Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sotomayor For SCOTUS: What It Means



Judge Sonia Sotomayor is President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

President Obama's choice of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next justice on the Supreme Court is a pick heavy with historic significance but also a sign of the confidence the president has in his political standing.

Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be the first Hispanic justice on the Court, and Obama and his senior aides had been getting serious pressure from the Latino community to make her the pick.

"So far so good, said Gil Meneses, a Democratic consultant, told the Fix recently when asked to assess the Obama administration's effort at Latino outreach. "All eyes on immigration reform and of course, [Supreme Court] nominee. That will be a milestone for Latino community."

In picking Sotomayor then, Obama has almost certainly solidified his standing among Hispanics, the nation's largest minority group and an increasingly influential part of any national candidate's electoral calculus.

Republican strategists have fretted openly that if their party can't find a way to make Hispanics a swing group electorally -- as President George W. Bush did in 2004 when he won 44 percent of the Latino vote -- they may find themselves in a permanent minority status. Bridging that gap between the GOP and the Hispanic community just got a lot more difficult.

The Sotomayor pick also reaffirms the idea in Americans' mind that the Obama presidency is an historic one -- filled with "firsts" that might have seemed unimaginable even a few years ago.

Obama has spoken sparingly about the opportunity (and burden) presented to him as the country's first black president but he is clearly aware of the fact that the eyes of the world are on him and what he does over the next four (or eight) years will have an impact long after he has left office.

In an interview with Post editors are reporters just before he was sworn in as the nation's 44th president, Obama called his election a "radical thing" in that the nation's children would grow up thinking that it was entirely normal that the president was black. "I wouldn't underestimate the force of that," he added.

There is a direct link between his election and the Sotomayor pick, a series of firsts that reaffirm the idea that anyone born in this country can grow up to be anything they can achieve.

"No dream is beyond our reach in the United States," Obama said in announcing Sotomayor as his pick this morning.

Finally, the Sotomayor selection is a sign that Obama knows he is riding high in terms of personal popularity and job approval and isn't afraid to pick someone that will enrage the conservative right.

Sotomayor, who has been the favorite since Justice David Souter was announced, came under a blistering critique from some Republicans for statements she has made in the past that suggested a belief in judicial activism. In one particularly well-circulated clip, Sotomayor says that "the court of appeals is where policy is made" before joking: "I know this is on tape and I shouldn't ever say that because we don't make law."

Conservative groups are already rallying against the idea of Sotomayor on the court. "Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," said Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network in a statement on the pick.

Obama was well aware that selecting Sotomayor would create this sort of reaction on the right and possibly lead to a more contentious hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and vote on the floor of the Senate than some of the other names that had been floated.

The simple fact: this appears to be a fight he welcomes because of the current political environment. Democrats stand at 59 seats in the Senate (Democrat Al Franken could well be seated by the time Sotomayor is up for a confirmation vote) and Obama is not only popular but also trusted by the American people, according to recent polls.

Republicans, on the other hand, have staggered around leaderless since the 2008 election -- watching helplessly as the unpopular former vice president has stepped into the void.

Republicans will, almost certainly, use the Sotomayor pick as a rallying cry for a dispirited party. But, in picking Sotomayor, Obama is expressing his supreme confidence that even a united GOP can't beat the White House.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 26, 2009; 10:20 AM ET
Categories:  Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House Cheat Sheet: Obama the Fundraiser
Next: Prop. 8 Decision Could Bolster Newsom

Comments

Anybody who thought Obama would select anybody but the most extreme left wing

==

So Sotomayor is a Maoist? Agrarian Communist? Peasant collectives?

Who knew!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 27, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps not sick degenerate, but you impugned the morals of these mothers, not their intelligence.

==

IIRC I was dissing Sarah Palin, not all, but it was a few weeks ago and I could be wrong

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 27, 2009 12:12 AM | Report abuse

I will concede one point to you, DDAWD .. I utterly despise the settlers. The first time I heard one of them on the radio I had no opinion about Israel one way of the other, save that they're needlessly brutal in their treatment of Palestinians, but it wasn't anything I had strong feelings about. Then I heard a woman speaking for the settler movement, and it was the only time in my life I had to pull over my car, I was literally shaking with rage.

