Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House Cheat Sheet: GOP Weighs Strategy on Court Fight



President Obama applauds Sonia Sotomayor, his nominee for the Supreme Court. Photo by Jim Young of Reuters

Put aside the back and forth that followed President Obama's nomination of appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday and you are left with one simple fact: barring some sort of major bombshell regarding Sotomayor (and that is always possible) she is almost certain to be confirmed.

The math on the nomination is simple. Democrats currently control 59 seats in the Senate and could well control 60 -- if Al Franken emerges victorious from a case pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court -- before Sotomayor's hearings even begin. The president who nominated her stands at 60 percent (or higher) job approval while Republicans as a party continue to struggle for a message and a leader. And, Sotomayor's history-making status as the first Hispanic nominee for the Court is a point of pride in the Latino community, the nation's largest minority group and a critical voting bloc in coming national elections.

Combine those three factors and it's clear that an attempt to block Sotomayor by Senate Republicans would be met with dire political consequences, which is why most of the statements out of Republican elected officials today were even-handed at worst and kind at best.

Even conservative columnist George F. Will acknowledged as much during an interview on "This Week with George Stephanapoulos" saying:

"You'll see a big argument, but it is a foregone conclusion that will lack comic relief because Joe Biden is no longer on the Judiciary Committee and can't ask as he did of Alito an eight and a half-minute question, but I don't -- everyone knows that whoever he picks, unless they haven't paid their baby-sitter taxes is going to be confirmed."

Given the difficulties inherent in an all out attempt to block Sotomayor, is this nomination already a lost cause for Republicans? Not by a long shot.

If the ultimate goal for Republicans is to defeat Obama in 2012, then the Sotomayor pick presents them with a golden opportunity to cast the president as a traditional liberal -- far from the post-partisan figure he was able to present to the American public in the 2008 election.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who has made no secret of his interest in a 2012 bid, made the same point in a statement released Tuesday on the Sotomayor selection.

"The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric," said Huckabee.

Alex Conant, a Republican consultant and former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, added that that while Obama was able to remain an "enigma" during the campaign, the American public is now getting a "better sense of who he is. And on domestic policy, he's proving to be a liberal partisan."

For Republicans to have any chance of defeating Obama in 2012, they must find a way to convince independent voters that the president is far less than advertised on the issue of bipartisanship.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won self-identified independents, who comprised 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points -- a margin roughly equivalent to the 53 percent to 46 percent victory he scored nationwide over Arizona Sen. John McCain. Among self identifying "moderates," Obama's margin was even larger -- 60 percent to 39 percent.

Since coming into office, Obama's approval ratings among independents has stayed strong and majorities of Americans believe he is genuinely committed to bipartisanship and changing the way things are done in Washington.

A Gallup poll conducted in late April to coincide with Obama's 100th day in office showed that two-third of Americans believed he was "making a sincere effort to work with members of the other party to find solutions acceptable to both parties," a piece of data that should worry any Republican strategist trying to position a candidate to topple Obama in three years time.

It's never too soon then, from a Republican party perspective, to start building a counter-narrative that Obama may talk a big game on bipartisanship but his actions -- from massive increases in government spending to the Sotomayor pick -- reveal him to be a down-the-line liberal.

"Given the realities that Senate Republicans are confronted with, this could and should be a real goal," said Chris Henick, a prominent Republican strategist, of the "Obama as liberal" strategy.

Exit polling suggests that if Republicans can effectively tell that story the American public may well be receptive to it. Just 22 percent of the national exit poll described themselves as "liberals" while 44 percent called themselves "moderates" and 34 percent "conservatives."

Re-defining Obama as a liberal is, without question, Republicans best path to the White House. And the Sotomayor pick could well be one of the critical talking points in making that case. Can (and will) Republicans do it?

What to Watch For:

Wednesday's Fix Picks:

1. Sotomayor's the pick.
2. A look at Sotomayor's past judicial opinions.
3. Proposition 8 fight continues.
4. Harry Reid to his GOP opponents: Bring. It. On.
5. will.i.am "will"ing (heyoooo!) to work for Obama Administration.

Liberal Groups Launch Ads: Seeking to strike the first blow in the public relations war over Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, the Coalition for Constitutional Values is launching an ad today touting her credentials for the post. As President Obama's words from the retirement announcement of Justice David Souter play in the background, a laundry list of Sotomayor's accomplishments -- her time at Princeton and Yale Law School, her appointment by President George H.W. Bush -- scroll across the screen. "Principled. Fair Minded. Independent," reads the screen at the end of the ad. "Keeping Faith with our Constitutional Values." A source familiar with the ad by the Coalition, which includes the Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way among others, describes it as a "significant" six figure buy that will run on national cable as well as during national broadcast news programs.

Rubio's Opportunity?: Looking for someone to watch in the upcoming debate over Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court? Keep an eye on Marco Rubio, a Republican running for Senate in Florida. Rubio, the first Hispanic state House speaker in Florida history, is in a unique spot to gain national attention if he comes out on opposition to Sotomayor's nomination. Rubio said in a statement released Tuesday that he was "deeply concerned" about Sotomayor's record but stopped short of opposing her. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, the heavy favorite in the primary race, said only that he would "take a look at it" before offering an opinion on Sotomayor. Rubio allies believe his potential opposition to the Sotomayor pick could have real resonance in the primary given that Crist, as governor, appointed a Democrat to a Florida Supreme Court opening several months ago -- a move that angered conservatives in the states.

Follow Me: Three 2012 GOP politicians worth following on the Twitter -- Tim Pawlenty (if for no other reason that he refers to himself as Tpaw on his feed), Mike Huckabee and, of course, Sarah Palin.

New Poll Shows Burr Well Ahead: A new survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (an auto-dial shop) in North Carolina shows Sen. Richard Burr (R) well ahead of his potential Democratic foes. Burr holds a 47 percent to 34 percent edge over former state treasurer Richard Moore, 47 percent to 31 percent margin over Rep. Bobby Etheridge and a 44 percent to 28 percent lead over Rep. Heath Schuler. (Interestingly, Rep. Mike McIntrye, who is the Democrat looking at the race most closely, was not tested against Burr.) While PPP concludes that the data shows that Burr is vulnerable (he is unable to break 50 percent against any Democratic opponent), the North Carolina Republican senator's numbers in this survey are far stronger than they were against state Attorney General Roy Cooper. As we wrote at the time, losing Cooper was a serious blow to Democratic recruiting in the state as the party's bench is surprisingly thin despite victories in 2008 by President Obama and Sen. Kay Hagan.

Donatelli Adds DeFeo: Conservative Web guru Chuck DeFeo has inked a deal with the Donatelli Group, a Republican consulting firm, to run their new media operations. DeFeo comes to the Donatelli Group, which most recently made news with its decision to part ways with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, from the Washington Times where he was general manager for Interactive and Social Media. (Cool title!) Prior to that gig, DeFeo served as general manager of the Townhall.com, a conservative website, and oversaw all web-based efforts for the 2004 re-election effort of President George W. Bush. "Chuck is one of the most respected online strategists in American politics," said Becki Donatelli, one of the firm's co-founders.

Click It!: Courtesy of Political Browser's Ben Pershing (a.k.a. Simon's Dad), three must-bookmark Supreme Court blogs for the Sotomayor confirmation: SCOTUS blog, Above the Law, and Bench Memos. Also, of course, the Post's own Opening Arguments blog is worth a bookmark too.

Say What?: "This was a phony setup by the administration to try to quell the anger because this president spoke ill of Las Vegas." -- Embattled Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) trying to pick a fight (or something) with President Obama during a CNN interview.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 27, 2009; 5:07 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Prop. 8 Decision Could Bolster Newsom
Next: Dodd on the Rebound

Comments

Chris,

OMG! You say the Republicans might try and "re-define Obama as a liberal" as their path to the White House? Whew. And here I thought he was only a Socialist/Marxist who pal'ed around with terrorists (not to mention that he puts mustard on his cheeseburger)! But ... (shudder) ... a LIBERAL??? Now that's a really scary accusation.

Posted by: fid4wp | May 28, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You can't be serious, are you? In case you are, I think this has been tried. During the election with the policies posted he is currently following Obama was...

Terriorist
Muslim
Facist
Socialist
Liberal
Radical

Those are just off the top of my head. Casting Obama a scary "Liberal" will do about as much good as me calling my wife Alecia Keys, then expecting anyone to believe me, or her to sing well, just ain't gonna happen.

That said, I hope the GOP follows your train of though, should make for a productive 2012 for Obama.

Posted by: Eternal2 | May 28, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris-
This is a long stretch. Mostly because Americans have memories, and no one hasn't been affected by the Bush admins behavior, none of it good. 19% of the country are far right extremists.

BTW, you wonder what's wrong this MSM and why you're failing, this is the reason. Kind of like the CNN poll, 37% of the country approves of Cheney!!!! WHAT!! I don't know a single Republican who can stand the clown!

I know MSM is run by conservative corporatists, but puhleeze, this is very far fetched.

READ THIS DOUBLE STANDARD! This is what Alito said during his confirmation process:

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.

Kind of thought you were a troll, now it's confirmed.

Posted by: Cookie100 | May 28, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Talk about a DOUBLE STANDARD! This is when Alito was going through the confirmation process:
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.

The diff is Sotomayer is a Latina and Alito is a neo CON

Posted by: Cookie100 | May 28, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris-
This is a long stretch. Mostly because Americans have memories, and no one hasn't been affected by the Bush admins behavior, none of it good. 19% of the country are far right extremists.

BTW, you wonder what's wrong this MSM and why you're failing, this is the reason. Kind of like the CNN poll, 37% of the country approves of Cheney!!!! WHAT!! I don't know a single Republican who can stand the clown!

I know MSM is run by conservative corporatists, but puhleeze, this is very far fetched.

Kind of thought you were a troll, now it's confirmed.

Posted by: Cookie100 | May 28, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

sovine08, the fact that two people who passed the test thought it was fair doesn't really say much. A little self-interest there, don't you think?

I'm sure the person who originally put the test together thought it was fair, too. But there is actually a legal standard for what constitutes a fair test.

Again, I do not say that the test *had* to be unfair, words you keep trying to put in my mouth. I say that adverse impact creates a legal presumption of unfairness that the city did not care to challenge. If you can't wrap your head around that distinction, you can't really discuss the law on employment testing, so move on.

Why would they not defend the test? I have no idea. But the most likely reason is that the lawyers and HR specialists looked at it and realized that they could not defend it. For all I know, though, the republican talking point might be accurate and the city managers are just a bunch of racist marxist libs who like screwing over competent white men for fun. The actual reason is not in evidence, though.

Posted by: nodebris | May 28, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris, the fix, or whatever you want to go by. You are the most worthless writer at the entire organization. These posts contribute nothing to the political discourse or understanding of politics in the country. It must be great to have a job that just involves regurgitating each side's mindless talking points.

What a waste of a blog.

Posted by: cbcpapa | May 28, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

sorry to get back to you so late, Razorback1. Saying it again, and saying it louder doesn't make your post new or persuasive.

Judge Sotomayor's decision was so brief because she upheld the lower court's decision. There was nothing to add because she was following precedent in her decision. She also wasn't the lone judge in this case, but part of a panel of judges that upheld the lower court's decision. The SCOTUS's decision, when it comes down, will be close.

If you want justice, you'll get it in the next world. Here all we get is the law.

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

I doubt that SotoTUS is really a big thorn in the GOP paw.. they just have sore paws.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 28, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

'"The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric," said Huckabee.

Alex Conant, a Republican consultant ..., added that ..."on domestic policy, he's proving to be a liberal partisan."'
xxxxx
THIS is the best they can do?
Sotomayor was installed on the Federal Bench by George H.W. Bush, no less.

If her appointment isn't post partisan, I have no clue what would be.

Oh, yes I do-- choosing Newt Gingrich as Vice President, Rush Limbaugh as Minister of the Interior and Karl Rove as Chief Justice.
MAYBE that would get a tiny fraction of the Republican Party to admit that he's not a Socialist.

Posted by: twocrows | May 28, 2009 2:41 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 27, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

I can not imagine how the GOP can think calling Obama names is going to have any effect? They have called him a terrorist, a communist, a socialist, a racist and more. Yet, his job approval rating is 65 percent as of today according to Gallup. I think the best way for the GOP to regain their former glory is to start trying to do something positive for the country. Right now they are against everything and were against Obama's Supreme Court nominee even before they knew who it was. This approach may have worked in the past but the electorate is getting more difficult to fool after 8 years of failed policies from Bush and the Republican Congress.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | May 27, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

The simple fact that Judge Sotomajor has GOPzilla so up in arms makes me certain she will be an ideal addition to the SCOTUS.

Now, if GOPzilla would just sink to the bottom of Tokyo Bay...

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 27, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

This idea that Sotomayor is liberal, is extremely far fetched. Only if every Hispanic woman is by definition liberal.

In reality, she's like Obama. Ethnically or whatever, sure, they "belong" to "groups" that were left out of everything for years and years, or, worse, were actively exploited and mistreated. But group think is for idiots. These are smart people. As individuals, each is very well educated, highly intelligent, intellectually careful and rigorous. Each is a capable legal scholar. Both have been to tough law schools, where you don't get away with using emotion or bias to slide by if you don't have facts or reasoning. These people are trained professionals. They respect the law because they understand it. Their personalities, their history, is nothing to worry about. Their individual character is a plus; it's not a minus, because they are not that way.

The attack politics is a waste of everyone's time and energy. She's qualified, she's capable, she's honest, and like Obama, she's basically a traditionalist when it comes to the law. So yeah, she'll be confirmed, and she'll do a good job.

Next case.

Posted by: pressF1 | May 27, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

"Jake D must be having some sort of weird acid flashback if he's digging out the "long form" birth certificate chestnut again. Must be the fact of another fatherless non-white born on a tropical island making it to the top level of a branch of the US national government that's doing it.

Posted by: greenmountainboy"
____________
Possible answer. Today, Gibbs unwisely foolishly took a question from Les Kinsolving in the WH Press Corps (some extreme right-wing radio clown who is famous for asking stupid questions) about the so-called long-form certificate. Gibbs was great. Gibbs totally shut him down, pointing out that BHO posted a certified copy of the certificate on the Internet just for the benefit of the 400,000 idiots who obsess over this bigoted junk (my words, not Gibbs').

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 27, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

She is attacked on her statement being a woman and hispanic will have her making better decisions than a white man. Sounds more egotistical than sexist. The fireman's test ruling had in it's favor the large % weight given to the interview, which is asking for bias to raise it's ugly head is grading applicants. Not to say that had happened but the test as given allows that to happen. The court threw out the case because the jobs were no longer being given by the government. She also ruled against a hospital and nurses when the nurses spoke predominately in their native language without another nurse (plantiff) knowing what was going on. Job related duties like awareness of what is going on were compromised. Obama made a qualified pick that is political suicide to vote against. He should have voted for Roberts, since qualifications and the big belief in the right to privacy in the Constitution were there even with the conservative bent. Alito on the other hand did not believe in the right to privacy and tried to dance around the question. She will be called up on her three overturned by Supreme Court decisions and get cherry picked on the thousands of other rulings, but has the record most would view positively, even conservatives. She should do better than Roberts by a little in the confirmation vote. Unless your a Republican from a state where prejudice wins (still 4-5 left), you will be killed in the next election with a nay vote. Schumer is right attack her at your own peril.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

SS has it in the bag.

This all reminds me of the Obama-Hillary race towards the end when Obama had already won it hands-down, with months to go, but the MSM kept pretending--dishonestly--that it was neck and neck.

SS has 60+ votes already, including 7-8 Republicans who cannot afford not to vote for her, e.g., Snowe, Hutchison, Charlie Crist. In fact, Sen. Grassley has already said she will be confirmed. Of course all bets are off if something awful happens (but that's always the case).

Rush and Newtron have already decided to go the hate blast route, charging she's a "reverse racist" whatever that means. More hate sure to come. Lou Dobbs, where are you?

Even Dana Milbank, uncharacteristically, got into the act with a racist, sexist screed in the Post (rebutted by fellow Post writer Ruth Marcus), which implied SS was a dummy, a charge supported by not a single objective fact: real SS facts--summa cum laude at Princeton, editor of law review (like BHO), and FAR more judicial experience than any of the current justices had when they were nominated.

