pompous self-important twit, what the hell gives you the idea that anyone cares if you live or die"

Yup, that's about the alpha and omega of what that pretentious fool doesn't get, right there. I mean, he actually, really, deeply believes that people care about what he writes. For the record? Next? Anyone else?

Sheesh. Far worse than trying to fool others is succeeding so well in fooling yourself, eh?

Posted by: nodebris | May 29, 2009 12:00 AM | Report abuse

ABC Nightly News took her "wise Latina woman" remark out of context again!

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Interesting breakdown of the Senators and their roles in the confirmation process. I live in Gillibrand's former district, and I'm glad she will have this opportunity to present herself on a more visible national stage. She is very intelligent, insightful, strong, and articulate.

Posted by: franf1 | May 28, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

No Jake it isn't just one person. If you were in reach of me I'd give you the full "Sailor Off the Bremen" treatment.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

For the record, it was just one person. If anyone else wants to know, I would be happy to post the list of people who are in good standing, having answered my questions in a civil manner.

==

hahhahaha you pompous self-important twit, what the hell gives you the idea that anyone cares if you live or die

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

For the record, it was just one person. If anyone else wants to know, I would be happy to post the list of people who are in good standing, having answered my questions in a civil manner. That list is muich longer than the 13 people whom I no longer answer questions from.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I certainly can't control how other people respond (or don't) to my questions

==

You don't pose "questions"; you post baiting loaded statements with question marks attached to the end, not even original ones, just boilerplate phrase-of-the-day BS.

And your quaint idea of civility includes calling people names like "cock-sucking male prostitute" so why don't you take your pretentions of civility and stick them up your rear end, you idiot

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Nothing's ever your fault, jaked, I'm sure. It's just unfortunate coincidence that x% of people want to punch you in the teeth.

Posted by: nodebris | May 28, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I certainly can't control how other people respond (or don't) to my questions -- on another thread, someone threatened to punch me in the teeth -- that's not my fault, as I have never threatened bodily harm to anyone here.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

jaked wrote "or anyone else who refuses to answer questions in a civil manner"

It's amazing how few people are inclined to answer jaked's questions in a civil manner, isn't it?

Or maybe not.

Posted by: nodebris | May 28, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

haha, I like this phrase. It really does seem to describe 95% of punditry, doesn't it?

Posted by: DDAWD

==

doubleplusgood duckspeak, eh?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"This is what punditry looks like on autopilot"

haha, I like this phrase. It really does seem to describe 95% of punditry, doesn't it?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

is so obvious a racist attack, using the white view of Naive American[]s

==

Actually it's a middle class stereotype of white conservatives

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"I have a job, I own a washer and dryer, while you're an unemployed loser whose yard is full of cars lacking wheels and living in a house that has them", is so obvious a racist attack, using the white view of Naive American's, that it hardly bears comment.

==

First of all, that was to Razorback1. Is that another of your monikers?

Second of all, if you think that has anything to do with native Americans then you have a massive chip on your shoulder not to mention a turbo-charged inferiority complex.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 - You snide aside, "I have a job, I own a washer and dryer, while you're an unemployed loser whose yard is full of cars lacking wheels and living in a house that has them", is so obvious a racist attack, using the white view of Naive American's, that it hardly bears comment. That you made it is plain for everyone to see. That you a a smug, self centered, racist piece of trash is plain, also.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

didn't think so

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 is a typical racist toad. He poses as a liberal and thinks it gives him a pass to publicly spew his racist slime and hatred.

==

example of racist slime coming from me?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - chrisfox8 is a typical racist toad. He poses as a liberal and thinks it gives him a pass to publicly spew his racist slime and hatred. It is so typical of the "homosexual rights" crowd - which is what he really is. This twisted little pervert calls Woodinville, Washington home. Hey, drivel, nice company you keep. Spend about ten minutes on the web looking into this disgusting worm.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

...In order for Republicans and conservatives to “make that point,” they would in fact have to have one.

But they don’t. They just have a word salad they barf up every time they think it is appropriate- “reverse racist!” “activist judge!” “legislate from the bench!” “not a strict constructionist.” And that is pretty much what we can expect the next couple of months.

==

Well-done. But you left one out: "extreme left-wing radical."

Like Stotomayor is some sort of agrarian Communist or something.

Anyone who doesn't advocate peasant collectives is not a "radical leftist," sorry.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

This is what punditry looks like on autopilot:

'In the case of the Sotomayor appointment, while she’s likely to coast through the Senate given the Democrats’ sheer numbers, the American public needs to understand why this is such a radical pick. The Obama/Sotomayor idea that judges, instead of making impartial rulings based on the law and the Constitution, should base their decisions (at least in part) on their own experiences and ethnic background, is outrageous. It is perfectly appropriate for Republicans and conservatives to make this point, and there’s no reason why they can’t do so in a respectful manner. In short, the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn’t really a fight about whether she should be confirmed—Republicans pretty much lost that one last November—it’s a fight about whether Obama gets to define Sotomayor as a “moderate.”"

Noticeably absent from this critique, of course, is any evidence that Sotomayor has ever made any ruling that was based on something other than the law. Not one case. In order for Republicans and conservatives to “make that point,” they would in fact have to have one.

But they don’t. They just have a word salad they barf up every time they think it is appropriate- “reverse racist!” “activist judge!” “legislate from the bench!” “not a strict constructionist.” And that is pretty much what we can expect the next couple of months.

Sonia Sotamayor has more judicial experience than any other person nominated to the Supreme Court in decades. There are literally hundreds of rulings and opinions of hers out there. Surely they could come up with some examples of her “basing her decisions on her ethnic background.” Surely there must be a paper trail. Surely Mr. Klein can come up with some evidence for his smears and assertions.

We’ll be waiting.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

This is what punditry looks like on autopilot:

'In the case of the Sotomayor appointment, while she’s likely to coast through the Senate given the Democrats’ sheer numbers, the American public needs to understand why this is such a radical pick. The Obama/Sotomayor idea that judges, instead of making impartial rulings based on the law and the Constitution, should base their decisions (at least in part) on their own experiences and ethnic background, is outrageous. It is perfectly appropriate for Republicans and conservatives to make this point, and there’s no reason why they can’t do so in a respectful manner. In short, the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn’t really a fight about whether she should be confirmed—Republicans pretty much lost that one last November—it’s a fight about whether Obama gets to define Sotomayor as a “moderate.”"