Her smarmy, lying, mealy-mouthed smug voice affected me like not even a Bush supporter does.

A few days ago I heard an old man on the radio, the time of Obama's meeting with Netanyahu. He was speaking in that calm discursive attitude they put on, like Meier Kahane doing his "I am a Jew. Israel is my country" speech; the guy was bragging how they get around the settlement freeze and Israel can't do anything about it.

Get to know them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 27, 2009 12:11 AM | Report abuse

"Now you're exaggerating. I believe I said it was stupid, not "sick degenerate." And 90% of women who discover they're carrying a Down's DO abort (and a lot more than 10% of woman are "pro-life")"

Perhaps not sick degenerate, but you impugned the morals of these mothers, not their intelligence.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Anybody who thought Obama would select anybody but the most extreme left wing social engineer as his nominee to the court was drunk of high on drugs. He's chosesn true to form. Republicans should make their point that she is an activist extreme left wing social engineer, and then let it go. Don't be like the be like the demodrats. Don't reosrt to democratic despicable tactics like those used against Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. Elections matter and Obama and the demoorats won the last one.

Posted by: valwayne | May 27, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

"The first time I addressed you directly, you were saying how all Down Syndrome babies should be aborted and aanyone who doesn't do so is some sick degenerate"

==

Now you're exaggerating. I believe I said it was stupid, not "sick degenerate." And 90% of women who discover they're carrying a Down's DO abort (and a lot more than 10% of woman are "pro-life")

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 27, 2009 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I called a Latino guy I know who hadn't heard the news somehow, told him about Sotomayor. He was absolutely thrilled.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

"What is it with you and the over-the-top superlatives?

==

Make the acquaintance of some 20-something Israelis and get back to me on the "over the top" thing"

Dude, you do this for everything. The first time I addressed you directly, you were saying how all Down Syndrome babies should be aborted and aanyone who doesn't do so is some sick degenerate.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 11:51 PM | Report abuse

What is it with you and the over-the-top superlatives?

==

Make the acquaintance of some 20-something Israelis and get back to me on the "over the top" thing

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

"ddawd asks
"What's the big muddy? Mississippi?"

Yup. Though its not so muddy up here."

Yeah, I was wondering if it was New Orleans, but then I remembered that they don't have beer stores.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 11:08 PM | Report abuse

ddawd asks
"What's the big muddy? Mississippi?"

Yup. Though its not so muddy up here.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

"Jesus what is it with you and the one-line paragraphs?"

What is it with you and the over-the-top superlatives?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Jesus what is it with you and the one-line paragraphs?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Israel isn't the problem.

==

Try convincing of that anyone who has met any Israelis. I grew up in the south, I saw the signs outside housing developments warning blacks what to expect if they tried to move there, I've seen American bigotry up close.

Compared to attitudes among Israelis, those southern crackers were the soul of tolerance and lovers of diversity. Israelis are the most bigoted people on earth.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

You'll incite hatred of Jews that leads to Murder of Jews.

==

More abuse of proper nouns.

Anyway I don't need to do this, you are doing just fine on your own by laying the crimes of terrorist settlers on the world's Jews.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

If you become big enough in the hate-speech business, maybe the Mossad will go after you.

Everybody needs a goal.

You can have that one as yours.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing I can do to stop or punish you.

Eventually God will.

==

I don't believe in your celestial playmate, bigot

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

The fact that you refuse to admit it, or to say the region you live in or what you do, pretty much proves you're a paid troll.

==

Yeah that's the criterion for trollhood, not giving out personal information.

Good luck selling that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse


Chrisfox8 --

Everybody that matters, the people at the top of each participant in the peace process know that there is no "moral equivalance"

The fact that you refuse to admit it, or to say the region you live in or what you do, pretty much proves you're a paid troll.

Its not worth my time to argue with you.

You'll incite hatred of Jews that leads to Murder of Jews.

There's nothing I can do to stop or punish you.

Eventually God will.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Its not "other people's land"

Its Israel's land.

==

YeaH, any land the settlers steal is "Israel's land," right? Because it's in their holy book?

Save it for the truly gullible.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

Its not "other people's land"

Its Israel's land.