End result: Checkmate for BHO, game over--with SS confirmed and the 35 million person Latino population left disgusted by GOP/Faux News/Rush/Hannity/Newtron/hate radio attacks against SS for fifteen generations. Que bueno!
________

Re the Ricci case: The firefighters' test was flawed. The city threw out the results so they wouldn't get sued by the black appplicants. SS correctly applied the past precedent from her judicial circuit--not complicated, case closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

There is one thing that is readily apparent from the postings here. Eight years of neo-conservative divisive rule has polarized this country to an unacceptable level. I'm glad that the conservatives who see every issue as strictly black and white, right or wrong are no longer in power or even a significant political force. May they continue to dwindle and fade away until the Party of hate and Rush Limbaugh are just an evil memory.

Posted by: ScottFromOz | May 27, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"Anyway, if the city isn't willing to support the validity of an exam, it really shouldn't be using it in the first place, no?"

This might have been a better basis for a lawsuit rather than the reverse discrimination charge.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

And they will continue to do so, because sotomayer is considered a moderate by anyone who knows what they're talking about.Posted by: drindl
____
Well I guess the Washington Post and a lawyer who use to work with her don't know what they are talking about then... But hopefully moderates will get to see her record.. starting with the Ricci case.. and realize she is not as moderate as Democrats have lead them to believe. You are probably right about Latinos.. but she will be confirmed without to much of a fight from Republicans. But enough of one to let moderates know she is to the Left of all of them... (see below comments i saw in the Post)

Most legal analysts expect Sotomayor will be a solid vote for the Supreme Court's liberal wing.
George Pavia, a New York lawyer said "She is liberal, as am I, Liberal without being a flaming type of do-gooder or anything of the sort. To call her a centrist would not be accurate.
Picking Sotomayor offers the president an opportunity to potentially shape the court in a way that his liberal constituency will like.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The problem for the Republicans is that they've moved so far to the right, not only are they off the reality scale, but anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun looks like a Communist to them.
LOL, The Party of NO is trying to find a way to say "No" to Obama's pick without it sounding like they're just saying NO. Talk about being hoist on their own petard.

Posted by: ScottFromOz | May 27, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the city could have justified the adverse impact, but didn't care to. I don't know why they'd take that route, though.
Posted by: nodebris
____
Also understand the city at first was not going to reject the test.. but they got pressure from certain civil rights groups in the city so they caved. I wrote they were cowards and I still believe it. They should have stuck up for their firefighters and they didn't...

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats run Washington now because they control the middle."

And they will continue to do so, because sotomayer is considered a moderate by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

If you don't think latinos feel like she's being trashed, turn on your closest spanish language network and you will get your ear full.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"Harriet ELLAN Miers was more qualified than Sonia MARIA Sotomayor.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:39 PM "
=========
JakeD do some reasearch please. Sotomayor graduated with highest honors possible from Princeton, has more experience (as a judge) than any of the sitting Supreme Court Justices.

Harriet Miers was nothing more than George Bush's personal attorney, never a judge.

Only in right-wingnut world does that make Miers more qualified.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 27, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

You keep saying that you've never heard anyone criticize the exam. Have you heard anyone praise it? All I know about it is that the city wasn't willing to defend the test, but threw it out. On the face of it, I'd call that criticism.
Posted by: nodebris
____
Acually I have.. it was on the Chris Matthews show Hardball and I posted it earlier, you must have seen it cause you kind of responded to it later... Besides I heard they threw it out not because it was a bad test but it ws the easiest to do and to them giving the white firefighters another chance was not really saying no to them..I disagree.. (but here's what i wrote before0

Again I have yet to see anyone argue the test was anything but fair attempt to create a just test to find the most qualified people. Frank Ricci was on Chris Matthews and with his experience of years as a firefighter said the test was hard but fair and asked good questions that tested his knowledge of firefighting. I also know Chris Matthews, hardly a Republican, supported Ricci and said it was unfair he wasn't promoted. You keep going back to the test HAD TO BE UNFAIR because it didn't get the results the city wanted.. I'm saying sometimes even fair tests don't do that. Sometimes it's the people who take them who are at fault but if the law says to achieve equal rights we have to achieve equal results then there will be a problem because NO test can guarantee that.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, if the city isn't willing to support the validity of an exam, it really shouldn't be using it in the first place, no?
Posted by: nodebris
_____
We agree.. They picked the exam they should have defended it and their firefighters who passed it. By using it they in a sense made a contract with the firefighters who took it.. They said this test is fair and those who pass it will be promoted. By reneging on it they chose the wrong side to defend.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

All this Latino bashing will simply drive all the remaining latino voters out of the republican party, and who could blame them.
Posted by: drindl
______
Where did you see Latino bashing? I haven't heard anyone mention her ethnicity. Her rulings are fair game however and in the Ricci case that ruling was wrong no matter what her background is. You think this case will hurt Republicans??? Democrats run Washington now because they control the middle.. but this case won't go over well with moderates. It will take more but the more Democrats look like Liberals the better it is for Republicans.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

sovine8, I don't say the test had to be unfair because it didn't get the results the city wanted. I said there was likely to be a problem with it because the city would not defend it when it resulted in adverse impact. Adverse impact is not illegal in itself; an adverse impact that you can't justify is illegal.

Perhaps the city could have justified the adverse impact, but didn't care to. I don't know why they'd take that route, though. They're still going to have to justify whatever other exam they use to replace it. Sooner or later, someone's going to threaten to sue them about the new one, too.

Anyway, if the city isn't willing to support the validity of an exam, it really shouldn't be using it in the first place, no?

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Man, there is so much endless sour graping going on in the Republican party, on every single issue, it's no wonder the party itself has rotted. Time to throw it out and start with a new, fresh bunch of grapes, don't you think? As for calling Sotomayor unqualified, ROFL. My favorite is the comment from the National Review: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor is female, Hispanic, liberal, and mediocre." Let's see. She was raised in a Bronx tenement by a single mother, won the Pyne Prize at Princeton, one of this nation's most distinguished universities, has sat on the federal bench for, what, 17 years, and was confirmed twice by the U.S. Senate. She's also the most qualified Justice to sit on the Supreme Court at this particular point in comparison with the current sitting Justices. That is how the National Sour Review defines "mediocrity" ??? If so, we should all wish our children to grow up and be as 'mediocre' as her. LOL! And who didn't love Limbaugh's grousing about Sotomayor's suitability? Let's see, an overweight, balding, doctor-shopping, pill-popping loudmouth could say anything remotely credible about Sotomayor's worthiness as a Justice. Is he really that tragic-silly a boy (you can't rightly call him a 'man'), or is he just that desperate to stay in the public mind (like Al Sharpton or North Korea's psycho leader) that he'll say anything, no matter how ridiculous, just so the public doesn't forget about him? LOL!

Posted by: woebegoner | May 27, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1, you don't exhibit enough good will or knowledge to be worth an argument. Keep on rutting around in the mud, you seem comfortable there.

sovine08, I wrote you a post responding about your example of the math class, but the response was long so it's being held for Chris' approval. Short version: testing for something like math skill or typing skill or the ability to lift weights is pretty straight forward and so adverse impact is easy to justify, assuming the job consists primarily of typing, lifting, or doing math. Where people usually get in trouble is making employment depend in part on a skill that doesn't actually correlate with success on the job -- like if there was a calculus component in the fireman exam, or you tested accountants on their drafting skills.

You keep saying that you've never heard anyone criticize the exam. Have you heard anyone praise it? All I know about it is that the city wasn't willing to defend the test, but threw it out. On the face of it, I'd call that criticism.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

All this Latino bashing will simply drive all the remaining latino voters out of the republican party, and who could blame them.

Rs deserve to shrink and shrivel, like the d*cks they are.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I want to congratulate VaPatriot on his achievement before all of the simple minded leftists around here attribute it to the racist tendencies of the board that offered the examination, or the results of systemic discrimination in an unfair society, etc.
Posted by: Razorback1
_______
Let me concur completely.. What the city of New Haven did was nothing less than PUNISH Frank Ricci and the other firefighters who studied hard to pass that exam and why?? Because they were scared of being sued?? What cowards those people were? Look they picked the exam.. they should defend it and defend their firefighters, men who put their lives on the line for their city. To turn on them.. to back out of a promise because they were afraid of a lawsuit. They should be ashamed of themselves. I can only hope justice will come now when the Supreme Court rules. And people here who argue about the test or what the laws says.. here's a crazy idea.. how about being on the side of what is RIGHT!!! Can anyone here say why Frank Ricci and those other firefighters don't deserve to get promotions??? I thought Obama was looking for someone with empathy.. Where was Sotomayor's empathy when it came to Ricci and those other men???

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

Your post shows you are as creative and as unbound by the rules of grammar as liberal activist judges are unbound by the Constitution or laws of the land.

And you also wonderfully described Democrats for the past 8 years. They stood at the ready to oppose any and all Bush appointments, including dozens (or was it hundreds?) of centrist judicial appointments whose only fault was that they happened to be nominated by a Republican.

Democrats can start talking to me about 'bipartisanship' when they have some credibility in that area...

Posted by: dbw1 | May 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline, you should have invented this word when the liberals did the same thing to Roberts and Alito. Of course, this did not offend you... back then.

You are not offended by persons who oppose nominees who disagree with your ideology. You are only offended by those who oppose nominees who share your ideology.

We do not need to invent a word for this. Its called a double standard.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I want to congratulate VaPatriot on his achievement before all of the simple minded leftists around here attribute it to the racist tendencies of the board that offered the examination, or the results of systemic discrimination in an unfair society, etc.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I tried to invent a term, opportunisticism, defining it as the monomaniacal pursuit of every aspect of ones opponents life into a political opportunity, and fatuous opportunisticism as the monomaniacal practice of ooportunisticism to the point where it actually detracts from the credibility or the effective3ness of your basic platform. The conservatives are giving us a really good example in their readiness to oppose whomever the President nominates, and now we have the demonstration of just why this pursuit is FO. Having loudly pronounced that they would oppose whomever, they have to oppose a whomever who has lots of problems for the Republicans when they do thoughtlessly oppose her. The Republican bloc in the Senate is stumbling over their pronouncements, wishing, on the one hand, to give Obama a hard time, because Rush demands it of them, and on the other hand trying somehow not to look like complete boobs opposing someone whose first impressions are stunning as an appointee. The FO bloc, which is run by Rush with the only care that it get him ratings, and not that it be good for the country, or at least be good for the Republican Party, will demand good Party loyalty, and therefore unthinking opposition to this HORRIBLE LIBERAL who will destroy the Court, and almost certainly get it from enough Senators to help the Republican party severely tarnish what little shine is left on its physiognomy, (OK, smear even more mud on the face of the party) and sabotage the last shreds of creds the Party may have had as in opposition to Obama.

This fight, and Rush and Dick will demand and get it, will have the Republicans looking like three year olds throwing tantrums, even as some of them have to go before their electorates and convince them that they are actually mature enough to deserve consideration as to whether they should be allowed to return to the Senate for yet another round of obstructionism in the name of conservatism.

Remember, FO, Fatuous Opportunisticism.

Posted by: ceflynline | May 27, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Having recently taken a rigorous professional certification exam exactly one month ago today that has a first attempt pass rate of about 35%, I have some fresh thoughts on exam taking.

In addition to the required training, documented experience and educational requirements, I did a significant amount of self-study for the final push to my exam date: Left work almost every night for about 3 months and went to the public library to study until it closed. Weekends: I put in up to 7 hours every Saturday and on Sundays another 4-6 hours at a university library since the public ones are closed. Snuck in study time during my lunch break most days at work. Purchased online practice exams, bought additional books, read them and studied them. At exam time, I took the entire 4 hours allotted.

I worked MFAO to pass that exam. Gave up premium fun time with my wife and daughter. Some of my peers thought I might have been "over prepared" but only one of them has passed and she studied about as much as I did, maybe even more.

Hats off to Ricci for not going postal! If I had my passing score retracted and had to go through that prep and take that exam all over again because one of my "under prepared" peers failed, I'm not sure I could have shown so much restraint.

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 27, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Two smart posts over at Eunomia about the Ricci case, First, this:An important point about the case that has been left out in many accounts is this: In part, the city’s reaction was defensive. Because of the magnitude of the racial disparity on the exams, which would have ensured that white firefighters received the great majority of the promotions, an attorney for the city concluded that there was a strong likelihood of a lawsuit by African American and Latino firefighters if the promotion list generated by the test were used. Since Title VII was signed into law in 1964, it has been illegal for employers to use tests that have an unjustified racially “discriminatory effect.”
Posted by: drindl
_____
So the city of New Haven did the WRONG thing to avoid a lawsuit and tried to discard the test and got hit with a lawsuit anyway.. A lawsuit it looks like they will end up LOSING. But maybe I should thank the City of New Haven because of the beating they are going to get.. cities and town all across America will now think twice before they don't promote Whites becase they are afraid of a lawsuit if they do.

In other words, the city tried to avoid falling afoul of the law, and the court did not penalize it for doing so. What is to blame in all of this is the law, rather than the judges who seem to have done what they were supposed to do. Indeed, what some people seem to have wanted to see Sotomayor do is to punish New Haven for trying to stay within the limits of the law, and for failing to do so she is declared to be an enemy of the rule of law. I submit that this doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Posted by: drindl
___
I submit it does. Other judges ruled in favor of the firefighters and she could have ruled with them because the firefighters were RIGHT!!! Now she will be overturned for what the fourth time or is it the fifth by the Supreme Court. If she is so right how come she keeps getting overturned???


Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

what a life drindl has: Posting stupid comments for free in response to my smart comments for which I am well paid.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I know you hang on my every word, because you always respond.

Do you stand by your assertion that the Ricci case presented a straightforward legal issue? Or, since I explained it to you, do you now see the error of your way? I will take your silence as an admission that you see how stupid your statement was, and that you wish you had not made it.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

This happens to be something I know a little about. While raw math ability has no cultural foundation, the way the questions are presented certainly could.
For example there are slang terms in the rural south that people outside there don't know, like referring to a dresser as a "chifferoe" (not certain of the spelling, sorry). Call it a "dresser" as part of a math question and some of the urban kids will get it, some of the rural kids won't. Reverse the word choice and you'll reverse the outcome.
Posted by: chrisfox8
_______-
First I have NEVER seen the word dresser in a math question.. Second these kids are in the SAME CLASS.. So they would ALL be from the RURAL SOUTH, So whatever the "word choice" all these kids are from the same part of the country so all would understand or all wouldn't understand.. Instead of making up a racial reason why some kids might do well and why some didn't.. how about some kids studied harder than the other kids. Isn't that a more LOGICAL reason why some kids passed and some kids didn't?

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest that the GOP support her. Winning a few bitter points at the hearings will just make them look like a bunch of vindictive losers. Have some class, admit this is where America is right now, and find a way to be a positive factor in American political life.

Posted by: MHawke | May 27, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

drindl says: "Your head is so far up your arse, razorback, i don't hear a word you say."

I see you have gone back to your comfort zone with generalities and insults, rather than try to debate whether what you say is a straightforward legal question is actually a straighforward legal question.

You should know by now every time go you outside of your comfort zone and I am around, you get busted for something stupid.

Posted by: drindl

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

what a life razorback has -- posting every two minutes all day long. how much they pay you? also, do you really think of yourself as a large, stupid, smelly hog? apt, but how sad for you.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

To a simple mind, everything is simple, chris.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I was relieved when chrisfox8 said "This happens to be something I know a little about." I had been searching in vain for that which chrisfox8 knows anything about.

Not that he got it right. He gives a simpleton example regarding cultural bias, but misses one thing that should be obvious: There are people whose job it is to make tests. These cultural bias issues have been floating around for decades. Its easy to make a test without using words that portions of the population are not familiar with.