Noticeably absent from this critique, of course, is any evidence that Sotomayor has ever made any ruling that was based on something other than the law. Not one case. In order for Republicans and conservatives to “make that point,” they would in fact have to have one.

But they don’t. They just have a word salad they barf up every time they think it is appropriate- “reverse racist!” “activist judge!” “legislate from the bench!” “not a strict constructionist.” And that is pretty much what we can expect the next couple of months.

Sonia Sotamayor has more judicial experience than any other person nominated to the Supreme Court in decades. There are literally hundreds of rulings and opinions of hers out there. Surely they could come up with some examples of her “basing her decisions on her ethnic background.” Surely there must be a paper trail. Surely Mr. Klein can come up with some evidence for his smears and assertions.

We’ll be waiting.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox -- why waste your time with a roomful of village idiots like this?

Posted by: drindl

==

Idleness and catharis, not to mention I type faster than any human being alive and I love to compose

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Best. Board. Ever!

More nuts than a Planter's factory.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 28, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox -- why waste your time with a roomful of village idiots like this?

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

My post of May 28, 2009 5:17 PM was not directed to "chrisfox8" (or anyone else who refuses to answer questions in a civil manner). If anyone else has any questions of me, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I have never characterized NAMBLA as representing the political interests of gay Americans -- what I have stated is my guess that groups like NAMBLA will start their fight using gains from same-sex marriage

Posted by Flakey-Jakey

==

Not interested in your "corrections of the record," troll, you have compared adult gay men to pedophiles many times in these comments. You are a vile and despicable troll and a liar about everything, so I presume that your stated residence is as false as your summa-cum Stanford degree.

NAMBLA is a pedophile organization more reviled by gays than by the general public because of their efforts. They are not interested in gay marriage because they have no interest in adults, nor in relationships, only in obtaining access to underage males. The one time I personally met a NAMBLA member I broke his nose.

For your comparisons between respectable gay men and this group you deserve to be taken out in the woods in the dead of winter and have your hand nailed to a stump

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I have never characterized NAMBLA as representing the political interests of gay Americans -- what I have stated is my guess that groups like NAMBLA will start their fight using gains from same-sex marriage -- I do know a few things about La Raza, though, as I've lived in San Diego for a long time and was the chair of our citizens' advisory board overseeing the police.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

remember that we are WARRIORS! Please, please, please, let me know how to find you?

==

hahahahahahah

grip <--- get one

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I am Blackfoot and Shoshone, so the next time you even THINK of making one of your vile demeaning racist remarks, jerk

==

You're the one in the racist party, I'm in the party that deplores racism; you're even more confused than you appear.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 - Actually, I am my family left the reservation years ago. We have jobs. I have two master's degrees, in Mathematics and Engineering, and don't drink. I am Blackfoot and Shoshone, so the next time you even THINK of making one of your vile demeaning racist remarks, jerk, remember that we are WARRIORS! Please, please, please, let me know how to find you?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

We must be progressive and not adjudicate according to the color of skin but by according to the color of socks.

Posted by: leapin | May 28, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that chrisfox8 is a bedwetter. I have seen his yellow sheets hanging in is back yard.

==

I have a job, I own a washer and dryer, while you're an unemployed loser whose yard is full of cars lacking wheels and living in a house that has them

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

“She misspoke,” said Lanny Davis, a White House lawyer and spokesman for President Bill Clinton. “Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words ... they just feed it and give it life and give Rush [Limbaugh] and [Sean] Hannity more airtime unnecessarily.”

==

you uh people better make maximal hay of that quote because from all appearance it's all you've got.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

“And you are a member of the Republican Party, a far-right fringe group that advocates on behalf only of the ridiculously wealthy and entirely opposite the interests of its membership”

Why would Reps advocate for Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, etc.?

Posted by: leapin | May 28, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that chrisfox8 is a bedwetter. I have seen his yellow sheets hanging in is back yard.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 28, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 - ANd you a moron, an embarrassment to anyone calling themselves a liberal, a fool, a mental and moral gerbil, an airhead, an overstuffed and leaking balloon, a robot, a bedwetter, a coward, an unthinking cretin taking up space on an already overcrowded plant, an insignificant bit of protoplasm, a demonstration that Darwin was right....

==

you through?

good, now breathe into a paper bag until you calm down.

Ready?

You left out one .. I am also on the side that won the election.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Some Democrats and political analysts are urging the White House to shift course and concede that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made an error when she suggested in 2001 that Hispanic women would make better judges than white men.

“She misspoke,” said Lanny Davis, a White House lawyer and spokesman for President Bill Clinton. “Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words ... they just feed it and give it life and give Rush [Limbaugh] and [Sean] Hannity more airtime unnecessarily.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23053.html#ixzz0GpvonATW&A

For all of you liars, tools and fools who said I made up the quote, who dismissed this issue in your arrogant, stupid and profane way, YOU STAND CORRECTED.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 28, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 - ANd you a moron, an embarrassment to anyone calling themselves a liberal, a fool, a mental and moral gerbil, an airhead, an overstuffed and leaking balloon, a robot, a bedwetter, a coward, an unthinking cretin taking up space on an already overcrowded plant, an insignificant bit of protoplasm, a demonstration that Darwin was right....

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the racist group La Raza (The Race).

==

And you are a member of the Republican Party, a far-right fringe group that advocates on behalf only of the ridiculously wealthy and entirely opposite the interests of its membership.

You certainly know nothing about La Raza, which is as far from your characterization as NAMBLA is from representing the political interests of gay Americans.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, Agreed. Besue you are an East Coaster, I will make out a check to the Flat Earth Society today. You can make your check out to the Amendment II Democrats, the liberal counterpart to the NRA.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

If you think la Raza is some kind of radical hate group, I think you must have it confused with the KKK. Its a civil rights group, with a long history of advocacy for Latinos and poor people generally, but I've never read any of the tripe mibrooks alleges to be their principles in any of THEIR literature. (Which can be found at: http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/
if anyone is really interested).

But then, mibrooks reveals HIMSELF in his assessment of an insightful and reasonable commenter here as a "a typical East Coast liberal - smug, ignorant, bigoted, blind, and stupid".