Israel was attacked by all the Arab countries around it, all armed to the teeth as you put it, and all those Arabs and Arab countries with the best hardware and training the Soviet Union could provide them, all those larger, better equipped Arab Armies, got the stuffing knocked out of them by a bunch of Jewish guys.

Considering that we're normally considered to be fighters, that's pretty good.

But all of this is moot, and in the end a really bad waste of time.

Nothing we say or do here will do anything but waste our time and provide page click and other advertising to the WP.

Its called "Web 2.0" and its great if you're "the house"

Chrisfor8 -- Come over to the bright side of the force.

Israel isn't the problem.

War isn't the answer.

Peace is.

It will only happen when all sides want it.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

You're listening to way too much Arab Propaganda.

Israel goes out of its way to avoid Civilian Casualties.

==

You need to go back to elementary school and learn about proper nouns. You capitalize things you esteem and lowercase things you don't, which makes reading your posts like reading the writing of fourth graders.

Israel kills a hell of a lot of women and children for a nation seeking to avoid civilian casualties. You're a lying SOB, but then so are pretty much all apologists for Israel. As they need to be, Israel is dishonest, faithless, and untrustworthy.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans lose Latinos if they block the President's choice.

==

I'd say that ship has *sailed*

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

What part of the country do you live in?

What do you do for a living?

I'm really curious.

==

Why, you gonna call some Israeli hit squad? They gonna shoot a syringe of air into my neck? Blow me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Do you really morally equate settlements with suicide bombers attacks?

==

If you had any point to make you wouldn't be diverting from it with ridiculous and stupid questions.

The settlers are armed to the teeth, they squat on other peoples' land and if the owners object the Israeli military shows up. You can split all the hairs you want but that is war crime in my book.

I've stated my position and I am not interested in your emotionalism and bluster, nor your insults.

Declare the settler movement to be lawlessness and then we can talk some more. Until that time, up yours.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

You're listening to way too much Arab Propaganda.

Israel goes out of its way to avoid Civilian Casualties.

The terrorists target civilians.

You've fallen in with the "tin foil hat crowd", chrisfox8.

You've truly "Jumped the Shark"

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

I didn't realize that you didn't have very much formal education, or perhaps have suffered a particularly nasty motorcycle accident without a helmet chris.

Do you really morally equate settlements with suicide bombers attacks?

If you do, you're either irrational, which seems pretty likely, given a lot of your posts, or you've got a problem with quantitative reasoning.

What part of the country do you live in?

What do you do for a living?

I'm really curious.

But not about "that thing", especially with you.

I'm straight.

And you write incredibly mean-sprited things that seem to come from deep down in you.

Its kind of creepy.


Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

The Arabs that throw fuel on the fire just want to use it to cook up more ways to cheat their poor and middle class out of their fail share of their country's oil, mineral, and human, rights.

==

That's their problem.

The point is that MY COUNTRY isn't giving those Arab states billions every year in weapons so they can shoot small children in the back from helicopters.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks:
I'm still a patriot and believe in the thoughts of the Founding Fathers

Would you like for Brown v. Board of Education to be overturned, or for Plessy v. Ferguson to be reinstated? What about Dred Scott v. Sandford? How far back do you want to take this nation? At what date do you draw the line?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 26, 2009 4:32 PM
__________
My guess is the latest year they'd draw the line at would be 1954 pre-Brown v. Board of Education.

But I kinda think they'd be happier with 1862, when, these lunatics would argue, things were great because black unemployment was zero. Interestingly (and unbelievably), as we understand it, Rehnquist, the role model for today's "conservative" justices, thought Plessy was CORRECTLY decided.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Peace-loving people don't fire missiles into occupied apartment buildings at dinnertime and then tell the world "we do not INTENTIONALLY target civilians."

Israel is faithless and untrustworthy. Don't place the sins of that rotten little apartheid terrorist state on the backs of the world's Jews.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Kudos to President Obama for executing a perfect "Knight Fork" on the Reublicans.

A knight-fork, as most people on this board know, is the situation in chess where you attack two pieces at once with your knight, so the other guy loses at least one piece if doesn't have one of his pieces already set up to take your knight on the next turn, i.e. unless he already has your knight under attack.