The left will say anything to oppose the idea of merit and to support their group justice philosophy that can only be satisfied by using hiring quotas so that each group gets its "fair share" without regard to merit.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Your head is so far up your arse, razorback, i don't hear a word you say.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, without regard to minorities or discrimination, doesn't it make sense that an employer be able to prove that his employment exams actually predict the quality or trait that they are testing for? That's the goal, right? At bottom, that's all the law demands. I don't see what's to quibble with there.
Posted by: nodebris
________
Again I have yet to see anyone argue the test was anything but fair attempt to create a just test to find the most qualified people. Frank Ricci was on Chris Matthews and with his experience of years as a firefighter said the test was hard but fair and asked good questions that tested his knowledge of firefighting. I also know Chris Matthews, hardly a Republican, supported Ricci and said it was unfair he wasn't promoted. You keep going back to the test HAD TO BE UNFAIR because it didn't get the results the city wanted.. I'm saying sometimes even fair tests don't do that. Sometimes it's the people who take them who are at fault but if the law says to achieve equal rights we have to achieve equal results then there will be a problem because NO test can guarantee that.

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

drindle says:

"There is something eerily similar to conservative reactions to the Ricci case and the common conservative reaction to the rulings of the courts in the Schiavo controversy: the actual substance of law in the matter was fairly straightforward and clear, but it yielded a result that many conservatives found unacceptable...."

What a dumb statement. Everytime you say something other then check spelling or make some generalization that cannot be proven or disproven something stupid comes out.

You say the law in the Ricci case is straightforward. 13 judges heard the appeal, 6 saw it one way and 7 saw it the other way. How the hell is that a straightforward legal question? If it was a straightforward legal question, it would have been 13 to 0.

You have a knack for not only saying what is not correct, but for saying that which is 180 degrees from being correct.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

If they had a physical test, nodebris would be arguing that it is biased against women and midgets.

If they had a general written test, nodebris would be arguing that it is biased because it doesn't test what relates to the job.

If they had a technical written test, nodebris would be arguing that technical job issues are not as important to success at work as general knowledge and ability to relate to other people.

This is Obama's nomination, and nodebris will mindlessly defend it with post hoc justifications regardless what arguments are made. Pretend to have a standard that justifies the result, and when the rule you pretend to have results in something that is against your ideology in the next case, use a lame ass context excuse. Just make up whatever argument you have to make up to defend Obama and his pick without regard to consistency or intellectual honesty.

One point will always be avoided: Is it a just result under the law that Frank Ricci, and dyslexic who probably worked harder than anyone to pass the test (the contents of which he had no control over) to be denied promotion because of the race of other persons who did not score as highly as he did.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I have a question for you. Lets say there is a math class were 50% of the students are White and 50% are Black. Lets say the teacher gives a final exam and 70% of the White kids pass but only 30% of the black kids pass.. should that exam be thrown out for "disparate impact"?

==

This happens to be something I know a little about.

While raw math ability has no cultural foundation, the way the questions are presented certainly could.

For example there are slang terms in the rural south that people outside there don't know, like referring to a dresser as a "chifferoe" (not certain of the spelling, sorry). Call it a "dresser" as part of a math question and some of the urban kids will get it, some of the rural kids won't. Reverse the word choice and you'll reverse the outcome.

Cultural bias in testing is a slippery fish, and your attempts to dismiss it as more "PC" reveal your ignorance.

Go too far in the egalitarian direction and you have tests tailored for each student, and everyone scores precisely at the middle, which is also wrong.

It's not as simple as you think.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 27, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"There is something eerily similar to conservative reactions to the Ricci case and the common conservative reaction to the rulings of the courts in the Schiavo controversy: the actual substance of law in the matter was fairly straightforward and clear, but it yielded a result that many conservatives found unacceptable, and they therefore sought all manner of political remedies to undo the reasonable decisions of the courts.

Rather than locating the problem in the law or in the unusually difficult circumstances of the case in question, conservatives determined that it was the judges who were the problem. There is also a similarity in the schizophrenic reactions to Sotomayor (defender of the bankrupt system! no, crazy radical! maybe both!) to the way conservatives vacillate between accusing Obama of being a hypocrite and liar (”he promised change, but he’s just continuing Bush’s policies”) and freaking out about the approaching dictatorship of the proletariat that he will supposedly usher in.

For my part, I have not had any illusions that Obama was anything other than a conventional establishmentarian, and this was obvious all along, and in choosing Sotomayor he has shown yet again how he can make a rather boring status quo decision seem much more momentous and remarkable than it is."

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Two smart posts over at Eunomia about the Ricci case, First, this:

An important point about the case that has been left out in many accounts is this:
In part, the city’s reaction was defensive. Because of the magnitude of the racial disparity on the exams, which would have ensured that white firefighters received the great majority of the promotions, an attorney for the city concluded that there was a strong likelihood of a lawsuit by African American and Latino firefighters if the promotion list generated by the test were used. Since Title VII was signed into law in 1964, it has been illegal for employers to use tests that have an unjustified racially “discriminatory effect.”

What this means is that the appeals court ruled against Ricci because it recognized that New Haven had tried to avoid a lawsuit that would have been possible and likely successful because of current law. In other words, the city tried to avoid falling afoul of the law, and the court did not penalize it for doing so. What is to blame in all of this is the law, rather than the judges who seem to have done what they were supposed to do. Indeed, what some people seem to have wanted to see Sotomayor do is to punish New Haven for trying to stay within the limits of the law, and for failing to do so she is declared to be an enemy of the rule of law. I submit that this doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

sovine08

You cant have a math test. Math tests are biased.

Here was the question: If a white guy brings 5 polo shirts to the country club for the golf tournament, and sweats through 3 of them, how many polo shirts does the white guy have left.

This is culturally biased. The test is no fair. blah blah blah... What it all means is that the left thinks there is no such thing as merit, and we should all be content little marxians giving according to ability and taking according to need.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Look sovine08, I know you don't like the results of the law in this instance, perhaps I don't either, but don't tie yourself in knots trying to argue backwards from your desired result. The basic issues are very simple:

1) Any employment yardstick is eventually going to anger a rejected candidate, and there is a lot of law for the rejected candidate to appeal to, be they minority, majority, or just plain ornery.

2) If you use an exam you can defend, you may still wind up in court, but you are going to spend much less on lawyers, you aren't going to face a ruinous settlement, and it is highly unlikely that you'll wind up before the supreme court.

3) If the city could have defended the results of its exam, it would have because the alternatives are much worse. They dropped the exam because they would have been in even deeper trouble and on weaker ground when they could not prove it was valid. The case may have been shorter if they went that route, but only because they would have lost quicker. The settlement would probably have been ruinous.

Anyway, without regard to minorities or discrimination, doesn't it make sense that an employer be able to prove that his employment exams actually predict the quality or trait that they are testing for? That's the goal, right? At bottom, that's all the law demands. I don't see what's to quibble with there.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

nodebris -- Stretching logic is nothing new to SCOTUS.

Over the years, they have stretched so many aspects of the Constitution that it pretty much looks like it is being reflected in a fun house mirror.

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

nodebris

I have a question for you. Lets say there is a math class were 50% of the students are White and 50% are Black. Lets say the teacher gives a final exam and 70% of the White kids pass but only 30% of the black kids pass.. should that exam be thrown out for "disparate impact"? It's a MATH test so how exactly could it be biased but it could happen. So if all that matters is disparate impact the teacher you think has to throw it how and have another one.. but since he didn't know what was wrong with the test the first time it could take a quite a few tries before an equal amount of Whites and Blacks pass.. And what about the students who passed the first time.. it's fair they have to keep on taking the test until there is equality in results?? In fact how did we get to the point where equal rights no longer means equal opportunity but equal results???

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

You leftists keep offering technical explanations of what you claim happened in the Frank Ricci case, but you never even try to answer the fundamental question:

Was it just for Frank Ricci not to have been promoted by the New Haven, CT fire department?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

For the record, this is the first time I've ever read a post by "jaked". If you are not a human being, I apologize.

LOL!

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

For the record, this is the first time I've ever read a post by "hclark1". If you are not a human being, I apologize.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"Don't worry, hclark1. They actually think that yesterday's Prop. 8 decision was a GOOD thing for them."

For someone who claims to have graduated from Stanford Law summa cum laude, you are dumber than a box of rocks. hclark1 posts the exact same drivel every day. For a few months before the last elction his daily contribution was "Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008." He is a spambot and you are a moron.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

nodebris in action:

sniff scratch hit the bong type "Cheney" type "Limbaugh" type "any childish insult" look for disability check hit the bong mutter to self I should take bath scratch sniff hit the bong type "Rumsfeld" type "illegal invasion" repeat ad nauseum....

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

greenmountainboy:

I have never tried "acid" so I can't very well have an acid flashback -- I also do not contend that Obama is "fatherless" or "born on a tropical island" -- next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

sovine08,
You're just quibbling.
If the test were valid, the city would have defended it and saved itself the huge expense of this litigation. They could not. So here we are.
Posted by: nodebris
_____
Sorry but i fail to see were the city saved itself the huge expense of litigation since but not promoting these firefighers they had to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court anyway.. Where it looks like the the city WILL LOSE!!! Seems to me since this was going to be a law suit either way.. The city should have done what was RIGHT and if someone still wanted to sue well then at least they knew they were on the right side of this!! Oh and WIN the Supreme Court case at the end.

And no, your attempt to flip the equation doesn't hold water. If minorities did proportionately well, then the white candidates would have done disproportionately badly and could themselves sue for disparate impact, instead of this claim of "reverse discrimination."
Posted by: nodebris
______
First I doubt they would have and second they would have won if they did.

The only way to get around this is to use a test you can defend. In which case, this suit would not be on appeal right now, but would have settled long, long ago.
Posted by: nodebris
____
Again since NO lawyer I'm aware of tried to show the test was a bad test other than the fact Blacks didn't do well on it.. What has to be changed in it??? Has anyone looked at this test and said which questions are biased??? Your solution sounds great just create a test where an proportional number of Whites and Blacks pass. Problem is how can you tell until the test is taken???

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

nodebris, you never respond to any factual issues. For purposes of discussion with you, I have moved you your level.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, hclark1. They actually think that yesterday's Prop. 8 decision was a GOOD thing for them.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

VaPatriot, I agree her comment is a bit unfortunate, but the criteria for comments in a speech are somewhat less formal than those for making defensible employment decisions. Equating the two is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS."

LOL-- no wonder the R party is sinking. Everyone is so laughably stupid and comically juvenile.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Poor Razorback1 can't cope with actual arguments, it appears, so he sinks back to his comfort level.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: hclark1 | May 27, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

VaPatriot:

Thank you!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

nodebris blows his meth filled nose on his shirt in the little school bus while spanking it with a picture of Rosie O'Donnell. So there.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Whether or not Sotomayor's comment is or isn't racist, intentionally or unintentionally, she has already been cut an awful lot of slack by the media.

In all honesty, if this exact same comment, with the appropriate reversals, had been made by a white man, he would have been branded a racist right out of the gate by the left and the right. There wouldn't have been any discussion whatsoever and no one would have cared one wit about it being in or out of context cut from the body of a long speech.

From the text of her speech as viewed in context, ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ) I don't think she was intentionally trying to be racist. Nevertheless, just as in the New Haven Firefighter case if was determined that the city wasn't intentionally trying to create racist exam, it was still found to have done so.

Although it appears she didn't intentionally try to make a racist comment, intentions by her own admission, are not a valid excuse. I should be very entertaining to hear the elaborate logic that will be employed to wiggle out of her racist remarks while trying to maintain the integrity of her New Haven ruling.

Should be fun!

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

jaked listens to rush limbaugh while he types, which explains much.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"it's the "natural born" part that's unresolved."

Only in the minds of freakazoid lunatics like you. The other 99.999999 of the US population has moved on.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

At least I am honest.

Lets not kid our selves, We are losers.

You are a racist. And that just freaking sad. Your need therapy AND a life. We just need a life.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Rush says "hi" and pointed out the 25 new "stimulus" Columbus cops have to be laid off! Roland Burris is also toast. So much for "race-based attacks".

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Jake D must be having some sort of weird acid flashback if he's digging out the "long form" birth certificate chestnut again. Must be the fact of another fatherless non-white born on a tropical island making it to the top level of a branch of the US national government that's doing it.

Posted by: greenmountainboy | May 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

tallertapas311 says "Your a loser like the rest of us....."

When you say someone is a loser like YOU, you have finally stumbled upon a worthy insult.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

sovine08,

You're just quibbling.

If the test were valid, the city would have defended it and saved itself the huge expense of this litigation. They could not. So here we are.

And no, your attempt to flip the equation doesn't hold water. If minorities did proportionately well, then the white candidates would have done disproportionately badly and could themselves sue for disparate impact, instead of this claim of "reverse discrimination." The minorities would be suing for "reverse discrimination" in that case. Disparate results that you can't justify are going to create a mess, no matter whose ox gets gored.

The only way to get around this is to use a test you can defend. In which case, this suit would not be on appeal right now, but would have settled long, long ago.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse


"Barry Soreto will have to go, under a medical removal for NPD sociopathic dual diagnosis. No politics are involved on that diagnosis and call."

Crazy, batsh*t crazy people.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Some idiot, in his tie die shirt, having worked less days of his life than he has showered, who wants someone else to pay his bills and pay for his dope and his computer filled with kiddie porn, exercising his first amendment rights with his left hand while eating goat cheese at the commune while wishing that Fidel and Nikita had nuked the USA like Che' said they should wrote the following in a dope induced state of enhanced ingnorance:

The smoke, signalling the rise of the new KKK, was timed to coincide with the nomination of Sotomayor. Cries from wife-beating tshirt white males all across the South could be heard as Rush Limbaugh rallied the faithful to launch the swift boats.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

tallertapas311:

I am not quoting Rush, Beck, and/or Steyn -- I came up with my question all by myself -- next canard?


So in a matter of minutes you found out Will took it from Taylor. Your not fooling anyone.

And I bet you chuckled when you said the GOP is too liberal, like you some Clint Eastwood badass. Your fighting on the FIX. Your a loser like the rest of us, but your here everyday like Zouk and ChangeWhat.

Your found a corner of the message board universe to patrol with GOP whack taling points. Was Powerline and RedState too full? Maybe your gay and they wont let you in?

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse


John Yoo's stunningly un-self aware attack on Sotomayor is one note in a choir of stupidity we're going to hear ad nauseum in the coming days.. A couple of hours ago, on "Here and Now," Robin Young was vapidly interviewing a purported liberal at GWU law who had his heart set on Wood and some ex-clerk of Scalia's from at one of those evil VRWC think tanks with a noble name (Center for Justice, Ethics and the Preservation of Puppies, or some such thing).

The VRWC guy used the term "Obama's Lawless Empathy Standard" about fifty times in five minutes. You could hear the capital letters every time he said it. The Right has apparently either decided that when run the word "empathy" through the decryption function on their tinfoil hats it means "radical socialist judicial activism" or Luntz said the phrase focus grouped well with the base and will loosen up their purse strings (which comes to about the same thing, i suppose.) It's pretty clear that "empathy" = "judicial activism to give lawless preferences to lawless minorities" was point one in their pre-prepared Sotomayor action plan.

And hence we get Yoo's suspiciously prompt response using the official attack on "empathy" and we get the asshat from Judicial Watch saying:

'The President said that he wanted a judge who had empathy and I read empathy to mean bias in favor of politically correct individuals, whether they be women or a gay person or a black or Hispanic. You know that's the way they should decide in favor of them no matter what the law is.'

In fact, what Obama means by "empathy" is simply considering the effects of on real people in the real world when intrepreting the law. He talked about it constantly as a Con Law professor and he's talked about it a lot since he was elected.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse


Let's do away with the whole notion and existence of a Supreme Court. Why do we need inefficiency from nine disparate people to tell us what's okay and what's not okay?

Let's give the chore to a supercomputer, or, better yet - to SkyNet!

http://skynetresearch.com/

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Posted by: primate53 | May 27, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

So you knew it existed, but yet came up with it on your own.

That makes no sense.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,
Lets remember Gonzo saying "I Dont Recall" 30 times under oath.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, I am not a Republican (they are too liberal for me ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Umm, one problem with painting Obama as a liberal because of this pick. The independents know that the Court is currently a 5-4 conservative majority. These independents know that he is replacing a left-leaning justice with a left-leaning justice. They do not want a 6-3 conservative majority. If some calamity strikes and five to eight of the remaining justices need to be replaced, then Obama will have to be careful to maintain a moderate balance on the Supreme Court. But he will be given a pass on his first two to three justices. Only after that (and what are the odds of four in his first term?) can the Republicans make a case.