And before you start in on me, mibrooks, I'm a Republican from California (thats pretty far West, last I looked), and a staunch advocate of Second Amendment rights for all Americans, so you'll either have to call me a liar (which would make you wrong...again), or find a new string of mindless invective to loose in my direction.

Posted by: Observer44 | May 28, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman - You re a typical East Coast liberal

==

And you're a typical GOP dead-ender, dumb and oppositionally belligerent and full of yourself. You would eat out of the toilet bowl if the GOP told you liberals don't like that.

You guys are hyperventilating hysterics and you have nothing to stand on but your hatred of Obama and his party.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD - DOne. If she is a gun control advocate, she looses. If she supports the Brady laws, she looses. $10, more if you are up to it. The Democratic majority depends upon a whole crew of new moderates and conservative Democrats whose jobs are on the line, WILL loose, if they support a Supreme nominee that advocates gun control."

I don't mind taking this bet, but Sotomayor doesn't have a large case history on gun control and I really doubt that she will take a strong position during her hearings.

But if she does, (we can decide closer to the actual vote) $50 to the charity of the other's choosing?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman - You re a typical East Coast liberal - smug, ignorant, bigoted, blind, and stupid. Sotomayor is raising all sorts of concerns in the west. Once you stop reading the utter trash, puff pieces, and perfumed-on-excrement nonsense featured by the Post, NYT, and New York based media, you will get a sense of that. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, a long time and currently active member of that radical group. They advocate the succession of California, Arizona, New Mexico, COlorado, and several other Southwestern States to Mexico. They advocate, and Sotomayor *personally* advocates, an abandonment of any immigration laws pertaining to any Hispanics. You wont see that in the Post, but it is making for front page news in the West. The whole reason for a fast track confirmation is that, once even mindless East Coast voters find out about her views, she is sunk and wont stand a chance at confirmation. Oh, and I am NOT a Republican, nor am I a conservative. I am, in fact, a "Jeffersonian liberal", a Swedish model socialist. I am merely pointing out that you Obama gerbils have no idea of what Sotomayor really is all about. Once you become aware, I expect Obama's mindless masses to split into the rational and irrational camps, with the rational ones abandoning that big city hack PDQ.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon: Thank you for the clarification on her record. I was wondering how to reconcile the 60% reversal rate vs. not reversed 98% of the time. Turns out that both are true. Interesting.

Posted by: Merry1 | May 28, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

" DOne. If she is a gun control advocate, she looses. If she supports the Brady laws, she looses."

You're dealing with hypotheticals when there's 17 years of case law to actually answer these questions.

So far, the best anyone can come up with is that she didn't overturn the arrest of an illegal alien drug dealer. That's pretty shaky.

Let's be real real here - you don't care about how she does her job. You don't care about her case history, or any of that. The only thing you care about is scoring Anti-Obama political points any way possible, and the reality of the situation is that her rulings prove that she's at best a moderate who doesn't engage in so-called "judicial activism."

But, by all means, keep tenciously grasping at any straw you can get your hands on.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 28, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD - DOne. If she is a gun control advocate, she looses. If she supports the Brady laws, she looses. $10, more if you are up to it. The Democratic majority depends upon a whole crew of new moderates and conservative Democrats whose jobs are on the line, WILL loose, if they support a Supreme nominee that advocates gun control.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"I will take bets right now that Sotomayor looses if she comes across as a gun control advocate in any way."

I'll take that bet.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It will come down to gun control. If she is a typical East Coast gun control freak, she ought to be rejected. Polls show an overwhelming majority of American's completely opposed to any sort of new gun control legislation, even the so-called Brady laws. Out West, throughout the Mid-West, that fight *will* cost the Democrats their majority and even a fight over it will cripple the Obama White House and it's ability to do *anything*. So... we'll see if Obama learned when his trial balloon about using a treaty with Mexico to over ride the Second Amendment or not. If he is as dumb as some people expect, it's going to get very very ugly and I will take bets right now that Sotomayor looses if she comes across as a gun control advocate in any way.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 28, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

We ask that all ALIPAC supporters immediately contact your members of the US Senate by phone with a written follow-up to express your opposition to Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for US Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the racist group La Raza (The Race). The formal name of the group is NCLR or National Council of La Raza. This brown supremacist group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, taxpayer welfare benefits, in-state tuition, and driver licenses for illegal aliens.

http://twitter.com/ALIPAC

Posted by: KheshireKat | May 28, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Everyone in favor of the “right” of illegal alien drug dealers to carry guns should be opposed to the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.

Posted by: Observer44

==

Heh heh heh, good work there.

Note the thundering silence from the gun-clutchers as they desperately dial for the sanctioned spin

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The case cited by Sotomayor’s critics to “prove” her antipathy to the Second Amendment was a 1994 opinion sustaining the conviction of an illegal alien for cocaine dealing, against his claim that he didn’t receive the effective assistance of counsel, because his lawyer didn’t challenge his arrest. The drug dealer wanted the lawyer to make the argument that the police, who saw his unlawful gun, didn’t have probable cause to mess with him, because the Second Amendment (according to this drug dealer) guaranteed his “right”, even though he was an illegal alien, to bear arms. Sotomayor’s opinion relied on Second Circuit precedent, valid at that time... a previous case (United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir.1984) holding that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right” so as to require a more favorable (to the drug-dealing alien) standard of review of the search and seizure issue.

Everyone in favor of the “right” of illegal alien drug dealers to carry guns should be opposed to the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.

Posted by: Observer44 | May 28, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"And Roberts has proven a lousy Chief Justice, siding unfailingly with power and privilege and without regard to the effect of the law. For Roberts the law is an intellectual plaything and Obama was right to question him."

Did you read Dionne's column? It was talking about how Sotomayor was chosen as a counter to Roberts. Someone who wouldn't be so quick to side with power and had a sense of empathy to understand the real world ramifications of her rulings.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Andy, I agree, we need to pick our fights. Rush Limbaugh is trying to get the base excited and saying your a RINO if you roll over but I am just as conservative as Rush, but not a Kamikaze. Choose the battles we can win. Why waste political capital on a sure loser?"