The Republicans lose Latinos if they block the President's choice.

If the don't block it, the lose the chance to obstruct the President, which is what they've been trying to do.

No matter what they do, they're going to lose.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Israel wants peace.

...

Terrorists don't want peace.

==

By which you mean to imply that the Israeli settler movement is NOT terrorist?

Sorry, I don't buy that and neither should you.

As for Israel wanting peace they have a pretty damned belligerent way of showing it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark me down with Bondosan's on-target posts--no need to repeat them--especially the one that lists Sonia's many superb qualifications.

This is a greaaaaaaat pick, as Richard Widmark might have said. That SS is qualified and empathetic, as BHO insisted his pick be, goes without saying.

But the greatest thing about the pick is that it will expose the unhinged bigotry and extremism of the GOP "base," the part that hates Powell and Ridge and "multiculturalism." The smart GOP move would be to let her go through without any trouble. But they won't do that.

Limbaugh has already taken the bait with an ugly hate blast against Sotomayor, saying, "I hope Sotomayor fails." Surely Hannity, Cheney, Newtron, Phalin, Ingraham, and Michelle Maglagang will soon follow suit. They are going to foolishly--and unsuccessfully--go after SS and end up permanently losing the fastest growing demographic in the U.S. The GOP can't win: BHO already has at least 60 votes in his pocket; the two female GOP senators from Maine voted for SS for the court of appeals so the reverse course, and Texas Senators Hutchison and Cornyn have to think twice about voting against a well-qualified Hispanic nominee.
Game, set, match, BHO.
_________

Brought back some troll spray from Lowe's hardware. Psssssssssssssssssssssst. Let's see what happens.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD --

There are two sides to every issue, but often there really is a good guy and a bad guy.

The Israeli just want to be able to live im peace.

That's all.

Israel is smaller than a "Wendy's"

To help the Arab people there needs to be a two step process.

1. Peace between all Arab and related groups, and Israel, including recognition of Israel.

2. For the people of Arab countries to push for change in their countries, just like we've had change in ours, but on perhaps a larger scale.

We lost democracy an rule by the people in a small way, they've lost it almost completely and even completely in some cases, literally having Kings and Princes while the poor starve.

Destroying Israel will never happen and would do nothing to help the Arab people.

Peace with Israel, and reforming Arab governments is the secret to improving the lives of the Citizens of Arab Countries.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"chrisfox8, I don't know what you have against Jews, or if its just a missguided belief that you're helping good guys against bad guy, when you've actually got it reversed."

He has difficulty with nuance. A lot of people can't seem to understand that there are two valid sides to this issue.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

The Jews have suffered more deeply, and for longer than any other group of people in history.

Jews and Israel want and need your support.

The Arabs definitely don't need it.

They have an incredibly large and sophisticated PR and recruiting network on the web.

That's how the 9/11 hijackers got together.

Israel suffers suicide attacks so often that its part of every-day life.

Some very old people there say its like living in london during the blitz in WWII.

chrisfox8, I don't know what you have against Jews, or if its just a missguided belief that you're helping good guys against bad guy, when you've actually got it reversed.

The Arabs are running the North Vietnamese play-book, using proaganda to undercut the enemy back at their home.

Get the facts.

You see what I mean.

Israel isn' perfect, but wants peace and uses incredible restraint, way beyond what the US would.

The Arabs that throw fuel on the fire just want to use it to cook up more ways to cheat their poor and middle class out of their fail share of their country's oil, mineral, and human, rights.

Chrisfox8, come on over to the bright side of the force.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse


Chrisfox8 --

You said -- I didn't read any further, my rabies is acting up.

I'm really sorry to hear that. I've been worried about it ever since I stated reading your posts.

You got me pretty angry and I fired back.

Why don't you read my post.

Its the real thing.

Israel wants peace.

The Arab countries use the "Palestainians" pawns.

They have giant countries right next door.

And the "Palestainians" are actually Jordanians.

Also, right next door.

The more people support Israel, the faster there will be peace.

The more people support the terrorists, the more they hurt peace.

Terrorists don't want peace.