Posted by: caribis | May 27, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

LOL tallertapas311:

Perhaps one of your friends can explain the meaning of: "I had seen NEITHER [Will nor Stuart] prior to formulating my question" since I can't make my point any more plainly than that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Jake D:

This is your disgusting republican party from poster SWATKINS.
DALLAS -- Toxic smoke from a blaze in an acre-size heap of old tires forced the evacuation of a small East Texas town and closed its schools Tuesday.


The smoke, signalling the rise of the new KKK, was timed to coincide with the nomination of Sotomayor. Cries from wife-beating tshirt white males all across the South could be heard as Rush Limbaugh rallied the faithful to launch the swift boats.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Jake D:

This is your disgusting republican party from poster SWATKINS.
DALLAS -- Toxic smoke from a blaze in an acre-size heap of old tires forced the evacuation of a small East Texas town and closed its schools Tuesday.


The smoke, signalling the rise of the new KKK, was timed to coincide with the nomination of Sotomayor. Cries from wife-beating tshirt white males all across the South could be heard as Rush Limbaugh rallied the faithful to launch the swift boats.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Whenever Libs are asked to provide facts, figures, evidence, data or support, they respond - "You're stupid".

now really, who is stupid?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 27, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

They said everyone who makes less than 250,000 would not see a tax increase. They lied. See cap and trade which increases everyones electric bill.

Now, a VAT, which is similar to a national sales tax:

"At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor."


Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine with me ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Well at least the liar Jake D with his own thoughts *that he stole from Stuart Taylor* knows his grammar.

Did you create the word bring or did you steal that too.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Seems to be some growing interest in Barry's Birth Certificate. A question was asked of Gibbs about it in today's White House press conference. Gibbs giggled and appeared nervous. He referred to the questioned internet copy of a Birth Certificate and rushed to depart the press room."

Jesus Christ -- the R party is filled with the most astonishingly, breathtakingly stupid people.

Posted by: drindl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gibbs errored on the response.
Who doesn't know that now??

Barry Soreto will have to go, under a medical removal for NPD sociopathic dual diagnosis. No politics are involved on that diagnosis and call.

The Democrats bashed the Constitution for trying it, and So did the Republicans because Mc Cain couldn't be POTUS either under the directives of the Constitution.

Face it Soro's owns them both, or he would have been arrested for putting a price on Bush.

Change your voter registration to the Independent Party and elect no one with a war chest.

Posted by: dottydo | May 27, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

knoll

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

""Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' – and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.'"

Imagine the speech that would have surrounded such a statement. That would actually be pretty scary and would probably justify the aforementioned hypothetical reaction.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers

Your 2 paragraph attempt at an explanation as to the basis for Sotomayor's decision on Ricci is longer than Sotomayor's attempted explanation of her decision.

Sotomayor's paragraph said almost nothing, yet that does not stop you from offering some lame justification of why it was ok to discriminate against Frank Ricci because he worked hard to pass the test and others did not.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: "Nodebris, read the Slate link I posted."

I read the article, thanks. Yes, that's what I was talking about. To me, it seems the actual crime here was management using a test they could not or were not willing to defend. This case is exactly what results when employers make that mistake. People get emotional and angry when they perceive injustice in hiring or promotion, and responsible management prepares for that with a process that it is willing to defend.

One thing people have to realize is that the law does not mandate that all minorities must perform well on a test. It only mandates that if the test results do skew against any class, you have to be able to justify that the skewing is actually due to job-related criteria and not an intentional or unintentional bias in the exam. That can be easy or hard.

Obviously, if the job requires that you pick up 300 lb sacks all day, an exam that tests for that ability is going to skew against women and small people -- but it is easy to justify it. It's fairly clear on its face.

On the other hand, if you are testing for an obscure concept like management ability and your test skews against minorities, you are going to have your work cut out for you justifying that there is no bias. The best way is to demonstrate through a large body of statistical evidence that people who do well on the test make good managers, and people who do not typically fail as managers. In other words, that your test is a good predictor and not just a random hoop you are making candidates leap through.

Anyway, to my thinking the whole issue at this point in the day isn't about discrimination or reverse discrimination, so much as it is about the technical issue of what makes a valid employment test and the folly of employers who use exams that have little demonstrated validity.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

DALLAS -- Toxic smoke from a blaze in an acre-size heap of old tires forced the evacuation of a small East Texas town and closed its schools Tuesday.

The smoke, signalling the rise of the new KKK, was timed to coincide with the nomination of Sotomayor. Cries from wife-beating tshirt white males all across the South could be heard as Rush Limbaugh rallied the faithful to launch the swift boats.

Posted by: swatkins1 | May 27, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

By unresolved do mean like "You may have no life" unresolved?

Do you mean like the shooter on the grassy knowl?

You sound like a crank? And I bet you came up with this ALLLLL on your own. Nobody told you to run with this.

HE WON!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

bringS or brought

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD bring in the ZOUK and CHANGE WHAT for reinforcements.

Let stupidity reign!!!!!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh, oh. Drivl has escaped from its pen again. watch for the swarm of hate and invective.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 27, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

tallertapas311:

I am not arguing that Obama is not a citizen -- my very own Governor is a CITIZEN but still can't be President -- it's the "natural born" part that's unresolved.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I have been practicing law for 20 years now. The advent of women has changed the way the law is being practiced, and the results. We all bring our life experiences to table or to the bench. It doesn't matter who you are or how you were raised. It affects the way you see the case. She said she hoped that a wise Latina woman would make better decisions about discrimination than a white male who never went through it. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Why the noise? I would hope so too.

Posted by: Merry1 | May 27, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"They were about decision making in general."

They weren't, though. I thought we established this hours ago in this very thread. She was specifically referring in the context of the quote to discrimination cases.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning that North Korea will face consequences because of "provocative and belligerent" actions that include threatened military attacks against U.S. and South Korean warships

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Still waiting for the "serious consequences" for the first missile firing. Coming from hillary, who offers no consequences to cheats, I guess they are having a good laugh at Obambi's menacing posture.

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

JakeD,
You follow up saying you have a nice life, with asking who had the guts to ask about Obamas birth certificate.

You have NO life. Hes president and a US citizen.

Did you hear they asked if he was a communist.

JakeD: Who finally had the guts to ask that stupid question.

JakeD FAIL.

Keep thinking the talking points email is your own thoughts. ChangeWhat says the same thing. You must be twins!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"and you reveal yourself to be nothing but a toady for republicans, mr. cilliza. and you are as wrong as they are about this."

Dude, calm down. Think of Cilizza as a color commentator for a basketball game. "Now what the Lakers should do is have Fisher drive the ball, kick out to Kobe and let him draw defenders leaving Gasol open for the easy dunk" This doesn't mean the commentator is pulling for the Lakers, does he?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse


"Seems to be some growing interest in Barry's Birth Certificate. A question was asked of Gibbs about it in today's White House press conference. Gibbs giggled and appeared nervous. He referred to the questioned internet copy of a Birth Certificate and rushed to depart the press room."

Jesus Christ -- the R party is filled with the most astonishingly, breathtakingly stupid people.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't any party just do what is right for a change,and expose any non compliance atttitudes a nominee has about Constitutional law, regardless of race.

This speaks volumes about the corruption of politics over what is best for the Country and the Constitution.

The two party system in place should have their bases walk out, and pull the electoral college out from under them both.

American's could give a hang about race, and Republicans or Democrats using it, cheapens all of us.

Posted by: dottydo | May 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

ChangeWhat:

Who finally dared to asked the question?!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

tallertapas311:

I couldn't care less if you don't believe that I had seen neither quote prior to formulating my question. Have a nice life.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Sessions undercuts the main R argument:

"One of conservatives’ biggest problems with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is over a remark she made in 2005, stating that the Court of Appeals “is where policy is made.” The right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network has called her “a liberal judicial activist of the first order” who “thinks that judges should dictate policy.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called her 2005 comment a “problem.” Similarly, this morning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) went on NBC’s Today Show and said it was “troubling”:

LAUER: Sen. Sessions, I go back to something you said: “We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law.” I assume you’re specifically referring to what she said in 2005 on tape at Duke University, where she said, “The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Not laws are interpreted. Policies made. Is that a disqualifier, in your opinion?

SESSIONS: Well, we need to inquire into that and give her a fair opportunity to explain it. But on its face, that’s very troubling. A judge must submit themselves to the law and be faithful to the law and to serve under the law. They are not above the law.

Yesterday, however, Sessions appeared on MSNBC and undercut this talking point, admitting that the Supreme Court “sets the law for America.” He went even further on Fox News last night, telling Greta Van Susteren that Supreme Court justices basically write the Constitution:

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the qualifications or what the Judiciary Committee looks for in sending someone to the floor, is it different what you look for for the United States Supreme Court as opposed to the United States Court of Appeals?

SESSIONS: I think a little bit. I’m not sure I could articulate the difference. There’s certainly a difference in the district court and the Supreme Court. But I do think there’s a greater power on a Supreme Court Justice to declare the Constitution says this or the Constitution says that. And it’s almost the same — it, indeed, virtually is the same — as writing the Constitution itself."

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 wrote: "Well if the law is Unconstitutional.. and discrimination on the basis of race (in this case the White firefighters denied equal protection) is unconstitutional.. then it is a judge's DUTY to overturn the law..."

That's a lot of ifs.
Posted by: nodebris
______
A lot? I count ONE...

I'm no lawyer, and I don't know all the details of the case, but the basic issues in employment testing law are these:
The law is that an employment exam that produces disparate results (e.g., that women or minorities or white men fail in disproportionate numbers) is presumed biased and cannot be used for employment decisions without extensive justification for the disparities --
Posted by: nodebris
______
First you know darn well if minorities did disproportionally well this test would NOT have been throw out. Second if this is the law than it is screwed up. Before the test is given yes do everything to check it to make sure it is unbiased.. but once given you should not be able to discard just because the people you didn't expect to pass it did. These firefighters took this test in GOOD FAITH to discard it after the fact is to discriminate against those men. They did NOTHING WRONG.. and they have NO CONTROL who passes it. It is wrong and should be ILLEGAL to do it.

I think you'd agree that tests which only white males seem able to pass, and which do not correlate strongly to performance on the job, would suggest a denial of equal protection --
Posted by: nodebris
______
First off you are assuming a lot of white firefighter also didn't fail the test. I bet more Whites FAILED than Blacks did. Second there has been NO evidence what part of the test was biased or that the test did not correlate strongly to performance. And again IF these are issues they should have been FIXED BEFORE THE TEST WAS GIVEN.. NOT AFTER IT WAS TAKEN AND PASSED BY SOME MEN WHO HAD EVERY EXPECTATION TO BE PROMOTED IF THEY PASSED!

The law is not a recent one, by the way, and it has indeed been challenged in court before, and yet still stands.
Posted by: nodebris
____
Well I expect the Supreme Court will finally to the RIGHT THING and get rid of it now.

It appears the city foolishly ignored this simple and basic principal and wherever else blame may lie here, this incompetence in selecting a bad exam is where you must start.
Posted by: nodebris
_____
First we don't know if it was a bad exam. Your assumption is that since the Black firefighters who took it failed means it was bad. Maybe it's as simple as they weren't as prepared as they should have been and will do better NEXT TIME. Either way you shouldn't punish the ones who studied for it and passed it. It's not their FAULT others failed no matter who the were.


Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Seems to be some growing interest in Barry's Birth Certificate. A question was asked of Gibbs about it in today's White House press conference. Gibbs giggled and appeared nervous. He referred to the questioned internet copy of a Birth Certificate and rushed to depart the press room.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | May 27, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

So Jake D is going to skip the whole "I caught lying on the message board" thing.

I got you liar!!!!!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

From conservative Rob Dreher:
The NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD (in case you missed it):

Would this be RACIST in your opinion: "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

So you now say that you stole it from Stuart Taylor not George Will.

A few minutes ago, it was your own precious original thought.

You coming around liar. Maybe seeing her quote in context will bring you around.

The Truth sets you free liar!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent finds the full speech from which that quote is taken:

Read in context, it’s clear that Sotomayor was merely saying that it’s inevitable that a judge’s personal race-based and gender-based experiences will impact judging, particularly in race and sex discrimination cases.

As a result, she said, while such formative experiences can be enriching and contribute to wise decisions, a judge should also be aware of them in order to avoid being wholly dominated by them. She vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”

“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations,” she said — the opposite of what critics claim she said.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

For everyone else, George Will was actually quoting Stuart Taylor of the National Journal:

"Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' – and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.'"

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1893612.html

I had seen neither quote prior to formulating my question (below) and would also draw your attention to the fact I did not include the REDUNDANT "Latina woman" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

It really is sad. JakeD is here at the Fix everyday. I leave for a few weeks. He is still here, trying to claim all the GOP talking points as his own. Like the Obama racist/terrorists jokes are all his.

Unless you really are Steele, Beck, Steyn, or Will then you are a fraud with no life.

"I have followed this man's career for some time," said President George H.W. Bush of Clarence Thomas in July 1991. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."

I guess there goes your empathy card.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Gingrich openly paraded his mistress all around DC while his then wife was dying of cancer -- when she didn't die fast enough he filed for divorce. THAT'S the man who's criticizing Sonia's morals.

Posted by: skeetchamp | May 27, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You didnt sound racist, then how did Sottomayor????

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"But I would hope anyone Black, White, Alien, Gay, would be smarter on a subject if they lived and knew it compared to any black, white, alien, gay person who didnt."

The thing is, her exact words weren't about a specific subject. They were about decision making in general.

Now I think she MEANT that a Latina woman would make better decisions on some areas, but I am not her and I can't do much more than conjecture on what she could have meant.

I do think the quote misrepresents what she truly believes, but I think the misrepresentation is more her fault for being a bit clumsy in that sentence than by the right wingers who are going to hammer us with that line. Now clearly her body of work her writings belie that sentence, but you know, its fair game to at least ask her about it. Give it to Jeff Sessions. That might be the most intelligent thing he could do throughout the entire hearing process.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "Why must the Democrats ALWAYS play dirty?"

Answer: Because we have a two party, winner-take-all political system.

Both parties "Always play dirty". Anyone who believes thier party doesn't, or that the other party is waaaaay more dirtier than theirs is living in denial.

Politics is a rough sport. Those with thin skins need not apply.

Posted by: MDLaxer | May 27, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Your [SIC] dumber then Costanza."

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHA you dont come up with anything yourself.

This is called a TALKING POINT.

Your such a strong individual to copy what everyone else is saying. You are a cog in the hate train.

Not one independent thought in you.

Plagerism is very weak. Mr. Will would be ashamed.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Cillizza, your pals are gonna lose on this one.

But here's what I guess will happen. The GOP will try to defeat Sotomayor by calling her a socialist. They will lose, Sotomayor will be elevated, and the GOP spokespeople (Rush, Cheney, Coulter) will whine on and on about how Sotomayor will destroy America.

And you'll write a piece that casts all this as a "rebirth" of the Republican party.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Of course all of my responses (to DDAWD or anyone else) do not sound racist; thank you for agreeing with me, finally.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Cillizza, your pals are gonna lose on this one.

But here's what I guess will happen. The GOP will try to defeat Sotomayor by calling her a socialist. They will lose, Sotomayor will be elevated, and the GOP spokespeople (Rush, Cheney, Coulter) will whine on and on about how Sotomayor will destroy America.

And you'll write a piece that casts all this a "rebirth" of the Republican party.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 27, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

And your response Jake to DDAWD does not sound racist,

its sounds reasonable.

Why are baseball players announcers, BECAUSE THEY PLAYED BASEBALL!!!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

tallertapas311:

I am not quoting Rush, Beck, and/or Steyn -- I came up with my question all by myself -- next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

And Jake,
Your response of DDAWD does NOT sound racist.

Its sounds reasonable to a sane person.

Thats why people are you arent announcers for baseball games, they give those jobs to FORMER BASEBALL PLAYERS.