Republicans should oppose, but do it smartly. Ask tough questions about her rulings. Make her take a stand on the New Haven case. Ask her about that Latina woman comment. Just don't be stupid about it. Don't call her a racist and anyone who brings up that 60% overturning by the Supreme Court will just sound like an idiot (3 overturns out of five cases)

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

VAPatriot, you have to forgive drivl and chrissuxit. they were not granted empathy and intelligence by the Creator. To cover the complaete lack of wit, they insult, avenge, and invect. they cover their lack of any knowledge and fail to supply anything positive.

You play the cards you are dealt. In their case, a seven high is the best they can muster. do not expect lemonaide from these lemons.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Do you hear that? It sounds like...like...somebody's blood is boiling! hee hee

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 28, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

When you add to that political movements move and don't stay static, and a certain amount of the base is drifting really far right into Lala land and 'sovereign citizenship' and no government and don't bother to vote ronpaul spaceshipland, it looks like a blowout.

==

Since Obama won election the remaining GOP base has turned into some sort of Doomsday Cult. We make jokes about "drinking the Kool-Aid" but it's getting past the joke stage. They really have gone totally nuts.

Just look at the faces of those teabag pictures.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

drindl -- do you think SS should be waterboarded to get the *real* truth on her judicial philosophy? I bet you would.

You relish abusing people.

Feels good to constantly lash out at people, doesn't it?

Makes you feel big and powerful, doesn't it?

Makes you feel flush and warm, doesn't it?

Almost makes that size 6 1/2 shoe of yours seem like its a size 13 when you put it up somebody's rear, doesn't it?

BTW, are you posting from the your office at Langley today or from the field? ;)

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 28, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

carabis:

Republican strategists are getting really nervous. Statistically, with 100% support of the base, they still need 40% of hispanic voters to pull off a national win.

And yet, here are all these prominent R spokepeople like Rove going on TV and pronouncing that Sotomeyer is racist, stupid for god's sake, lazy, a 'schoolmarm,' etc. Nice work.

When you add to that political movements move and don't stay static, and a certain amount of the base is drifting really far right into Lala land and 'sovereign citizenship' and no government and don't bother to vote ronpaul spaceshipland, it looks like a blowout.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

libertariana writes
"[President Obama] picked someone who got reversed by the Supremes 60% of the time."

It depends on how you calculate the number. Judge Sotomayer has written hundreds of opinions, of which a distinct minority have been heard by the Supremes. Keep in mind, the SC hears cases where the Appelate court may have made a mistake. As I understand it, only 5 of Judge Sotomayor's 150 or so opinions have been heard by the Supremes. Of those 5, three have been overturned. I understand that the reversal rate for the SC is actually closer to 75% - which means Judge Sotomayor's so-called 60% rate is below 'average' (if we abuse the math). Her actual rate is more like 3 out of 150 - or about 2%. It would be interesting to see how that compares to the entire population of both appelate judges generally, and SC nominees specifically.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Interesting post, Merry1.

Posted by: nodebris | May 28, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

the drivl and chrissuxit show. all the intellectual heft of itchy and scratchy only more animated.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Obama didn't give a CRAP about the qualifications of Chief Justice Roberts, a far more impressive person."

Sotomayor has a combined 17 years of experience at the federal circut court and federal appeals court levels.

In what respect were Robert's qualifications "more impressive?"

---

"NRA CONFIRMS SOTOMAYOR ANTI-GUN NUTCASE

opposes Right to Bear Arms in Court ruling."

Ruling in what case(s)?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 28, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

So the theory is that if you launch savage attacks against a Hispanic Supreme Court nominee you have a shot at the Republican Presidential nomination. How exactly do you then win the Presidency with next to no Hispanic support at the polls? I am interested in what states, where a Republican stands a chance of winning, total 270 electoral votes and have a minimal Hispanic population.

Posted by: caribis | May 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Cheney went on CNBC and walked back his remarks. He said that he never meant any “offense” to Powell and “wasn’t seeking to rearrange his political identity”:

Posted by: drindl

==

That isn't pulling foot from mouth, that's lying about statements that are recorded on video.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't give a CRAP about the qualifications of Chief Justice Roberts, a far more impressive person.

==

And Roberts has proven a lousy Chief Justice, siding unfailingly with power and privilege and without regard to the effect of the law. For Roberts the law is an intellectual plaything and Obama was right to question him.

Robert "Weirdbeard" Bork was qualified too, but was so far right in his statist and corporatist views that his presence on the bench would have been a disaster for our form of government.

The last thing we need is ANOTHER powerful advocate of totalitarianism.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

cheney pulls foot from mouth:

"Earlier this month, Vice President Cheney made headlines by saying that Rush Limbaugh is a better Republican than former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell. “Well, if I had to choose — in terms of being a Republican — I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think,” said Cheney on CBS’s Face the Nation. “My take on it was that Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.” Powell later responded, saying that while he may be out of the Cheney-Limbaugh version of the GOP, “there’s another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again.”

Yesterday, Cheney went on CNBC and walked back his remarks. He said that he never meant any “offense” to Powell and “wasn’t seeking to rearrange his political identity”:

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse


"I want to know when someone digs up Sotomayor's ex-husband for rigorous, probing and protracted questioning."

I'm assuming here that if the candidate is a man you would also want to see "rigorous, probing and protracted questioning" of his ex-wife, right?

Maybe you'd want to know what they did in bed too, huh? I bet you would.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama didn't give a CRAP about the qualifications of Chief Justice Roberts, a far more impressive person. So stop talking about how qualified she is, Barack. Talk about what a great political choice she is and how the Democrats need Hispanic votes and how you picked someone who got reversed by the Supremes 60% of the time. No end to Obama hypocrisy.

Posted by: libertariana | May 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Justice Alito is quoted as saying
"Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."


GOOD GOD! The man's a freaking EMPATH! How did he trick the litmus test?

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

NRA CONFIRMS SOTOMAYOR ANTI-GUN NUTCASE

opposes Right to Bear Arms in Court ruling.

If Sotomayor is appointed, the ATF and Homeland Security will come for you and your gun........

Posted by ChickenLittle

==

Oh noes! Oh noes! The gungrabbers is coming? Hide your guns!