That would mean getting a normal job and doesn't pay anywhere near as well.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and one more thing to the Israel-lover ... yeah Israel moved into a place where they Jews were hated for ancient and irrational reasons (not strictly true by the way, there was a lot more Muslim-Jewish harmony, both after all being "Semitic," than modern zealots care to remember) .. and Israel proceeded to supplant those ancient and irrational hatreds with contemporary and rational ones. Israel has behaved like the hillbillies who move into a middle-class neighborhood and trash the place, the delinquent children M80-ing mailboxes and poisoning pets.

You dismiss the settlements as a sideshow? To hell with you!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Baby steps, Chris.

==

Nop, I am holding out for Great Strides.

"Separate but equal" is not a stable situation. It didn't work when blacks and whites went to different schools and it won't work with gays and straights in different circumstances.

And this cuts both ways for me. As far as I'm concerned the radical gays who think we get to live by a different moral code are in the same camp as Pat Robertson and to hell with them both. I want the "gay culture" to go away along with the bigotry that gave rise to it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The wingnuts are taking this one hard, because they know that there's NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO STOP HER.

Get used to the next Supreme Court justice, conservative losers!

THE GOP BEDWETTERS WILL LOSE THIS FIGHT! They are going to LOSE. Badly. They don't deal well with this knowledge, that they are going to LOSE, that is!

Get ready to LOSE, wingnuts! You will LOSE badly! Prepare yourselves, LOSERS! bwaaaahahahaha!

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 26, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

You've fallen for Arab Propaganda.

==

Stick this charge up the ol' dirt road.

I have never consumed any "Arab propaganda," I think Muslim society is backward as hell.

I didn't read any further, my rabies is acting up.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"What I'd be grateful for, Chris, is an honest and non-judgmental explanation of the difference between marriage and civil union/domestic partnership. What rights of the former are lacking in the latter? I've been asking this question for a while... if the two institutions were identical, would that suffice?"

Yeah, what's wrong with "separate, but equal"???


It's astounding how many people seem to think modern Jim Crow laws are acceptable.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

You've fallen for Arab Propaganda.

Lots of people do. The Arabs have the biggest PR machine in the world, backed by endless oil money.

My guess is that you think that you're protecting the poor little palastinias from the big bad jews - right?

Have you heard the Bob Dyan song "Neighborhood Bully?"

Listen to it.

I'll find it and post the lyrics.

Israel is the good guy.

Israel gets unfairly painted as the bad guy.

Israel is tiny, in a sea of giant Arab countries.

The Arab Countries use hatred of Israel, Jews, Christians, and Americans, as an tool to destract their citizens so that the people that live in the Arab countries don't demand their equal share of their countries' massive oil revenue which now goes to corrupt Arab governments and to Ultra-Rich Ultra-Corrupt Arab Royal Famlies like the Saudis that financed and carried out 9/11.

The Arab countries could provide land and homes for the "Palistianians"" in any of existing Giant Arab Countries that surround tiny Israel.

The Palistianians are actually Jordanians.

They already have a country.

Why do the Arabs covet this land so strongly as to commit murder and even human sacrifice, to take it from Jews?

Arabs pray towards Mecca.

Jews Pray towards Jerusalem.

Let Israel Live.

The settlements issue is red-herring on both sides.

When the Arabs want peace, Israel will dismantle the setlements, if the Arabs want it that badly.

Israel needs to be safe.

The day it was born it was attacked.

It can't afford to lose a war, because that would mean death for Israel and for the Six Million Jewish Men, Women, and Children (Caps intentional), a number and phrase that brings up images of the holocaust and the uspeakable horrors that came with it.

Read these boards.

Nobody can read these boards and say that Jews are safe.

In terrorist attacks, they often go through the hostages and shoot and murder all the Jewish People. as happened recently in India.

Israel has the right to exist.

So do Jews.

There is no "war" in a conventional sense.

There are only attacks by Arabs intent on killing Jews and destroying Israel, and Israel trying to respond to, protect against, and prevent, more terrorist attacks.

The day the Terrorism stops, the "war" stops, because Israel wants no part of war or violence unless absoutely necessary for survival, and in Israel's case, that's really, really, true.

Please support the USA and Israel.