Your dumber then Costanza

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"It's never too soon then, from a Republican party perspective, to start building a counter-narrative that Obama may talk a big game on bipartisanship but his actions -- from massive increases in government spending to the Sotomayor pick -- reveal him to be a down-the-line liberal."

and you reveal yourself to be nothing but a toady for republicans, mr. cilliza. and you are as wrong as they are about this. This is going to blow up in their faces. All that people [except for the hardcore 20% or so of fringe lunatics in this country] are going to see is that republicans can't learn or change. All they can do is repeat the same tactics of racism and divisiveness, and it just isn't going to work. All it's going to do is alienated the fastest growing voter block in the country and ensure defeat in the next election.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

For the record, here was my question to "info40" from my May 27, 2009 11:55 AM post:

Why must the Democrats ALWAYS play dirty?

Notice the punctuation known as the QUESTION MARK ("?") which denotes what I expect an answer to, not threats or name-calling. If anyone else wants to ask me any questions, in a civil manner, all I ask is for the same common courtesy in return.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Jake.
So your quoting Rush, Beck, and Steyn who are quoting Will.

That makes much more sense.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

tallertapas311:

I am not quoting George Will (who is a libertarian anyway ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Would this be RACIST in your opinion: "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Yes Jake D, everyone is using George Wills reversal of what she said.

But I would hope anyone Black, White, Alien, Gay, would be smarter on a subject if they lived and knew it compared to any black, white, alien, gay person who didnt.

Thats common sense. And Will twisted the direct quote anyway.

So you apology is welcome.

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

There you go with that reverse psychology bs again. I really don't care. You didn't even pose a question. Signing off on you FOREVER. Grow up and smell the roses bozo

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"If the ultimate goal for Republicans is to defeat Obama in 2012, then the Sotomayor pick presents them with a golden opportunity to cast the president as a traditional liberal -- far from the post-partisan figure he was able to present to the American public in the 2008 election."

What absolute crap, nonsense and hokum. You really buy into the beltway bullsh*t the whole enchilada, don't you, CC? She's no liberal at all, she's a moderate.

And it isn't Obama that's being partisan, it's the grand old party of priviliged white men, who are shreiking and clutching their pearls at the notion that a woman -- and a dreaded hispanic at that -- might make it into their clubhouse.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

info40 (and nodebris):

Too bad you refused to answer my question in my pevious post(s) to you, or I would have been glad to discuss your post to me.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD you really suck. Don't you realize that your views are in the minority? You are among the 25% of the bozos in this country that thought Prez Bush and Brownie Boy did a fantastic job.

There's no getting thru to you. You are a lost cause.

Get a life and leave us reasonable people alone.

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"I'm no lawyer, and I don't know all the details of the case, but the basic issues in employment testing law are these:"

Nodebris, read the Slate link I posted. It does a wonderful job of laying down the important issues of the case. To me it seems like it deals with the application of Title VII in the CRA of 1964. The exam was thrown out because it violated the law. Perhaps you can argue that the law is no longer necessary, but its not the job of a judge to...you know...legislate from the bench.

A point that the article makes. Ricci spent a lot of time and money preparing for the exam. To throw out the exam after he spent that time and effort is unfair. Perhaps he could have filed a lawsuit based on that. But the lawsuit wasn't based on time and effort. It was based on race. To side with the firefighters would have meant overturning Title VII.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/

Read it!!

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

ravitchn:

Would this be RACIST: "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

JakeD I dont believe for one second that you are Independent. If Dick Chaney (or Rush Limbaugh for that matter) were to run for Prez in 2012, you would be the first in line at the polls. Give me a break you neo-con

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

jaked, if you weren't already well-known as a fraud who chronically mischaracterizes data, I'd have fun yet again making you stupid for failing to read the entire report before you cite it.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You got to hand it to Limbaugh: he never changes his shtick. He is calling Sotomayor a racist. This is standard Republican defense of the harried white male and it can be justified, but Rush doesn't care a fig for knocking her out; the ideological high ground is more important.

Posted by: ravitchn | May 27, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD I dont believe for one second that you are Independent. If Dick Chaney were to run for Prez in 2012, you would be the fist in line at the polls. Give me a break you neo-con

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

info40:

If you don't want to admit that Bork was well-qualified and deserved a seat on the bench too, that's fine by me.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris is wrong again.

The GOP arent calling her a liberal, they are calling her a racist.

Obama is setting them up for self destruction AGAIN!!!!

Posted by: tallertapas311 | May 27, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD I see you are up to your dirty neo-con tricks again. Your words dont affect me...carry on with your narrow-minded ways

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

For the record, jaked is a severely obsessive nutcase who likes to characterize his fringe right-wing ideas as "Independent."

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama has made a good choice. She;s been nominated twice-once by the Reuplicans and once by the democrats- Her track record sticks with the law.She is more than worthy for the position- a lot more than the last two nominees.

Posted by: lancepcope | May 27, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Keep nailing down obscure peripheral points, jaked, and you won't have to reflect on how Miers was broadly considered ill-qualified.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

MDLAxer writes
"And has any Republican Senator stated that he/she planned to fillibuster this nomination? I don't think so. EVERYONE knows it would be political suicide."

The Senate is in recess, so many are currently unavailable for comment at this time. Sen Grassley, who sits on the Judiciary committee, has said to the conservative media that the GOP may use Bork as a precedent to block Obama nominees, and they hadn't ruled out using the filibuster. That, however, is likely to be hyperbole designed to reassure the base rather than disclosure of any real attempt to block Sotomayor, who is, after all, about as moderate a nominee as they could expect from a Dem president.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am registered Independent, not Republican, and I want people to wake up and leave BOTH major parties.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Make that October, 1999 (how could I have forgotten the butter-fly ballots ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "IIRC Pat Buchanan, in fact, left the Republican Party in 1996."

Time to get busy on Coulter, Limbaugh and Bork, then.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"That she is Hispanic is by itself, no cause to believe that she might be biased towards Hispanics. It is HER OWN STATEMENTS about choosing to see facts or not to see facts based on her ethnicity, and the importance of ethnicity to her judging that call her bias into question."

If you can frame this issue in a better way than by wondering if she's going to start releasing Latino criminals, then go for it. I'll be reading.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"To a Fascist everyone else is a liberal."

Thus the fad to declare other conservatives RINOs, I guess.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

IIRC Pat Buchanan, in fact, left the Republican Party in 1996.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Re-defining Obama as a liberal is, without question, Republicans best path to the White House."

To a Fascist everyone else is a liberal.

Posted by: timothy2me | May 27, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Barry is not big on the Constitution. Therefore this pick.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | May 27, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer:

Hopefully not.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: ""Conservatives" and who were pro-choice and other RINOs definitely attacked Ms. Miers."

Ah, so everyone, here's some new names to add to the RINO list, according to jaked, as they all opposed Miers:

Pat Buchanan
Ann Coulter
Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
Rush Limbaugh
Ramesh Ponnuru
George Will
David Frum
Randy Barnett
Robert Bork

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"I highly doubt that she will get 75 yeas, so we'll see who get to eat their words."

Who really cares? Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are both on the Supreme Court and one got a lot more votes than the other.

But I'm sure jaked will be whining about Sotomayor's credentials for years to come, just like he is still defending the credentials of the laughable Harriett Miers.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

If she makes it, I predict something closer to 64 or 65. Long gone are the "bi-partisan" days of Stephen Breyer (87 to 9), David Souter (90 to 9), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (96 to 3), Anthony Kennedy (97 to 0), John Paul Stevens (98 to 0), Antonin Scalia (98 to 0), and Sandra Day O'Connor (99 to 0).

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Okay. But remember, whether she gets 51 or 100 yeas, we'll still be calling Supreme Court Justice Satomayor this October.

Posted by: MDLaxer | May 27, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer:

I highly doubt that she will get 75 yeas, so we'll see who get to eat their words.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1, Sotomajor's decision in the fire fighters case had nothing to do with Ricci, or any of the other test takers. I'm sure the guys who wrote the best essays write excellent essays. Her decision upheld the lower court's decision that the test itself was unintentionally biased; she did not reflect on the merits of the test takers.

At this point in our country's history, no municipality could get away with intentionally discrimination. Unintentional discrimination requires more thought than a Fox headline, a Limbaugh bark and a soundbite taken out of context. On the face of it, I don't like the decision either, but a Judge has to think about more than like or dislike.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 27, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives" and who were pro-choice and other RINOs definitely attacked Ms. Miers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Different time, different mix in the Senate, different mood of the people.

Hey, I'll "eat my words" if I'm wrong, but I just don't see a fillibuster happening over this nomination.

I think her confirmation is a foregone conclusion. Better to focus energy, time and money on something else.

Posted by: MDLaxer | May 27, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

If I remember correctly, the most effective attacks on Miers' credentials came from conservatives. So the question can hardly be cast as liberal vs conservative. In a rare moment of bi-partisanship, they both agreed she was poorly qualified.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer:

I don't believe that any Senator has announced a filibuster (yet). You do recall that John F'ING Kerry tried to filibuster Alito, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Harriet ELLAN Miers was a lawyer in private practice for 27 years before joining the Bush Administration in D.C., and she served as the first female president of both the Dallas Bar Association and later the State Bar of Texas, as well as chair of the Board of Editors for the American Bar Association Journal ("ABA") and chair of the ABA's "Commission on Multi-Jurisdictional Practice".

She was also the chair of the Texas Lottery Commission from 1995-2001. Some have credited Miers with reforming the commission after a previous corruption scandal. Of course, she was also White House Counsel, the chief legal adviser for the Office of the President. She had PLENTY of experience.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"... everyone knows that whoever he picks, unless they haven't paid their baby-sitter taxes is going to be confirmed."

George, that is so Last Administration!

Not paying taxes is a REQUIREMENT to be on Team Obama.

Posted by: VaPatriot | May 27, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Opps. It would be similar to if Obama had offered Valerie Jarrett.

Another typo by me. Too bad drindl wasn't her to correct me.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: And it takes 60 votes to overide a fillibuster, which the Democrats will soon have.

And has any Republican Senator stated that he/she planned to fillibuster this nomination? I don't think so. EVERYONE knows it would be political suicide.

Sorry, there's just no drama here. We'll have some political theater over the summer where Senators (from both parties) will try to impress voters with their knowledge of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. But in the end, there will be a vote and I highly doubt she'll get less than 75 yeas.

Posted by: MDLaxer | May 27, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"What did you have against Miers?! At least she brought REAL WORLD experience at, you know, actually running a profitable business instead of Ivy Tower government appointees."

You can always count on jaked to follow up a stupid comment with another, and another, and another.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

To me the Miers picked smacked of cronyism as a substitute for qualifications.

Her close personal connection to Bush was the only reason she was offered, in my opinion.

It would be similar to if Obama had nominated. She might be smart. She might be good. She doesn't have the qualifications or experience of other candidates, in my view.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer:

A filibuster only takes 40 Senators.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Instead of just calling someone stupid for disagreeing with your position, why don't you point out the facts that support your conclusion, and only resort to calling someone stupid when they stubbornly and ignorantly fail to comment on the facts that you present?"

razorback, that is a fair point, but in the case of Miers vs Sotomayor the comment was patently ridiculous. Most people who bother to read and post on these boards don't need me to recite Miers's feeble resume.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Nevadaandy:

Even assuming that's a violation of the Civil Rights Act, it would be tossed out of court as a "political question". Nice try though. You'd be better to keep quoting from the 40% of her opinions the Supreme Court did NOT overturn.

Razorback1:

What did you have against Miers?! At least she brought REAL WORLD experience at, you know, actually running a profitable business instead of Ivy Tower government appointees.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"Barring some sort of bombshell regarding Sotomayor, she is almost certain to be confirmed."

"almost certain"? Really? 60 Democrats vs 40 Republicans in the Senate. "Almost certain"? Please enlighted us as to what sort of "bombshell" would cause 11 Democrats not to support their party's president?

C'mon. "...almost certain to be confirmed with 75 votes" would have been more appropriate.

With so much going on in the world, why are you trying to create drama where there is none?

Posted by: MDLaxer | May 27, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, just note the difference in reaction to when Huck says something stupid, and when Biden says something stupid.

There should be one standard for determing whether a politician says something stupid, and it should be neutrally applied to all politcians, regarless of their viewpoints or party.

This use of one rule for one group and another rule for another group fits in perfectly with the left's notions of group justice and differing standards for preferred classes.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

onestring:

That's closer to 34% (check the CNN.com Quick Vote below) and only based on first impression -- that's a pretty big deficit this early in the game -- now, if she handles the confirmation hearing as well as Roberts did, she has nothing to worry about.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

To deny Sotomayor's confirmation based on her race and sex is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Taking her sex and race out of the picture, you need to look at her judicial intellect and ability to interpret and apply the law fairly. From what I've read on different sites she is certainly well qualified. In fact this is from one of those sites:

Thomas C. Goldstein, a lawyer who argues frequently before the Supreme Court and founded Scotusblog, a Web site that covers the court, said there could be no doubt about Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual capacity.

“She’s got the horses, for sure,” Mr. Goldstein said.

Nor, he added, was there any question of her fundamental orientation, based on a review of her decisions. “From the outcomes,” Mr. Goldstein said, “she’s certainly on the left.”

Judge Sotomayor’s rulings have sometimes anticipated decisions of the Supreme Court. In 1999, for instance, she refused to suppress crack cocaine found by police officers who were executing a warrant that had been vacated 17 months before but never deleted from a police database.

That kind of error, Judge Sotomayor said, did not require suppression. The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in January, a decade after Judge Sotomayor’s decision.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | May 27, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960

We probably agree on very little, although I agree with you regarding the qualifications of Miers. Instead of just calling someone stupid for disagreeing with your position, why don't you point out the facts that support your conclusion, and only resort to calling someone stupid when they stubbornly and ignorantly fail to comment on the facts that you present?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1:

I guess if her middle name is NOT "Maria" then I will, indeed, use the OUT OF CONTEXT defense ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

A major reason I voted for Obama was to clear the whitehouse, government agencies leadership, and the courts of the Neo Conservatives, and fundamentalist thinkers that nearly destroyed America over the last 8 years.

We've cleared the Whitehouse. We're getting rid of the political appointees who tried to stick around and wrek progress by "burrowing in" at the agencies, and we're now moving on to the courts.

Republicans have a 20% say in the matter. That's all that is left of their party, so would you please reduce the entertaining of their perrennial, self-serving, un-American, un-scientific concerns by 80%?

Thanks!

SCALIA SHOULD BE SEND DELICIOUS GIFTS OF ARTERY CLOGGING TREATS, HARD LIQUOR, AND CIGARS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER OBAMA APPOINTEE ON THE COURT ASAP!

Posted by: onestring | May 27, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

sovine08 wrote: "Well if the law is Unconstitutional.. and discrimination on the basis of race (in this case the White firefigthers denied equal protection) is unconstitutional.. then it is a judge's DUTY to overturn the law..."

That's a lot of ifs.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't know all the details of the case, but the basic issues in employment testing law are these:

The law is that an employment exam that produces disparate results (e.g., that women or minorities or white men fail in disproportionate numbers) is presumed biased and cannot be used for employment decisions without extensive justification for the disparities -- justifications which the city in this case was unable or unwilling to offer.

I think you'd agree that tests which only white males seem able to pass, and which do not correlate strongly to performance on the job, would suggest a denial of equal protection -- indeed, that's the point and origin of the law, this being a not infrequent situation some years ago. The law is not a recent one, by the way, and it has indeed been challenged in court before, and yet still stands.

Anyone who deals in employment testing should be fully aware of this long-standing law, and the use of an exam for employment decisions that has not been properly validated amounts to professional misconduct that begs for a lawsuit. The key is to use only exams -- and they certainly exist -- that you know can stand up in court. It appears the city foolishly ignored this simple and basic principal and wherever else blame may lie here, this incompetence in selecting a bad exam is where you must start.

So the obvious injustice you see in the case may not be so obvious as you presume. The real injustice may be that the city selected a test that does not in fact correlate with job performance and which favors white men. The city doesn't care to argue otherwise -- that's why they threw out the results. Then a white man complained, of course. Too bad the city didn't use a test they could defend. The biggest crime here looks to me like managerial incompetence, not reverse discrimination.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, DDAWD. I must have missed it before.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

WHAT DDAWD SAID:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/

Just in case you guys are interested in a non right-wing viewpoint on the firefighter case. It's very good.