(clutches belly, rocks back and forth)

Mommy mommy I is a-scared someone gunna take away my blankey!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

NRA CONFIRMS SOTOMAYOR ANTI-GUN NUTCASE

opposes Right to Bear Arms in Court ruling.

If Sotomayor is appointed, the ATF and Homeland Security will come for you and your gun........

Call your Senator NOW and demand Sotomayor be REJECTED

Posted by: JaxMax | May 28, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

NRA CONFIRMS SOTOMAYOR ANTI-GUN NUTCASE

opposes Right to Bear Arms in Court ruling.

If Sotomayor is appointed, the ATF and Homeland Security will come for you and your gun........

Call your Senator NOW and demand Sotomayor be REJECTED

Posted by: JaxMax | May 28, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I want to know when someone digs up Sotomayor's ex-husband for rigorous, probing and protracted questioning.

I know we will be getting a severely biased answer but it will shed a lot of light on Slam Dunk Sotomayor.

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile, Karl “Permanent Republican Majority” Rove thinks she might be stupid:

Rove – “She is competent and will be confirmed….She has an interesting and compelling life story…”
Charlie – “She is very smart.”

Rove – “Not necessarily.”

Charlie – “What do you mean? She went to Princeton where she graduating with honors and then went on to Yale Law School….”

Rove – “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” The crowd applauds.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:34 AM

I had to laugh at this... Rove would know, didn't he just get finished working for an Ivy Leaguer? LOL

Oh, and Chris, congrats if Barca's your team... I have not seen in a loooong time Man U have that kind of a match and Barca was just plain better.

Posted by: PeterPamZ | May 28, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

funny...

'Judge Sonia Sotomayor has come under fire from the radical right for stating that her experiences as a Latina affect her judicial outlook. However, these same conservative critics never objected when Judge Sam Alito said virtually the same thing during his confirmation hearing, discussing how he “can’t help but think of” his immigrant family when evaluating immigration cases:

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

In Ricci, I was thinking that the Dept Head or deputy Dept Head probably drafted the test, after "borrowing" test questions from other departments. When the results came out, the HR department/county attorney said--no, not our official test, not validiated, toss the results. (Implied: we don't have the funds to fight this battle when all of the applicants of color sue us for disparate impact on testing). Never thinking that the challenge would come from other side of the equation. Why bother to validate when you are going to do it right the next time? Interesting argument though, should the plaintiff have to prove the test was valid? Shift the burden of proof? How can the plaintiff win otherwise and prove reverse discrimination? I looked at the case as "do over" hiring decision that happens when inexperienced department heads try to hire outside of their HR Department.

Posted by: Merry1 | May 28, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Instead of realizing there is no real political upside here and spinning into damage control, they seem to have gone berserk

==

Talk about sore losers. What's amazing about it is that they're continuing to circle the wagons around Bush and Cheney and refusing to admit that their party and its incompetent chief executives made any mistakes, continuing to lurch even further right and insist that the previous eight years showed stellar leadership.

To be unable to own up to one's failings is the psychology of insecure children, and we don't want insecure children anywhere near power. So the American people spoke and ejected them, and now they're soiling themselves over it.

Last time they were out of power 48 years. Let it be at least that long this timE.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

And now we've had a thread bombing (15 of the last 17 posts from drindl, c-fox, & KoZ). Sadly, any interesting voices have now been drowned out amongst the name calling.

Ah well, back to LabView.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Well I guess Michael Steele has had his stopped clock moment of the year

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

between the moonbat team of drivl and chrissuxit, they are capable of flooding this blog with lib idiocy at the rate of a post every 3 or 4 minutes. If they keep up this pace, a single intelligent thought may emerge by the year 2020.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Sotomayor didn’t just attend Princeton, she graduated summa cum laude. She didn’t just attend Yale Law School, she edited the Yale Law Journal."

Posted by: drindl

==

Yeah and just look at our own mascot Flakey Jakey and his summa-cum degree from Stanford.

(*guffaw*)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

What are the odds that chrissuxit and drivl attend the same outpatient clinic?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

yes, having to put up with the hysterical and no parodic and cartoonish shrieking from the right is annoyinb but better than having them in power, which ain't gonna happen for a looong time.

I"nstead of realizing there is no real political upside here and spinning into damage control, they seem to have gone berserk, and I haven’t even visited NRO, the Weekly Standard, or any of the various wingnut blogs I regularly read. Most of what is quoted here is from top-tier Republicans- former elected officials and the leadership and brains of the party (with the exception of the Nate Silver post). Meanwhile, as usual, one guy sort of gets it but is helpless to do anything:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told CNN Radio Tuesday the party that he hopes will include more Hispanics must be cautious in how it scrutinizes a groundbreaking Latina judge.

“You want to be careful,” he said when asked about juggling Hispanic outreach with potential opposition to Sotomayor, “You don’t want to be perceived as a bully.”

But overall, the new Republican leader is calling for the GOP to avoid the explosive rhetoric attached to many Supreme Court fights.

“I think our party right now will avoid the partisan knee-jerk judgements that typically come with these things,” Steele said.

The funny thing about this is that despite all his faults, Steele has, for the most part, seen all the landmines his wingnut cohorts are tap-dancing through, but can’t do anything about it. And what makes that even funnier is that Michael Steele will be the one blamed for the GOP fail in 2010, when there was, quite literally, nothing he could do."

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

But who's really 'stupid' here? Who's in power, boyo? Who's gonna stay in power because you people are so dumb that you're alienating a group that you need 40% of win anything. But do go for it.


"Meanwhile, Karl “Permanent Republican Majority” Rove thinks she might be stupid:

Rove – “She is competent and will be confirmed….She has an interesting and compelling life story…”
Charlie – “She is very smart.”

Rove – “Not necessarily.”

Charlie – “What do you mean? She went to Princeton where she graduating with honors and then went on to Yale Law School….”

Rove – “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” The crowd applauds.

Sotomayor didn’t just attend Princeton, she graduated summa cum laude. She didn’t just attend Yale Law School, she edited the Yale Law Journal."

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I thought the Newt was smarter than that. Perhaps he has lost his touch.