We're the good guys.

Gaza and the west bank can be solved and solved in a way that all sides will feel good about.

The Saudi's could do the world a real favor by stopping support for terrorism, stopping teaching of anti-semitism and stopping teaching of hate against jews, christians, Israeli's, and Americans.

Israel wants peace.

All of us need to work together to make it happen.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"Iowa is more important than you realize from your flyover perspective; you can't dismiss the Iowa ruling as the work of "activist judges," it was the legislature, and their reasoning wasn't based on empathy or anything as fragile as that but on a firm legal foundation. The only thing blocking the rest of the country is bigotry."

Iowa was done by judges, I believe. I think Maine and Vermont are the two states to legislate same sex marriage.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Baby steps, Chris.

Baby steps.

The genie is out of the bottle... but you're way ahead of folks like me. Maybe slow down a bit... we're catching up.

Slowly, maybe. But we're moving.

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

What I'd be grateful for, Chris, is an honest and non-judgmental explanation of the difference between marriage and civil union/domestic partnership. What rights of the former are lacking in the latter? I've been asking this question for a while... if the two institutions were identical, would that suffice?

==

If the two are the same in every legal sense then I don't care what it's called. If the churches want to reserve "marriage" for themselves, let them. It's all the same to me. I find the nomenclature to be problematical in any case; gender is deeply woven into our language (though not as much as in some other languages .. in German a girl and a unmarried woman are neuter, femininity isn't granted until after marriage, go figure ...), and I find the whole "husband" thing to be awkward in gay relationships.

But then I see red when anyone uses "they" as a singular too.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it's a stretch to say that, on a court with 6 remaining white men, Obama was probably not considering any. I appreciate the integrity in not pandering in that. This country is roughly 50% female... shouldn't her highest court at least TRY to represent that? We're, what, 15% Hispanic and about the same percentage black? We already have a black face on the court, why not an Hispanic one?

I think there were men considered for the post (briefly!). They weren't white. I'm ok with that.

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

With respect, I disagree that it's bigotry Chris. I support equal rights for all but I happen to think that marriage is only possible between one man and one woman. That's not to disparage gays in any way. I believe love -- committed long-term love -- between two people should be admired and respected. Thus the same rights and privileges that marriage conveys should be granted to gay couples too. But that term... "marriage"... that's term that should remain with heterosexual couples.

==

Oh, if it's only the word you're hung up on, knock yourself out. I don't give a damn about using the same word.

But this seems a pretty thin line of reasoning upon which to hang so great an injustice.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"What I said--and which no one can honestly deny--is that non-Hispanic white men were probably the ONLY group that was automatically disqualified from consideration for this opening."

Dude, how the hell do you know who was considered? All we are seeing is that since a Hispanic woman was nominated, so white men must have been excluded. The reason this comes across as racist is that you've got absolutely no insight into the process on settling on a nominee.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

With respect, I disagree that it's bigotry Chris. I support equal rights for all but I happen to think that marriage is only possible between one man and one woman. That's not to disparage gays in any way. I believe love -- committed long-term love -- between two people should be admired and respected. Thus the same rights and privileges that marriage conveys should be granted to gay couples too. But that term... "marriage"... that's term that should remain with heterosexual couples.

I know... semantics. It's only a word, right. And maybe someday I'll see it that way too. Like most people, I find this topic more than an academic argument. Real people are really hurt when they feel society doesn't respect them as equals. I get that. There are gay people in my life whose feelings matter... I'm not insensitive to their feelings and I think a lot of conservatives are like me. I don't think I'm one of your troglodytes! :)

What I'd be grateful for, Chris, is an honest and non-judgmental explanation of the difference between marriage and civil union/domestic partnership. What rights of the former are lacking in the latter? I've been asking this question for a while... if the two institutions were identical, would that suffice?

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Dont listen to these weasels. Your comment about Israel as a little foreign state that survives by sucking the life out of US mid-East foreign policy is 100% on the mark. Dont let the extremely vocal minority fool anyone into thinking they are the majority. Our allegiance is to the USA first.