Posted by: DDAWD

WHAT DDAWD MEANT:

Listen fellow liberals. We are being very stupid. The right wingers are making points on this Ricci thing that we cannot refute with our normal arsenal of stupid pet tricks. Maybe we should try reading about this case before we make more stupid comments that only reveal our ignorance.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"Harriet ELLAN Miers was more qualified than Sonia MARIA Sotomayor."

You'd be taken more seriously if you cut your posting volume down by 75 percent or so. This one was just idiotic, even by your low standards.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, what is really stupid is that you do not seem to see that bias and ethnic bias are legitimate topics of discussion for judical nominations, particularly when the nominee herself says that what facts she sees or does not see depends on her ethnicity.

That she is Hispanic is by itself, no cause to believe that she might be biased towards Hispanics. It is HER OWN STATEMENTS about choosing to see facts or not to see facts based on her ethnicity, and the importance of ethnicity to her judging that call her bias into question.

Of similar concern her statements that Latinas make better decisions that whites. It is this group notion of justice that concerns me about bias. I would agree with her statement if she had said that smart Latinas make better decisions that dumb whites. She groups them all together, regardless of their merit as individuals. This is the same thing she did to Frank Ricci when his case came before her. To hell with the merits of individuals, just make a group based decision.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate,"

Talk about a red herring. This 60 percent rate is based on the very few of her cases the Supreme Court saw fit to review. It leaves out the HUNDREDS of other opinions she wrote that were not reversed because the Supreme Court saw no reason to even look at them.

The GOP (Goobers Only Please) are running on fumes if this is the best they can do.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/

Just in case you guys are interested in a non right-wing viewpoint on the firefighter case. It's very good.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

It was out of context. I do not know what the context is or was, all I know is that it was out of context. And bias doesn't matter for a judge anyway. What is really important is that Huck the moron got her name wrong.

When Sotomayor says something wrong, like that Latinas make better decisions, it should be minimized because of "context". When Huck the moron says something wrong, we should blow it out of proportion by assuming the worst of motives. That way we can all be silly simple minded relativists who mindlessly defend those who agree with our ideology and mindlessly attack those who do not.

Zombie of DDAWG

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Harriet ELLAN Miers was more qualified than Sonia MARIA Sotomayor.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Is it "politically correct" to at least ask her what she meant by "better"?"

Yup. I know you like to write more than you like to read, but I said this already.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"You selectively quoted me to misrepresent what I said, at the same time as you attempted to avoid a real question about bias of this nominee. That makes you a DOPE."

I wasn't really trying to characterize your position on anything. I was just pointing you out as a stupid opposer. It was just to clarify a point I had made earlier. Don't take it personally. It's just that you said something pretty stupid and it was a perfect example as to what I was talking about.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

free-donny:

YOU claimed (among other unsupported allegations) that Sotomayor "seems to have broad support of most American's [SIC]." I asked a simple question as to your assumptions. If you really want to get into it:

http://www.cnn.com/ Quick Vote

Do you agree with President Obama's selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice?

Yes 66% (296,597)

No 34% (154,193)

Total Votes: 450,790

So, what exactly is your definition of "broad", "support", "most", and "American"?"

Never mind that online polls are meaningless, if a presidential candidate got 66% percent of the vote, you'd go far beyond saying he had broard support. You'd say he won a massive, crushing, landslide victory.

So the answer, using basic definitions, is:

broad? yes
most? yes
support? yes
Americans? yes

Wonder how you did so well at Stanford Law being illiterate.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

A-Voter:

Which Republican(s) are you referring to?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the explanation re: policy and the appeals court, mark_in_austin. Your answer is much more thorough than my explanation has been.

As to the "wise Latina" comment, I do think it's fair to bring it up in the confirmation hearings. She didn't do a great job of clarifying her intention there. I think there's some wiggle room for her in the conditional "would hope," but she'll have to explain.

Posted by: JohninMpls | May 27, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the public is seeing Obama's true colors and, it would seem, likes what it sees. If you think this is a liberal pick, you should see what some of us "REAL" Liberals would prefer. We think she is much to moderate, she is Catholic and she has no track record on executive power or abortion rights. Just imagine what you would get if you satisfied all of that? The anti Alito!

Posted by: samson1 | May 27, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

.
.
.

Don't we have the biggest Republican duuusssh as a justice?

What are all of you hypocrite Republicans crying about this time?


.
.
.
.

Posted by: A-Voter | May 27, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Is it "politically correct" to at least ask her what she meant by "better"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Frank Ricci, a firefighter in New Haven, Conn., worked hard, played by the rules, and earned a promotion to fire lieutenant. But the city denied him the promotion because he is not black. Ricci sued, along with 16 other whites and one Hispanic firefighter. After a 7-6, near-party-line vote by a federal Appeals Court to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs petitioned for Supreme Court review....

Ricci studied for eight to 13 hours a day to prepare for the combined written and oral exam in 2003 that he hoped would win him a promotion. He spent more than $1,000 buying the books that the city had suggested as homework and paying an acquaintance to read them onto audiotapes. (Ricci is dyslexic and learns better by listening.) And he got one of the highest scores.

But Ricci and other would-be lieutenants and captains with high scores did not get the promotions they expected. The reason was that -- because not enough black firefighters had done well enough to be eligible -- New Haven decided to discard the test results and make no promotions at all.

Was it just to deny Frank Ricci's claim and not bother to offer an explanation?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

No, it wasn't her race or gender, nah, not at all. It was her effectiveness....


With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | May 27, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

ChangeWhat:

Eaxctly.

"Sotomayor pick not based on merit"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/shapiro.scotus.identity/index.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

Where did you go to?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Not to state the obvious, but she was picked because she is Hispanic and Female. The time she has been on the bench is irrelevant. In her case that time has been questionable in her decisions and effectiveness. She fits Barry's profile and as a bonus, he gets an Activist. She is not the best pick. She is a useful tool for Rahm and Barry. Her pick makes a complete joke of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: ChangeWhat | May 27, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"ON ONE OF YOUR BETTER DAYS, are you still willing to say a judge who will favor one person's rights over another basedon their color is a fair choice to judge?"

Another example of stupid opposition.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"Given the difficulties inherent in an all out attempt to block Sotomayor, is this nomination already a lost cause for Republicans? Not by a long shot."

Talk about BORING Inside Baseball. Come on Chris, ginning up faux controversy is so Yesterday's News .... soon, it won't just be the print edition that's in trouble but the digital one as well.

Oh, that's right, the Republicans are supposed to get their way no matter if they are in the majority or minority. Good going, Chris, keep the Party Alive.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: yahooooooo | May 27, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

free-donny:

YOU claimed (among other unsupported allegations) that Sotomayor "seems to have broad support of most American's [SIC]." I asked a simple question as to your assumptions. If you really want to get into it:

http://www.cnn.com/ Quick Vote

Do you agree with President Obama's selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice?

Yes 66% (296,597)

No 34% (154,193)

Total Votes: 450,790

So, what exactly is your definition of "broad", "support", "most", and "American"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD you silly DOPE. When you quoted me, you left out the basis for my questions, which are statements from Sotomayor about how "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. . . . I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

She acknowledges that judges "choose to see" certain facts. She has made numerous quotes about the importance of her ethnicity and how it impacts her judging.

Its a reasonable question to ask what facts will she see or not see because of her ethnicity, and what facts will she see or not see because of the ethnicity of those whose cases come before her.

You selectively quoted me to misrepresent what I said, at the same time as you attempted to avoid a real question about bias of this nominee. That makes you a DOPE.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Using your argument that Justice Cardozo was not hispanic because he was born in New York and no one in his family had lived in a Hispanic country for 300 years just made every Latino or Hispanic or Black that was born in America ... simply and American."

Personally, I find calling black people "African American" idiotic. For a while I referred to white people as "European Americans" It never caught on.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

why must the GOP ALWAYS play dirty? It is not always about them...they need to get over themselves. Sotomayor is well-qualified and deserves a seat on the bench.

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse
======================
would be nice if most of you stopped cut the tope that obama is pulling you with.

ON ONE OF YOUR BETTER DAYS, are you still willing to say a judge who will favor one person's rights over another basedon their color is a fair choice to judge?

give me a break WILLya?

yes its looking like she might be confirmed but only at the expense of us ALL. it would be a disgrace to point to this woman in a school of Law as someone to aspire to be.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | May 27, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Using your argument that Justice Cardozo was not hispanic because he was born in New York and no one in his family had lived in a Hispanic country for 300 years just made every Latino or Hispanic or Black that was born in America ... simply and American.

No more Latino American, Hispanic American or African American because for the sake of the liberal argument that a man of Hispanic decent is not Hispanic because he was born in America.

Think about what you are saying. Sotamayor is Hispanic ... but because she MUST be the first Hispanic on the court ... The man of Hispanic origin who was appointed to the court 73 years is not REALLY hispanic because his parents moved to America before he was born.

There by that logic there are no Irish Americans left in the country because they were born here. Itailians who were borne here have no tie to Italy because the liberals want to make the first Hispanic justice appointed in 1936... not.

I don't care what her national origin is ... she is a judicial activist who believes it is her job to MAKE LAW ... and therefor she should not be on the bench.

She will beconfirmed because not enough democrats will put justice and the Constitution above politics.

I have work to do so will see all y'all later.

Mark

Posted by: markandbeth | May 27, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

bdonahoe:

I said she was RAISED Catholic (I mean, even John F'ing Kerry was RAISED Catholic ; )

free-donny:

Did you see my question to you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder what facts Judge Sotomayor will choose to see or not see because she is "of color"??? Will she see technicalities that let criminals out of jail if they share her color???"

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about Republicans being stupid in their opposition. I guess this is the big risk when you make a concerted effort to drive out the intellectuals from your party.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers will be simple minded.

For any quote she does not like, she will say "its out of context". She will not provide the context. She will offer no explanation as to the words Sotomayor used mean something other than their ordinary meaning. She will just use the context excuse, and pretend the words were not said. This is because margaretmeyers is simple minded.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

The beauty of the Sotomayor selection is: that if you believe she is the best possible choice or if you don't, the ball is in the opposition's "court". President Obama is NOW well aware that the GOP has no bipartisan intentions and has decided to take their steering wheel away.

It will be interesting to see which of their undesirable options they choose. Its seems the administration has limited them to (a) obstructionist political suicide, and (b) decide to cooperate in moving the country forward. Hey - if they actually choose "b", they may find they like progress...and we will be done with the Bush/Cheney legacy...

Posted by: free-donny | May 27, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

This whole story sounds utterly ignorant.
Apparently the writer hasn't read any of Sotomayor's cases. In truth she is more of a conservative than a liberal, and a Catholic at that. She wouldn't even throw out a baseball because it would be "unseemly."
Plus people are not as afraid of Liberals as Republicans would like to think. We know who Cheney is, and we're really tired of being told to "be afraid be very afraid."

Posted by: bdonahoe | May 27, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Well if the law is Unconstitutional.. and discrimination on the basis of race (in this case the White firefigthers denied equal protection) is unconstitutional.. then it is a judge's DUTY to overturn the law..."

Yeah, if there was only some Supreme Court precedent on the Civil Rights Act...

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Well if the law is Unconstitutional.. and discrimination on the basis of race (in this case the White firefigthers denied equal protection) is unconstitutional.. then it is a judge's DUTY to overturn the law..."

Yeah, if there was only some Supreme Court precedent on the Civil Rights Act...

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

"[A]ncient soundbites"?! It was only 8 years ago, not 17.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

SO!

if you are uncomfortable about the fact that she uses Socialist quotes

or that she thinks she is more qualified because of her background((is there anyone out there without a background by the way??) - -

and if you disagree that she only tried to clean up her remoark about where policy is made when she remembered she was on tape - - then you are a HIspanic hater?

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO JUDGING PEOPLE ON THEIR MERIT AND NOT THEIR COLOR?

ON THEIR RECORD AND NOT BEING FEARFUL THAT THE LEFTWING WILL LABEL YOU RACIST?

isnt that how we ended up with a BLUNDERER-in-chief in the first place?

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | May 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

sovine08:

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will:

feed the usual selective quotes, ancient sound bites and misinformation to their outlets in the press and
let Limbaugh, their "useful idiot," snap and foam away because that makes responsible people respond to his irresponsible yapping.

This is the way they always look after our country's interests.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 27, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

How much do you know about the law surrounding employment testing? Maybe you should read up on it, if the issue concerns you so. You may discover that what you disagree with is the law itself.
Posted by: nodebris
_______
Well if the law is Unconstitutional.. and discrimination on the basis of race (in this case the White firefigthers denied equal protection) is unconstitutional.. then it is a judge's DUTY to overturn the law...

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Then she [Judge Sotomayor] pivoted to her view of the judiciary, bluntly rejecting the argument of conservative legal thinkers that judges should decide cases purely on close readings of facts and law, excluding their own frames of reference. "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," Sotomayor told the audience at the University of California at Berkeley that day in October 2001. "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. . . . I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600914.html?sub=AR

I wonder what facts Judge Sotomayor will choose to see or not see because she is "of color"??? Will she see technicalities that let criminals out of jail if they share her color???

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 27, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"If her opinion is that the lower court was correct, what more do you need?

This GOP line about the "one paragraph" is going to need some re-thinking. This is common practice at the appelate level, you are going to come out of this with egg on your faces if you pretend it's an anomaly."

One of the Slate articles says that the decision to write a brief decision isn't unusual, but should be scrutinized in this case because of the magnitude of the decision. I suppose that's an opinion with which Sotomayor may have disagreed. Anyways, its something else that she can be asked. Republicans shouldn't be stupid in their opposition, but they should be diligent. These sorts of things are fair game.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"why must the Democratc ALWAYS play dirty? It is not always about them...they need to get over themselves. Bork was well-qualified and deserved a seat on the bench too."

Bork sabotages his nomination with his pompous confirmation hearing remarks, such as calling service on the Court an "intellectual feast." Talk about a tin ear. You don't serve on the Court for your own gain, be it intellectual or otherwise.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 27, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I didn't misrepresent her words, and I was looking for the same exact FULL QUOTE you found first.

free-donny:

You do agree that MOST Americans only heard her (middle) name for the first time yesterday, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

info40:

why must the Democratc ALWAYS play dirty? It is not always about them...they need to get over themselves. Bork was well-qualified and deserved a seat on the bench too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"to bsimon1: get someone to do your legal analysis for you -- that's not my job anymore"

Huh? You asked the question. If I were interested in your legal analysis, I'd ask for it. In the absence of a direct query, it is safe for you to assume I am not interested in your opinion. Please note that when I quote you in a response, I am most likely not engaging you in dialogue, but rather am correcting the record for other readers. For an example, see the exchange earlier this morning where you misrepresented Judge Sotomayor's words regarding a wise latina.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

DBW1.... a little advice to Repubs: in future, you may not want to actually bring up Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzalez. Doing so...really does not lend your argument much credibility.

"I do not recall..."

Whatta crook!

Posted by: free-donny | May 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

xSamplex:

That's not true -- I'm sure a majority of Republicans would have welcomed a pro-life nominee -- I suspect the DEMOCRATS would have had a few words to say about that however.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

why must the GOP ALWAYS play dirty? It is not always about them...they need to get over themselves. Sotomayor is well-qualified and deserves a seat on the bench.

Posted by: info40 | May 27, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

markandbeth, Cardozo was Latino in the same way I am Scottish. Our ancestors emigrated to this country when it was still a rattletrap of colonies. Before that, Cardozo's ancestors were in England, and before that they were in Holland. His ancestors left Spain in the face of the Inquisition, as did most Sephardic Jews.
So, the only thing between Cardozo and being Latino is about 300 years of history.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 27, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Many citizens like me have concluded that the republicans will oppose virtually any initiative or nomination by the administration without any regard whatsoever to the merits (or lack thereof) of that position.

Having revealed themselves to be the party concerned with power over the national interest, they must be completely unhinged to believe some sort of republican resurgence is possible. If you do not work for the benefit of the citizenry, then you have nothing to offer. I have zero expectations regarding current republicans to do right thing if it might align with the agenda of a democrat. Even if it included the elimination of evil in our world.