Posted by: bsimon1

==

Please. Gingrich? The man is an idiot. Anyone whom the conservatives deem one of their "intellectuals" is someone who dresses up southern blue-collar tavern political rhetoric in approximately grammatical English. Just look at the drool cases the conservatives claim as their idea men. George Will? A hallucinating fool who believes money can think. Newt Gingrich? A hypeventilating caveman. Come on. These guys have the brains of a dead hearing aid battery

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"She's been overturned so many times she'd be better off just getting out of the judicial system so that the real [correct] decision could be made once and allowed to stand. "

I see the morons have picked up on this limbaugh meme. It doesn't matter that it's a complete lie. these idiots will beleive any sewage he spews.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

LOL at you zouk. little early to be frothing and drooling and shrieking, isn't it, village idiot?

==

Please don't feed the trolls. You can see for yourself that zouk has the mind of a child. We read these posts from the bottom up; when you see one of his scrolling into view, just PgUp and ignore it. Don't dignity his fourth-grader idiocy with a response.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

If it's not racist or sexist to claim that your race or your sex make you better qualified to rule than someone of a different race or sex, then what is it? And from now on it's okay for anyone to make similar claims? Well, I'm holding my breath waiting for the Washington Post (and all you other lib-weenies) to issue undying support for former Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) in his praise of former Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) some years back. Senator Lott was vilified and nearly run out of the Senate for merely making a statement (on Thurmond's birthday) to the effect that we might all be better off had Thurmond won his bid for the presidency back in the 50s as the Dixiecrat Party candidate, a party that supported continued school segregation. For God's sake, over something that occurred almost 60 years previous? Then Don Imus makes a mildly racist remark and you want his head on a platter?

Okay, you're right, I just let the breath out.

You people make me sick. This woman is a racist and a sexist and isn't the least bit concerned about hiding it. She's been overturned so many times she'd be better off just getting out of the judicial system so that the real [correct] decision could be made once and allowed to stand. It would speed our courts up by years and save billions.

Posted by: flintston | May 28, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Already the GOP cavemen are trotting out the usual hyperbole and hysteria .. Sotomayor is "extreme left wing," she's a "wild-eyed judicial activist," she practices "reverse racism." As if getting trounced two elections in a row made no impression, they keep on lurching and twitching and answering to the same old cult of ignorance as led by such knucklewalkers as Limbaugh and Hannity.

The good news is that they will not be able to block her nomination, the bad news is that we have to put up with this disconnected-from-reality rhetoric for a few more election cycles until somehow the moderates gain some footing in the GOP

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The drivl beast is now arguing with itself.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Wendy Long: Long is counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network--the group we caught yesterday sending something of a mixed message about Obama's nominee. On the one hand, JCN says Sotomayor is a travesty. On the other, they still trumpet their Alito confirmation-era insistence that Supreme Court nominees receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate on their website. Odd

. Anyhow, Long once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She and her group have run a full-on campaign against many of Obama's potential nominees since Justice Souter announced his retirement. When the Sotomayor news broke yesterday, Long said "Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written," before invoking 9/11 and Sotomayor's supposed indifference to firefighters. Today, she brought that vitriol to the welcoming studios of Fox News.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The Big Con continue and the easily duped wingers fall for it every time.


"The day after Souter announced his retirement, conservative fundraiser Dan Morgan laid out the game to Jonathan Allen of Congressional Quarterly, "This is a nuclear weapon for the conservatives out there. When you do fundraising, there is an emotional component in this. And boy, the emotion is there magnified times 100. The Supreme Court is great. That`s going to be mail. That`s going to phone calls. The clients I work with are in meetings already. There are letters being written already."

That explains quite a bit. Because if you take a step back from all the angry noise on cable news about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, you realize that all of the conservatives directing outrage her way don't really seem to have tons of representation in Congress. Aside from the occasional backdoor insult from conservative senators like James Inhofe (R-OK) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the response from the GOP has ranged from modest skepticism to modest congratulations.

There are a lot of reasons for that, but, breaking it down to its simplest components, Sotomayor is a qualified and politically sympathetic figure; there's no clear precedent for killing her nomination, and there's just about nothing to gain--and much to lose--by attacking her.

But the calculus is different if you work in the conservative movement. By ginning up controversy where none exists, these activists get free press and free money and a micro-movement with which to corral fellow travelers into common cause. But who are they? Below, a rundown of some of the key players."

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

LOL at you zouk. little early to be frothing and drooling and shrieking, isn't it, village idiot?

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Every one of these senators is a blowhard. 100 idiots all in one place.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | May 28, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

foes of same sex marriage -- the libertarians bring out the big guns. Interesting turn of events, but just goes to show that things are changing, and that true conservatives believe in equality inder the constitution, unlike the screaming hatefilled latter-day movement pseudocons here and elsewhere.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The howling moonbat, frothing-at-the-mouth drivl apparently can't go out in the sunlight and instead must basement dwell and post venomous hate all day instead. In the evenings it saunters over to the pub to feed on peanut shells it vacuums off the floor.

Shame about that "writing" career. Libs often discover that the free market has no interest in paying for their blather. Take a look at Air America or the NYTimes for evidence of this trend. Meanwhile O'Reilly and Fox rule the cable waves. WSJ is actually profitable. silly Libs always spend their way into bankruptcy when the adults leave the room.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

As dahlia Lithwick points out...

"If the Republican attack on Sotomayor is really going to consist of scattershot claims that she is too female and ethnic to be truly fair or impartial, it will be a losing demographic battle. Recall that 67 percent of Hispanics and 58 percent of women voted for Obama in 2008, along with 96 percent of blacks. Folks across the political spectrum may wish that Obama hadn't opened the door to discussions of the complicated connection between experience and judicial "empathy." But now that we are there, it simply has to be a mistake for her opponents to attack Sotomayor as someone who is just too darn human to sit on a court.""

It all amounts to racism, not even thinly veiled. And republicans will lose big next time because of it.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

@mark - Thanks for the shout-out. It was a reference to Mamma Mia! The daughter finds her mother's diary and whenever she sees a reference to something happening with the prospective fathers, she says dot dot dot. For example, "we danced on the beach we kissed on the beach and dot dot dot"

Cheers!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

BB, I always look for your comments and they are usually very clear. To what "dot dot dot" do you refer? Where does it appear?