==

Have no fears on that account, these bigots are always trotting out that "anti-semitic" charge to silence criticism of Israel. Alan Dershowitz even has a long list of conditions that have to be met before any criticism of that non-Muslim-but-otherwise-indistinguishable little knothole is acceptable, conditions that don't obtain for any criticism of any other country in the world.

Israel just bathes itself in self-righteousness and self-importance and is the only nation on earth that views itself as even more exceptional than the USA.

The settlers are among the most rotten people on earth, and every settlement on the West Bank should be leveled. Just listen to them sometime, listen to them boast about how they break the law and Israel won't do anything about it.

And oh, yeah, total agreement on the loyalty issue. Those Americans who would die for Israel but let someone else do the fighting for the USA, let them move there.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"I live a mile west of the big muddy, but buy my groceries on the east side."

What's the big muddy? Mississippi?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"To the extent that Sotomayor intended her quote about being a "wise Latina woman" having the experience to make better decisions than a white male to be taken seriously at all - and it's not at all clear that this was anything more than a joke - I would still take it with a grain of salt."

One of my postings has the link to the entire speech (and my own thoughts)

Just CTRL+F "ddawd" until you find it. You can decide for yourself what she meant.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8-

Dont listen to these weasels. Your comment about Israel as a little foreign state that survives by sucking the life out of US mid-East foreign policy is 100% on the mark. Dont let the extremely vocal minority fool anyone into thinking they are the majority. Our allegiance is to the USA first.

Posted by: m_mtheman | May 26, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

You're actually astoundly racist, anti-semitic, vile, rude, and probably have herpes, rabies, and fleas.

==

You guys have worn this one out.

Israel is a stinking little apartheid Middle Eastern country and there are a LOT of American Jews who are coming around to seeing the "Jewish State" as politically and morally wrong and not representing their interests.

To equate Israel with all Jewery is to insult a lot of decent and moral people. You guys are making a big mistake, because Israel is vastly in the wrong in supporting those rotten land thieves and if you want global Jewery to bear the moral culpability for a bunch of terrorists, you do serious harm.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"it does concern me that she would become the 6th Catholic on that bench."

It doesn't concern me, but it certainly is weird. It sure seems improbable. If not for Clinton's affinity for Jewish judges, who knows what the makeup would be. I think Stevens would be the lone Protestant, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

As for the numbers I speak of, I'm referring to the CA vote on Prop 8. Without bashing either side, it seems that if 52% of the country's most progressive state aren't ready for gay marriage, perhaps the rest isn't either?

==

You're oversimplifying. While CA includes some of the most progressive areas in the nation, it also includes Orange County and some of the most troglodyte conservatives in the nation.

Iowa is more important than you realize from your flyover perspective; you can't dismiss the Iowa ruling as the work of "activist judges," it was the legislature, and their reasoning wasn't based on empathy or anything as fragile as that but on a firm legal foundation. The only thing blocking the rest of the country is bigotry.

And squeamishness.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse


chrisfox8 --

You're a first class jerk.

I can't believe you're Gay.

I guess I had a very strong stereotype in my mind, snd expected you would be like the cultured, refined, people that keep much better care of themselves than straight guys like me do and that seem to have a quiet strength and dignity.

You're nothing like that.

You're actually astoundly racist, anti-semitic, vile, rude, and probably have herpes, rabies, and fleas.

You've really made a horrible impression on me and everbody else on this forum except for some real first-class nut-jobs.

What do you do for a living, if anything?

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

And for what it's worth, I think only those southerners over the age of 35 while being puking blood. Apparently those under 35 support gay marriage to the tune of 60/40.

:)

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox

It almost sounds like you were describing
the illegal settlements that are rising up
in America! You know all those "little
mexico's", in every city and town!

They got a "We are a nation of laws" (lol)
president and soon they will have a "activist judge" to lend "humanity to the laws Obama refused to enforce!

I applaud Chrisfox and all his naysayers
for their opinions, one of the reasons
you and others get to voice opinions and have certain beliefs, is because Americans of all creeds and colors fought and died for them!

How quickly people forget, Yesterday I Honored them, and my fallen comrades.

Posted by: victorlove1 | May 26, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I think your assessment, while a bit hateful, is accurate. Whether the public is ready for it or not -- and numbers suggest we're not QUITE there yet -- it's coming.