Posted by: xSamplex | May 27, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

Are you talking to me?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Here's the DISSENT to that 1 paragraph, taking her to task for not even dealing with the Constitutional issues (the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and heard arguments on the case in April -- hopefully, they will overturn Sotomayor just in time for her confirmation hearing -- I still think that the abortion issue, the death penalty, gay rights, and national security will provide plenty of ammo, apart from any race component ; )

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/doc/06-4996-cv_opn2.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5e33bc42-8177-41c2-bd13-816df560e8b1/3/hilite/

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Maybe her middle name is MARIA?"

You mean "one of her middle names," like you said earlier? Because hispanic people have a lot of middle names - LOLOL!!!

1) Is it her middle name (or one of them)?
2) How would Huck know her middle name?
3) Why would Huck refer to her by her middle name?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

She WAS raised Catholic (maybe it's her confirmation name). Her father's name was Juan, and her mother's name is Celina.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

looks like Korea has figured out that obambi is a wimp.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 27, 2009 10:07 AM
-----------------------------------

How come idiots like you have access to a computer? What do you think should the President do?

Start another war, maybe invade Australia?

That's what is wrong with our country. Too many ignorant fools around

Posted by: mackiejw | May 27, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

dee5:

Maybe her middle name is MARIA?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"Her "opinion" was only 1 paragraph long, upholding the lower court's decision with no explanation why."

If her opinion is that the lower court was correct, what more do you need?

This GOP line about the "one paragraph" is going to need some re-thinking. This is common practice at the appelate level, you are going to come out of this with egg on your faces if you pretend it's an anomaly.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, dbw1.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee, the great white hope of the GOP, called Judge Sotomayor, "Maria" when he denounced her nomination for the Supreme Court.

Huckabee, like his extremist counterparts in the Republican Party, is unable to distinguish between and among minority group members. He thinks that all Hispanics are his maid.

The Republicans, in opposing Judge Sotomayor, reveal themselves as the racist, sexist, bigoted extremists that the rest of us have thought they were for years. Now we get the positive confirmation of their bigotry and myopia.

I hope this closes the books on the GOP as a serious party for the next 40 years.

Posted by: dee5 | May 27, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Two things the right wing-nuts can do about this nomination:

Like it.

Nothin'.

Posted by: kase | May 27, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Her "opinion" was only 1 paragraph long, upholding the lower court's decision with no explanation why.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Judge Sotomayor's comments about the purpose of an appeals court is very appropriate. While I am not an attorney I am a CPA and am bound by decisions made by the appellate distinct I practice in. This has nothing to do with making law but interpreting law within that district. Once the appellate court reaches a decision the trial judges are bound to interpret the law as the appellate court interprets it in that district. The Supreme Court's purpose is to resolve conflicting appellate opinions and to take on cases with huge national importance. The propose of Congress is to overturn court rulings where they disagree with rulings that are contrary to the policy set by the legislative branch. This is called the balance of power and is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. To attack the Judge for making those comments shows that you need to take high school civics over. I suppose Government was one of those classes Rush flunked on his way to flunking out of college.

Posted by: bradcpa | May 27, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The Fix and the rest of the mainstream media is falling right in line regurgitating the DNC spin: Republicans can't oppose Sotomayer or they risk alienating the Hispanic vote in future elections.

Funny, I don't seem to recall The Post or the MSM telling Democrats they would risk losing Hispanic voters for the rest of all time if they opposed the historic appointment of Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic Attorney General.

Most all of the Democrats in the Senate voted AGAINST his confirmation, and Gonzales was a supporter of abortion rights and affirmative action! Not exactly a hard-line conservative, yet the Democrats still found a way to play partisan politics with Alberto's nomination with hardly a finger lifted to the keyboard in question in any newsroom across the country. And I certainly don't recall any of our brilliant 'journalists' implying Hispanics should move their votes to Republicans because of the Democrat effort to block Alberto's nomination.

Democrats and liberals continue to show their monumental hypocrisy. They tell conservatives that we have to be 'bipartisan'. But "bipartisan" is simply code for 'go along with whatever liberals want to do'. It never means coming to the middle to agree - on anything - with conservatives.

Posted by: dbw1 | May 27, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Does ANYONE honestly think it's a smart move for the GOP to relentlessly oppose, perhaps even filibuster Sotomayor? GOP's Jeff Sessions said he seriously doubts she will be opposed that vigorously. We'll see. This new President of ours is a smart one...the GOP may want to sit out the next few plays.

LoL

Posted by: free-donny | May 27, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I am kind of curious to read the ruling on the firefighter case. Anyone know where I can find it?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"You may discover that what you disagree with is the law itself."

Which would be deliciously ironic, considering that would mean that "markandbeth" would actually be arguing *for* "judicial activism" in criticizing her decision.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, DDAWD.

P.S. to bsimon1: get someone to do your legal analysis for you -- that's not my job anymore -- it was bad enough slogging through the Prop. 8 opinion ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

markandbeth wrote: "So her dicision to allow the City of New Haven CT to discrimanate based on race is not judicial activism?"

How much do you know about the law surrounding employment testing? Maybe you should read up on it, if the issue concerns you so. You may discover that what you disagree with is the law itself.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"So her dicision to allow the City of New Haven CT to discrimanate based on race is not judicial activism?"

No it's not. The job of the apellate court is to determine if the lower court has made the correct decision in accordance with the law. That's the sole purpose of the court, they just ruled in a way that you disagree with politically and therefore label as "judicial activism."

"it is creating law from the bench."

Wonderful, then by *your* definition. What law did she create from the bench when she decided to uphold the lower court's Ricci decision?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Today's exercise in plagiarism is brought to you by the letters Z, O, U, and K.

www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/narcissus_and_echo_obama_and_t_1.html

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 27, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

So her dicision to allow the City of New Haven CT to discrimanate based on race is not judicial activism? Come on ... If the city had thrown out the results of the Fire Fighter Test because only Blacks passed the left would be all over that on constitutional grounds .. but because the people who studied hard and had the most knowledge about fighting fire, saving lives, combating hazmat, and all the other things that Fire Fighters do were white and Latino .. it was ok to discriminate based on race. That is what the dicision was and there is no valid agrument saying it was not.

That was the dicision that another appelet Litino justice scolded her for in an official letter.

And as far as the lefts now narrow definition of Judicial activist ... I dont buy it. Judicial activism is not JUST overturning exsisting law ... it is creating law from the bench.

The Kelog dicision was Judicial activism that the left leaning Justices took the side of Corporations and City over the rights of private citizens ... crated law from the bench. Roe vs Wade the left leaning Justices twisted and tured the constitution so much that even Justic Gensburg said she wished it was based on stronger law ... that was judicial activism. The 9th cercut court of appeals lives and breaths judicial activism.
Soytomayor IS a judicial activist ... you can choose to ignore it .. but it is true.

Posted by: markandbeth | May 27, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"how did that hope turn out after 8 years?"

Your the alleged Standford Law graduate. Analyze her record.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"Review the statement again, she was specifically talking about racial and gender discrimination cases, and even cited Brown v Board."

I actually thought that's what she was doing until I read the speech. She cited this case as an example, but her statement didn't refer to any specific cases. It was a general statement. Perhaps it was just poor wording on her part or perhaps she thinks a court of Latina women would do better than a court of white men.

I think she should at least be questioned on this, don't you?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What of Narcissus? Abandoned, without an Echo, he becomes distraught and pines away, utterly consumed by his passion for his image. Those who search for his body can find only his namesake Narcissus flower. Obama will also disappear from the scene, a pretender caught in a trap of his pride's own making. Those who search for his substance will not be able to find it. He will become the symbol and memory of a time when too many Americans lost their moral and spiritual bearings, abandoned foundational principles, and all-too-eagerly embraced "a reflected form which has no substance of its own."

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 27, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

markandbeth write
"The first Latino Justice on the Supreme Court was Justice Benjamin Cordozo in 1936."

Don't believe everything you read. Latinos are generally considered to be people from Latin America - i.e. from Mexico to Argentina. That does not describe Justice Cardozo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_cordoza

"Cardozo was born in New York City, the son of Rebecca Washington (née Nathan) and Albert Jacob Cardozo.[1] Both Cardozo's maternal grandparents, Sara Seixas and Isaac Mendes Seixas Nathan, and his paternal grandparents, Ellen Hart and Michael H. Cardozo, were Sephardi Jews; their families immigrated from England before the American Revolution, and were descended from Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula for Holland during the Inquisition."

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Narcissus, cursed for his mockery, gazes into the pool of his vanity, and beholds there "a reflected form [which] has no substance of its own." It is also a backwards image. His right eye becomes his left eye, his left arm becomes his right arm, etc. He is not in love with himself, but with a backwards, two-dimensional reflection of himself.
Obama adores his own backwards reflection, and he sees the world through those backwards eyes. He should rebuke the two-bit dictators of Nicaragua and Venezuela; instead, he suffers insults from the one and embraces the other. He should meet the Saudi king man to man; instead, he bows to him. He should allow inefficient and corrupt businesses to fail; instead, he bails them out. He should protect national security secrets; instead, he reveals them to our enemies. Instead of affirming the importance of America's Judeo-Christian tradition, he marginalizes it. Obama's "hope and change" mantra "has no substance of its own."

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 27, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, bsimon1, how did that hope turn out after 8 years?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The first Latino Justice on the Supreme Court was Justice Benjamin Cordozo in 1936. Sorry, but Soytomayor would not be the first latino on the Court. She missed that by 73 years ... and our currnent President was not smart enough to figger that out before going public with his "First Latino supreme Court justice" comments.

Posted by: markandbeth | May 27, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

markandbeth write
"She IS a judicial activist by her own words. "The appelate court is where policy is made""

That is not judicial activism. She was talking about the court of appeals. The court of appeals is where you take your case when you think a lower court has wrongly applied the law. The job of the appelate courts is to clarify the law, particularly if it is poorly written. Attorneys have posted that explanation here many times, including at 8:13 AM, if you don't mind scrolling down.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"Nice of you to cover for Hucklehead when he called her by the wrong name. Aren't they all called Maria? "

Stop it. I'm no Huckabee fan, but stop it.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"She IS a judicial activist by her own words."

But, she's not by any of her rulings. That's the point that you people are missing, her decisions *don't actually back up* any of these accusations that you are leveling at her.

It's starting to make you look really silly.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

JakeD writes
"That was 17 years ago. Let's ask her how that "hope" turned out."

Here's the first sentence from the link I posted earlier:

"The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor."

2001 was 8 years ago, not 17.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"She was referring to decisions in general and saying that a Latina woman would do better than a white man more than half the time."

Review the statement again, she was specifically talking about racial and gender discrimination cases, and even cited Brown v Board.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

She IS a judicial activist by her own words. "The appelate court is where policy is made" She tried to back track on that but found she was with a favorable audience to judicial activist so she made a joke about it. But she does believe that her job is to make law. To rewrite the Constitution to fit her agenda and background.

How many of you remember lady justice ... with the scales ... and the blindfold. The law should be blind to anythig but the law .. especially at the Supreme Court.

Because she does not believe the Constitution is good law she should not be on the Supreme court ... President Obama wants to appoint someone who believes as he does... that the Constitution is a document of "negative rights"

Our only hope of a fair choice on the Sotamayor pick is if enough democrats congress have the balls to stand up for justice over politics. A hope that is almost impossible.

And don't feed me the "First latino woman supreme court justice bull". The democrats voted down the "FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN pick" And she even believed and had a record of judging according to the law. No other lawyer wrote letters of repremand to her about not even including the law in her dicisions as Soytomayor has.

Posted by: markandbeth | May 27, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"I haven't seen much about gender or race and to be quite honest I think the fear of racism on the left is getting overplayed now and needs to be dropped if they want to be civil"

The only people that I have heard talk about racism are conservatives pre-emptively accusing liberals of painting them as racists.

I do tilt my head slightly, though, when People like Huckabee call her "Maria," and people like Jake D make cracks about "one of her middle names."

HI-larious!

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

free-donny:

"Most" Americans just heard her name for the first time yesterday.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"SS's "wise Latina" comment is worthy of critical assessment, however. The complete context of the remark is similar to one made by Justice Breyer before a Federal Bar Association annual function in Austin some years ago, and to Holmes' famous aphorism about the effect of differing life experiences. Still, it will be properly revisited by the SJC, because it offers the notion that the sum of her experiences are not merely different - they are BETTER than the sum of mine. I would certainly want to question her about that if I were on the SJC."

Yeah, it was a strange comment and the context of the rest of the paragraph really does nothing to vindicate her. If she was referring to specific cases like Plessy v Ferguson, that might have made more sense. A Latina woman wouldn't say that separate could be equal. But she wasn't referring to a subset of cases. She was referring to decisions in general and saying that a Latina woman would do better than a white man more than half the time. It's a pretty bizarre statement.

As for trying to cast Obama as a liberal, its not like this hasn't been tried before. Who knows? Maybe this will work someday.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"No they're really not. Her record is one that is not entirely moderate. Many of her decisions have be very left and"

How many? Please cite a Few.

"unsurprisingly some of the social issues have been very conservative especially what I understand about the abortion ones."

Again, please cite.

"And the judicial activism claim isn't entirely unwarrented or something I'm finding easily dismissed."

Finally, please provide any evidence to support this claim as well. As a pre-emptive rebuttal, I offer her dissent in the TWA 800 case right off the bat.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

That was 17 years ago. Let's ask her how that "hope" turned out.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I think that what is left of the GOP will NOT be STUPID enough to challenge Sotomayor too vigorously.

(1) Her placement will NOT tip the balance of the court.

(2) She seems to have broad support of most American's.

(3) Stomping all over her for what most American's believe are racist GOP feelings will alienate many voters...and the GOP does NOT have any votes to spare.

(4) The GOP has been seen as entirely obstructionist...they should cooperate with President Obama on this one and if they are smart, gear up to challenge the next justice...the one that will tip change the balance of the court.

We'll see how smart or DUMB the GOP leadership is with this Sotomayor isuse. It does no one any good for the GOP to self-destruct so easily. They need to stop underestimating the President's intellect and skill and start reinventing their party.

Posted by: free-donny | May 27, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

""The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric," said Huckabee."

Well obviously if you don't bend over and let the repulsivecans have their way with you then you're unreasonable. hucklebee needs to remember the repulsivecans lost by a wide margin for the second straight election. If they want to be seen as participating in the process, they need to do more than vote no every chance they get. Then maybe people will buy an argument that it's Obama who's being partisan.

And yes, from a liberal standpoint, Obama hasn't been nearly liberal enough.

Posted by: dansimon123 | May 27, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

>>The GOP cannot base it's opposition to Sotomayor based on her record (which, in reality, is quite moderate) or her race and gender, which they are currently doing in a despicable way. So the GOP is up against a wall on this.

No they're really not. Her record is one that is not entirely moderate. Many of her decisions have be very left and unsurprisingly some of the social issues have been very conservative especially what I understand about the abortion ones. I'm not a lawyer and the legal jargon I deal with is more in relation to property so it's hard to understand what's being said exactly. She'd be decent balance at least but definately not centrist. I'd say she's definately more left overall but she's going to win points with conservatives for a few of her cases. And the judicial activism claim isn't entirely unwarrented or something I'm finding easily dismissed. Granted these are not huge things that would ultimately keep her out, even if the latter is a big deal to me. I'm not a fan of legislating from the bench because that's not the purpose. But they're solid stances to base opposition on. I definately see why she's a solid pick but I have to say I don't much care for it.

I haven't seen much about gender or race and to be quite honest I think the fear of racism on the left is getting overplayed now and needs to be dropped if they want to be civil. The pick is a woman and she's hispanic, good for them and ultimately I jusdge a person by their work and their actions. She's not without faults as a choice from that stand point in my opinion.

Posted by: mtcooley | May 27, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Nice of you to cover for Hucklehead when he called her by the wrong name. Aren't they all called Maria?

Posted by: havok26 | May 27, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Remember, the GOP are masters of strategery. The hive mind may well convince itself that a vigorous opposition to the appointment is somehow in their interest, despite the lack of any obvious evidence to support the proposition.