I missed something.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

@Peter - My mistake; should have read the quote. Clearly calling a Republican senator "soft spoken" and "polite" is an outright endorsement. Who knew that was code for dot dot dot?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

@Peter - Care to provide the quote in today's post where Cilizza complements Sotomayor in any way? Or are you just copying and pasting the same info into every thread?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Should Abortion be a litmus test for a Supreme Court Nominee?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5368


.

Posted by: usadblake | May 28, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Will Race Discrimination Ruling Burn Sonia Sotomayor? I hope, so before she has a chance to burn other Americans because she feels their the wrong RACE or SEX.

It so odd that liberals not so long ago fought to end RACISM in America and yet today are now using it to destroy America!

Posted by: HernandezUSA | May 28, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan writes
"I think the fact that Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have already called Sotomayor a racist is political gold for the Democrats."


I thought the Newt was smarter than that. Perhaps he has lost his touch.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

BruceMajors, I read the "Reason" link. The author recognized her as "respected", "impressive", and "qualified". He criticizes two cases - one being Ricci.
As I have written, I do not understand how that case got where it did without an evidentiary record. He then criticizes her failure to strike down NY's gun control laws as violative of the 2dA, specifically b/c the Supremes did not take the position that the 2d is incorporated in the 14th. That is a true statement of the law. The more activist 9thC has said that the 2d is incorporated in the 14th.

I thought the DC gun case was correctly decided by the Supremes - but it was carefully limited to its facts, and to the federal jurisdiction over the District.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I think the fact that Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have already called Sotomayor a racist is political gold for the Democrats.

For 2010 and 2012, whenever a Republican runs either statewide or in a district that has a sizable Latino population (pretty much everywhere, really), the Democrats can run targeted ads prominently featuring Rush and Newt and their racism charge.

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

Posted by: Bondosan | May 28, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

brucemaj...
.. I wonder if there are any constitutional checks anyway.. maybe as insurance against future legal action against the gov't. actions..

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 28, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Florida is actually two states divide by the I-4 corridor.. South will go for Rubio and could swing the whole thing, Crist isn't really a dynamo, but has some funding and solid support statewide. Jeb Bush probably doesn't have a lot of influence with the average voter, but could help raise money.

No one cares that much, so long as Martinez is replaced with a GOP 'like kind'.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 28, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

You've indicated that the White House has helped Sen. Gillibrand clear the primary field for next year. Does this mean that Long Island Rep. Carolyn McCarthy has decided not to challenge her, despite repeated threats to "primary her." This would be earth shaking since the last Quinnipiac poll shows McCarthy leading Gillibrand by 10 points.

Posted by: ValleyForge62 | May 28, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"DeMint is the most likely figure to channel that anger onto the Senate floor and, in doing so, emerge as the next hero of the party's base. Conservatives could do far worse: soft-spoken and unfailingly polite, DeMint is hard to demonize, even for those on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum."

Jeez Cillizza, get a freaking room. Watching you fellate racist scumbags in public is a real turn off.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | May 28, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

WHAT DOES SOTOMAYOR KNOW ABOUT FEDERALLY-BACKED VIGILANTE INJUSTICE?


Hispanics are said to be a prime ethnic "target" for the parallel system of extrajudicial vigilante (in)justice promoted and funded by secretive federal agencies and commands...

...a/k/a the "extrajudicial punishment network" spawned or expanded during the Bush-Cheney years, and apparently perpetuated by the naivete of Team Obama.

Will Sen. Specter, a long-time human and civil rights advocate, question Sotomayor about the misuse of federal programs that have fielded a vigilante citizen army that stalks, harasses and allegedly tortures unjustly targeted Americans and their families?

Some source material here:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 28, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

derekmanners writes
"Way to take the quote out of context, I've been looking for the full quote but I can only find it on last night's episode of Keith Olberman."

If you're talking about the 'wise Latina' quote, a longer excerpt was posted on this blog yesterday (in the comments). There is also a link to the whole speech, as reported by the NYT.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

She is being selected because she will undo any Constitutional checks on Odumbie's drive to increase federal and presidential power, take control of the economy, and eliminate the jobs and businesses of his opponents (like firing auto dealers who gave political contributions to other candidates). Her background is mediocre for a Supreme Court nominee, with badly written decisions reversed by other courts most of the time. A better article is here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

Posted by: brucemajors | May 28, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

@newageblues - Actually, all of the questions you cite were dealt with... by constitutional amendments. That's what the strict constructionists believe. If society has "moved on", then the answer is to pass a law. If the law is in conflict with the constitution--as interpretered by the courts--then the constitution must be amended.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

As a self proclaimed moderate and non-Obama democrat.. I like this pick.. how can anyone really gain from fighting for or against.. it's going to be the Obama way.. so, it's a mock tribunal, a drumhead trial by zippo light...

Anyway, I looked up what I could find on the liberal sites and they don't like her very much.. I knew the chatter class conservatives would hate any pick.. so I surmised.. she's a real moderate (by modern standards).

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 28, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin writes
"I have a question for 2d C. lawyers who followed the Ricci case."

Have you tried that question on one of the legal blogs here?

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I tentatively disagree with bsimon about McC - I think he is potentially in the contrary position to KBH, where his GE opponent is likely stronger than the primary challenger who is too weak to be a menace.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"We lost the election and I do not believe anybody really expected Obama to nominate a moderate. Plus she's replacing another lib, so let it go, and vote for her after scoring some political points."

Mostly that is what will happen. I would change 'lib' with moderate - as both Souter & Sotomayor are better described as moderates than liberals. But that's quibbling. The political strategy is sound: they will ask 'tough' questions during the confirmation process, but in the end she will receive more 'yea' votes than she did in '98, when she was confirmed 67 to 20-something (receiving 25 GOP yea votes).

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Jebby says Rubio believes in the principles of the Founding Fathers. Which principles would those be? That slavery is legal and moral? That the Founding Mothers deserve absolutely no say in things? That people of color deserved absolutely no say in things, and Native Americans had no property or other rights? That people who didn't own property deserved absolutely no say in things? That people under the age of 25 had absolutely no say in things? That the Constitution so undemocratically set up should be devilishly difficult to amend? That it's ok, for example, for a state like California to have the same representation in the Senate (far more important than the House) as Delaware?
Of course, Californians can rely on Senators from states like Delaware, Alaska and Wyoming not to take advantage of their overrepresentation to benefit their state at California's expense. A U.S. Senator would never act that way, right?
A little realism about what the Founding Males believed in, please.