Posted by: nodebris | May 27, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

This is something I learned yesterday listening to Thom Hartmann, who I contend is the smartest man in America. Before the RIGHT WINGNUTS start screaming that Ms. Sotomayor is a judicial activist,try this one on for size. The definition of a judicial activist is one prone to OVERTURN EXISTING LAW!Do you know who are the 3 most activist judges on this court? Their names are SCALIA,THOMAS,and ROBERTS!The 3 least likely are Breyer,Souter,and Ginsburg.I know that familiarity with FACTS is something Conservatives are very uncomfortable with. But,it is true. Also, our esteemed Chief justice has a perfect 100% record in voting with CORPORATIONS OVER PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.Real surprise there,huh?

Posted by: hughsie48 | May 27, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

JakeD writes
"She did say "better" decisions."

She said she HOPED a wise latina would make better decisions. You claimed she said a wise latina WOULD make better decisions. In other words, you misrepresented her statement.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"The GOP cannot base it's opposition to Sotomayor based on her record (which, in reality, is quite moderate) or her race and gender, which they are currently doing in a despicable way. So the GOP is up against a wall on this."

Or her qualifications, which are impeccable.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. She did say "better" decisions."

Yeah, and in the context of what she said, there's nothing unreasonable about the statement.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

PeterPrinciple (how ironic):

Huckabee used BOTH "Sonia" and "Maria". Maybe that's one of her middle names?

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

I'M SITTING AROUND MY PUERTO RICAN FRIENDS WATCH SEAN HANNITY. EVERYTIME HANNITY OPENED UP HIS MOUTH ABOUT MS. SOTOMAYOR. THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM GOT ANGRY AND CUSSED HIM OUT... VOWING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 2012... LMAO... REPUGNANTS ARE JUST CREATURES OF STUPIDITY. BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The president nominates federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, putting her in line to become nation's first Hispanic justice and creating a difficult political equation for Republicans as they weigh how aggressively to fight her appointment.

Posted by: opp88 | May 27, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. She did say "better" decisions.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

The GOP cannot base it's opposition to Sotomayor based on her record (which, in reality, is quite moderate) or her race and gender, which they are currently doing in a despicable way. So the GOP is up against a wall on this.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | May 27, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

looks like Korea has figured out that obambi is a wimp.
=============================

SHOULD HAVE SEEN HOW KOREA TREATED BUSH FOR 3 YEARS?

DIDN'T THEY START THIS PROGRAM DURING BUSH/CHENEY TORTURE YEARS?

Posted by: opp88 | May 27, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

A longer excerpt from the full text (see link)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Part I:

"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

continued...

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

THE PARTY OF "NO" DON'T YOU JUST LOVE THAT THEIR DIGGING THEIR OWN GRAVES?

The president nominates federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, putting her in line to become nation's first Hispanic justice and creating a difficult political equation for Republicans as they weigh how aggressively to fight her appointment.

Posted by: opp88 | May 27, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

looks like Korea has figured out that obambi is a wimp.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 27, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"OR you don't agree the far Left thinks Sotomayor is Liberal enough for them to approve her choice? Which one is it??"

This one. You're acting like this woman is some "far left judicial activist." Its such a reach, it's laughable.

A big theme on a lot of the liberal pundit shows last night was "when, if ever, will we get a *real* liberal on the Supreme Court?"

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

JakeD writes:
"So, she DIDN'T say that? I will be right back with the full quote."

I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Here's the quote as I've seen it reported:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

That is not as inflammatory as the representation given by JakeD, and others.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

"Re-defining Obama as a liberal is, without question, Republicans best path to the White House."

Because it certainly isn't going to be innovative ideas, constructive problem-solving, or thoughtful policy positions.

Posted by: KobayashiMaru | May 27, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The internal Republican debate over Sotomayor seems like just another example of the split in the GOP. One side--call them the "big tent" Republicans--are loathe to anger Hispanics and female voters by opposing her, especially since she's extremely likely to be confirmed anyway. The other side, the hard-right side, is less concerned with the size of the party than its ideological purity. This side wants the party to go down in flames chanting "liberal! liberal! liberal!" all the way. It will be interesting to see whether one side or the other gets the upper hand in this, but I fully expect to see the same muddled and divided GOP we've seen for awhile.

Posted by: bco20001 | May 27, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"But what Republicans should do is USE this to show Democrats Liberal agenda. Obama has very smartly been moving to the middle to lock up moderates but now he HAS TO give his far Left something and she is it."
Don't tell that to the "far left," because they don't agree with you at all on this one.
Posted by: VTDuffman
_________
Which part? Are you saying the far Left likes Obama not releasing the interrogation photos and they like the fact Obama doesn't want to investigate the Bush administration over torture or they wanted Obama to have military tribunals or they support Obama giving immunity to Telecom companies over wire tapping? I could go on. OR you don't agree the far Left thinks Sotomayor is Liberal enough for them to approve her choice? Which one is it??

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse

THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY IS WELL AWARE OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT NETWORK SPAWNED OR EXPANDED UNDER BUSH-CHENEY..

...A POLICE STATE APPARATUS THAT CONTINUES UNDER OBAMA.

WHAT GOOD IS AN ENLIGHTENED SCOTUS NOMINEE IF A PARALLEL SYSTEM OF VIGILANTE INJUSTICE IS COVERTLY PROMOTED AND FUNDED BY FEDERAL SECURITY/MILITARY/INTEL AGENCIES...

...WHO HAVE CO-OPTED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT NATIONWIDE TO CREATE A COVERT AMERICAN GESTAPO...

...THAT IMPLANTS GPS TRACKING DEVICES ON THE VEHICLES OF INNOCENT BUT "TARGETED" U.S. CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES... AND USES MICROWAVE RADIATION "DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS" TO DEGRADE THEIR MINDS AND BODIES.


While the media is distracted by the "stories of the day," democracy is being stolen at the grassroots -- and the domestic TORTURE and gradual financial expropriation of the "unjustly targeted" continues unabated under an apparently "unaware" Team Obama.

Please read this:

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 27, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"So, she DIDN'T say that? I will be right back with the full quote."

Prediction: No you wont. You'll be back with the tantrumocracy's pre-selected sound byte from the quote instead of the entire thing in context.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

So, she DIDN'T say that? I will be right back with the full quote.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who has made no secret of his interest in a 2012 bid, made the same point in a statement released Tuesday on the Sotomayor selection.

"The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric," said Huckabee.


He called her "Maria" not Sonia, dipstick.

Since when is it a reporter's job to "clean up" quotes for politicians?

Since useless fools like Chris Cillizza started impersonating journalists.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | May 27, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

Are you talking to me? I used the same amount of context as edlharris did re: Bork's "musings". That's what I was answering.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Barring some explosive personal revelation about Sotomayor, the President has neatly boxed in the Republicans. Check and mate.

Posted by: Pupster | May 27, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"Yes, but didn't Sotomayor say that a Latina would make "better" decisions than a white male?"

No.

Its frankly quite amusing that in criticizing a judge with 17 years on the Federal bench, you can't find fault in her myriad rulings, but instead have to pluck one out-of-context quote from a speech on the value of diversity on the bench in order to find fault.

p.s. in the Ricci ruling (i.e. CT firefighters), she and her colleagues in writing the ruling were following precedent - i.e. the opposite of so-called 'judicial activism'.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

sovine08:

Supposedly, that decision was an outlier, one of the 5%.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"Yes, but didn't Sotomayor say that a Latina would make "better" decisions than a white male?"

In what respect, Charlie?

I gotta be hoenst here, the refusal of the GOP Tantrumocracy to address the entire quote in context speaks volumes with regard to how much you all care about intellectual honesty anymore.

Remember when that used to be a big deal? Intellectual Honesty?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"But what Republicans should do is USE this to show Democrats Liberal agenda. Obama has very smartly been moving to the middle to lock up moderates but now he HAS TO give his far Left something and she is it."

Don't tell that to the "far left," because they don't agree with you at all on this one.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

edlharris:

Yes, but didn't Sotomayor say that a Latina would make "better" decisions than a white male? Did you even read the exit poll above? 22% "liberals".

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

This is easy for Republicans.. they can't stop her and besides all she is doing is replacing Souter so she doesn't change the balance of the Court anyway. So don't worry about keeping her off the Court. But what Republicans should do is USE this to show Democrats Liberal agenda. Obama has very smartly been moving to the middle to lock up moderates but now he HAS TO give his far Left something and she is it. And the case where Sotomayor sided with New Haven against white fighters where they were denied promotions even though they passed the test is a God send for Republicans. Most Americans would side with the fire fighters so Republicans have to make this case front and center. Let Democrats defend the city and Sotomayor who wanted to discriminate aganist these firefighters on the basis of race. Republicans have to win back the middle.. this case and her nomination is the perfect place to start..

Posted by: sovine08 | May 27, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Of far more interest than your link on Prop 8 Chris is this one:

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid86253.asp

Ted Olsen and David Boies, the opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, are co-counsel in the federal 14thA challenge to Prop 8.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 27, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

adrienne:

Look up "Bork" someday.
-----------------

Bork, wasn't he the guy who said there is no federal right to privacy?
And didn't he say his writings were "intellectual musings."

To see why Bork went down, go look for the Washingtoon cartoon by Mark Alan Stamaty. It was on the op-ed page during the Bork hearings.
It succinctly illustrates why he went down.

Posted by: edlharris | May 27, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Re-defining Obama as a liberal is, without question, Republicans best path to the White House."


Ridiculous. If the GOP tries to brand Obama with the liberal label, they are likely to boost the numbers of self-identified liberals, not waltz into the White House. The problem with the GOP is a credibility gap. Only the base believes what they say anymore. So if they start arguing that a moderate, pragmatic president is some kind of radical liberal, they're far more likely to boost peoples' opinions of liberalism than take down the President. This strategy will result in the further self-marginalization by the GOP, should they choose to follow it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:

Just remember that the "Republican appointee" was George HW Bush (the same guy who gave us Souter in the first place). Keep up the good fight.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

adrienne:

Look up "Bork" someday.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

1EgoNemo:

Didn't you hear? Liberals OPPOSE the federal right to abortion.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Why does it always have to be a fight? The politicization of the judicial nomination and ratification processes is killing us. How about some comity for a change?

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | May 27, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"I am part of the conservative base and I recommend we just let it go after scoring some political points on her extreme liberal record"

Her "extreme liberal record" consists of descisions that coincide with Republican appointees 95% of the time.

Oh the extremity!

As for "judicial activism" - check out her disenting opinion in the TWA 800 case.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

bradcpa:

A "liberal" would be against a federal right to abortion?! I think you're reaching just a bit.

vbhoomes:

I agree with your proposed strategy on Sotomayor, with some Senators bringing up illegal immigration, DOMA, and her judicial temperment.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Chris makes some really great points on Republican messaging because right now the moderates break for the Democrats 2-1. I think it is time that the Democrats point out the strides made in this country are the results of those radical liberal judges of the Warren (Republican Appointee) Court. Where would this country be without Brown vs Board of Education? The problem is that the Republican Party is not being run by Conservatives who resist change but by Reactionaries who want to change things back to the way they were before change took place. That is the message the Democrats much put out and opposing moderate judges like Sotomayor only proves it.

Posted by: bradcpa | May 27, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

>>"The Sotomayor pick presents them with a golden opportunity to cast the president as a traditional liberal ..."

Yes, Chris, but to what effect?

You've got to get yourself beyond this 1994 mindset.

Where is the data that shows that the mere charge that the president -- or anyone -- is a 'traditional liberal' retains any magical powers anymore?

Despite the diet of words you've given us, you've written a very short idea -- This nominating process gives the Republicans a chance to say the president is a liberal.

If that's their best shot, it has already falling woefully short. The entire Republican strategy is throwing a seven-letter word at a the Democrats?

You're giving us fake controversy. You are presenting this nomination fight, despite your perfunctory words about legislative arithmetic, as a fight between near equals when it is clearly not.

The results is a conclusion, based on your own facts, that is the opposite of what you present.

This is not a good ol' fashioned Senate fight. Not even close. And your ham-fisted attempts to make it so do you no credit.

Posted by: 1EgoNemo | May 27, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

For all the BS about the so-called liberal media, I keep waiting for them to tell the truth about Supreme Court nominees. We have not had a true liberal on the court since the early 1990s, and the justices that the Limbaugh crowd rails against are actually moderate. A Liberal judge is William O Douglas not Ruth Ginsburge or Steven Briar. This appointment is another moderate appointment much like Bill Clinton appointed. A radical activist judge would be a judge who would support overturning long standing law such as Roe V Wade, and that seems to fit George W Bush appointments rather than this appointment.

Posted by: bradcpa | May 27, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

newageblues, I am pro choice during the 1st trimester, because get serious, how can you call it any differently than infanticide, when the baby could be delivered cesarian and live to grow up. It is what it is, an issue. Sorry if I inconvienced you with the fact it is murder.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 27, 2009 8:46 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes thinks talk of "murdering babies" is sticking to the issues. I'm sure he's consistent and feels the same way when people call Republicans murderers because of Republican policies that get people killed.

Posted by: newageblues | May 27, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama won the election and is entitled to his choices as President. The Republicans can score a few political points at the hearings and let the Constitution work.

The devolution of the confirmation process, the egregious example of the Bork nomination not forgotten, should be reversed.

Posted by: edbyronadams | May 27, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans need not waste ad money on her: her own words are already setting the stage. A, the clip of her laughing off judicial activism, wink wink, nod nod, is already going viral. And, her Ricci decision serves the purpose in print and as evidence of racism. Finally, top it off with her "Latina wisdom" speech, and you have three strikes in the public's eye. Or, three pokes in Lady Justice's eyes. But, hey, Obama, like Clinton, is a great vote counter. In the short term. Fist into water. Let the Dems run ads drawing attention to her. They will preach to the choir, and the majority of Americans opposing abortion and other Sotomayor issues will learn her name.

And record. Dohhhhhh.

Posted by: mmmmm999999m34e56ee91099 | May 27, 2009 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee did call her Maria:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Huck_comes_out_firing__at_Maria_Sotomayor.html?showall

Maria!
I've just met a girl named Maria,
And suddenly that name
Will never be the same
To me.
Maria!

Posted by: edlharris | May 27, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

I thought Huckabee called her Maria.

Posted by: edlharris | May 27, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

I am part of the conservative base and I recommend we just let it go after scoring some political points on her extreme liberal record and reminding americans that his talk at Notre Dame was just that, talk, we given the opportunity, he went left,not middle, where murdering babies in the 3rd trimester will be protected. We need to keep it on issues, no personal attacks, and treat her with dignity and respect. Their talk about empathy apparently did not apply to the 6 white fireman who were improperly denied a promotion because of their race. Empathy in Obamas world only applys to minorities. I am starting to think Obama went to that racist church because he shared the same bigotry as his preacher, the Rev Wright.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 27, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

SS's comment about policy making in the courts of appeals is exactly correct - and is not about "activism".
Trial judges largely concern themselves with the inclusion and exclusion of evidence but appellate judges do not hear evidence. They hear appeals based on competing views of the applicable law. They more than announce the winner - they write opinions describing for future cases the applicable policy of the law under the circumstances. That is what the most restraint oriented of appellate judges actually does.

SS's "wise Latina" comment is worthy of critical assessment, however. The complete context of the remark is similar to one made by Justice Breyer before a Federal Bar Association annual function in Austin some years ago, and to Holmes' famous aphorism about the effect of differing life experiences. Still, it will be properly revisited by the SJC, because it offers the notion that the sum of her experiences are not merely different - they are BETTER than the sum of mine. I would certainly want to question her about that if I were on the SJC.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 27, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Yessir, there's a winning strategy: Name-calling.

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 27, 2009 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Of course there will be some Republican opposition to Sotomayor's nomination, along with the usual nonsense of screaming about judicial activism (as if Scalia and Thomas don't have their own agendas!) The Republican predictability is boring, expected and non-newsworthy.

And Republicans can also scream that Obama is appointing a far-left liberal to the court and try to paint Obama with this word (which has certainly lost its ability to frighten people. I think the word 'conservative' does that now.)

Overall, Sotomayor will be confirmed and the Democrats further embrace the Latino population...

Posted by: RickJ | May 27, 2009 6:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company