Posted by: newageblues | May 28, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

I have a question for 2d C. lawyers who followed the Ricci case.

I understand why New Haven thought the test results raised a flag. I would have taken New Haven's obligation to have been to independently verify whether or not the test was biased. The results of that test are not evidence of a biased test, and there is plenty of expertise on test design out there.

On the other hand, plaintiffs offered no evidence that the test was unbiased, so the appellate courts are without much of a record before them.

The initial risk of non-persuasion was on the city. Did that risk shift to the plaintiffs at trial? Did plaintiffs ask for a master to be appointed to verify the non-bias of the test, which they should have been able to get at the city's expense?

I did not understand why the issue of the validity of the test was not central at the trial level.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
"I can't see McCain seriously opposing her. I'm guessing that if she makes it to the vote, she'll get 70-75."

He voted against her in '98. However the political environment has changed. His calculation may hinge on whether he fears an attack from the right (in the primary) more than from the left in the general. Given his prior vote against her & pending primary challenger, I can see him voting against her again.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 28, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"VT: Seeing all of the usual suspects as NOW, ACLU,etc, are estastic over her as the pick, I very much doubt she is a moderate."

You're being intellectually lazy, then. You ought to do yourself a favor and actually do some research. Start with her dissent in the TWA 800 case.

She effectively said (sic)"I don't agree with the law, and it needs to be changed. But, that's not the job of the court to make such changes."

This was an actual opinion written in an actual court case. Does that sound like some sort of "Liberal Judicial Activist" to you?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 28, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I will add to Duffman's assessment that the bar considers her a "moderate".

Here is an interesting article from the NYT about her history in matters relating to abortion.

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

The article includes the following:

In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”

An interesting read, for anyone who really wants to know something about her without reading the analysis of ALL her civil case decisions link I posted here the other day.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

VT: Seeing all of the usual suspects as NOW, ACLU,etc, are estastic over her as the pick, I very much doubt she is a moderate. But I would love to be wrong. Yea, Andy, I agree, we need to pick our fights. Rush Limbaugh is trying to get the base excited and saying your a RINO if you roll over but I am just as conservative as Rush, but not a Kamikaze. Choose the battles we can win. Why waste political capital on a sure loser?

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 28, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

"We lost the election and I do not believe anybody really expected Obama to nominate a moderate"

That's the thing, though. Judging from her 17 years of Judicial History, she *is* a moderate. The reason the GOP is holding so hard to the "racism" thing is because the actual facts don't back up any of the other allegations they've leveled against her thus far.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 28, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

What would barry do without his prompter? Good question Joe.

What consequences will n Korea face? Good question Hillary.

How corrupt is the lib senate?

So far no good questions from the press.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 28, 2009 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes,
I think your right on about the GOP needing to drop the racism argument. One comment does not make you a racist not to mention that she is completely qualified as a jurist. Also there most likely is going to be another selection (or two) in the next few years and the GOP should focus their sites on those possible picks.

Posted by: AndyR3 | May 28, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Republicans need to run away from this allegation of reverse racism, she may be insenstive to the white male life, but calling her a racist is crossing the line and a big political loser. I do not buy this argument the republican base is up in arms. We lost the election and I do not believe anybody really expected Obama to nominate a moderate. Plus she's replacing another lib, so let it go, and vote for her after scoring some political points.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 28, 2009 7:59 AM | Report abuse

The silence from Senate Republicans on Newt's charge that Sotomayor is a "Latina woman racist" is deafening...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | May 28, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

I invite my fellow Texans to weigh in on whether or not KBH gets a free pass on this vote.

I have only a few tidbits to offer. LULAC recently honored KBH and has a good relationship with her. They have asked members to write and call her on behalf of SS.

Goodhair had cultivated his relationship with LRGV leaders over the last few years, but I do not think he expects much in the way of a chicano vote. His entire thrust has been to portray KBH as "too liberal" and is aimed at turning out social conservatives in the primary. He would attack her on a vote FOR SS.

KBH should handily beat Goodhair in our open primary,
and has never had anything like a close race since she entered the Senate.

The Ds are running their strongest candidates for KBH's vacated Senate seat, not for governor, as far as I can tell. If she gets token opposition in the GE, she only needs to worry about the primary, right?

Please feel free to disagree, and I am really hoping for more tidbits and factoids to fill out picture.

My informal early guess is that she quietly votes "nay" on SS.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

I question whether McCain's endorsement would provide "cover" when it's more in keeping with history for Congressional Republicans to band together against him.

To GOP members of Congress, a "maverick" is, at best, a would-be leader who failed to attract followers. At worst, a "maverick" is another word for traitor to the GOP. Further, many GOP pols blame McCain's insufficient conservatism for his losing the White House, making any move of his to the center suspect.

Posted by: jhbyer | May 28, 2009 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Also, what is Kay Hagan the president of?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Man, when did Peter Baker join the NYT? Was he bought out?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 7:16 AM | Report abuse

"Woo hoo!!! Hopefully, some Senator asks whether she still thinks a Latina will make better decisions than a white male more often than not, all other things being equal."

First of all, she never said anything about all else being equal.

Someone is almost certainly going to ask this (wouldn't it be great if it was a Democrat?) She'll provide some explanation for it and it will blow over.

I can't see McCain seriously opposing her. I'm guessing that if she makes it to the vote, she'll get 70-75.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2009 7:13 AM | Report abuse

You mean like the "echo chamber" of libs posting to the WaPo blogs? BTW: the full quote is in the last Sotomayor thread. Have fun with it!

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Way to take the quote out of context, I've been looking for the full quote but I can only find it on last night's episode of Keith Olberman. Needles to say she said that you needed to check your back ground that makes you dress the way you do and that makes you like the food you do at the door. You need to acutually read and watch a wide range of opinions otherwise you become subject to the echo chamber.

Posted by: derekmanners | May 28, 2009 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Woo hoo!!! Hopefully, some Senator asks whether she still thinks a Latina will make better decisions than a white male more often than not, all other things being equal.

Good to see Romney out there on business vs. labor issues. Here in California, there's a populist rising against unions (and incumbents).

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 5:53 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company