But CA's constitution now outlaws it. How will that domino fall? Another proposition changing it back.

As for the numbers I speak of, I'm referring to the CA vote on Prop 8. Without bashing either side, it seems that if 52% of the country's most progressive state aren't ready for gay marriage, perhaps the rest isn't either?

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Are you a lesbian, perhaps?

You seem incredibly angry all the time.

Thats a stereotype, and I apologise for it.
==

Oh my ribs, please stop!!!

Go punch the Wailing Wall until your knuckles are in fragments.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Your thoughts, Chris?

==

Sure. Iowa is leading this time, California will follow soon enough. Take note that four states have legalized gay marriage now and instead of the great national "backlash" the knucklewalkers have been predicting every time something changes in a progressive direction, we've had a big national yawn. Without the hysteria and outrage to drive it, equality under the law is the direction we're headed. Watch the dominoes fall, until it becomes federal.

That is going to be a VERY enjoyable month as the whole south pukes blood over it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

For those worried about Sotomayer's 50/50 record at the supreme court, the saying goes that the SCOTUS is "not a court of error", they don't deal with the quality of judging, they deal with issues of unsettled law.

As and example, the SCOTUS decided against current Chief Justice John Roberts in every federal course of his they reviewed. Which, like with Sotomayer, wasn't many.

So how come it's only a problem for her? Cause she's a woman? HIspanic? A democrat? A liberal? All of the above.

She's summa cum laude from Princeton, Yale Law editor, criminal prosecutor, federal trial judge, federal appellate judge. There is no such thing as more qualified.

Posted by: bullsmith | May 26, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8 --

You the first Gay person I've met who's a total A**hole.

It just goes to show that not all people of even the best groups are good.

You're to Gay people what the Rosenbergs and Medof are to my people.

You give biggots amunition.

Are you a lesbian, perhaps?

You seem incredibly angry all the time.

Thats a stereotype, and I apologise for it.

My guess is that your parents just did a really lousy job of raising you.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

You shouldn't advertise that you're gay.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow

==

Blow me, dual-loyalty-boi

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

So Chris you must be up in arms that the CA Supreme Court rightly upheld Prop 8?

Not saying gay marriage is wrong... just that the court ruled correctly. The people of CA are entitled to modify their constitution.

Your thoughts, Chris?

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

You shouldn't advertise that you're gay.

Gay-Americans have the reputation of being really great people.

You could ruin that all by yourself.


Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

You don't have Jewish Grandparents.

You can't even spell Ashkenazi.

==

hahahhahaha Both spellings are legitimate, nutbar. Go bonk your forehead on that wall some more.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, you don't get to the east coast very often, do you?

Good luck with that separate country of yours when you get it. But, you know, Bush was from Texas and Cheney from Wyoming. So if you think you'll have all evil and venality isolated on the coasts, I think you're going find yourself badly disappointed at least one more time.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse


chrisfox8 --

You shouldn't advertise that you're gay.

Gay-Americans have the reputation of being really grest people.

You could ruin that all by yourself.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

I figured as much.

You've never experienced racism.

If you had, you'd never make the posts you do.

==

I'm gay you idiot drool case.

I would make the posts I do even if my grandparents had continued to practice their religion and I had been raised Jewish. Until Israel is ready to treat the settlers as the terrorist criminal conspiracy they are, I will continue to call for cutting off all aid to the government that enables their deplorable provocations.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse


chrisfox8 --

You don't have Jewish Grandparents.

You can't even spell Ashkenazi.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"So she has been rebuked and has been reversed repeatedly. Obummer's solution: see if he can get her on the high court so she can screw up from on high. Race politics writ large going on there.

Wasn't raised conservative, but life taught me that liberalism is a lie.'

Bitter, whining, rancid racists. This is the republican party today.

Btw, your information is all wrong. But what else is new.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse


chrisfox8 --

I figured as much.

You've never experienced racism.

If you had, you'd never make the posts you do.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Do you have any non-WASP ethnicity of your own?

==

Yeah three Ashkenazy grandparents. Blow me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 --

You're one of the worst racists on these boards and one of the worst I've ever met.

Do you have any non-WASP ethnicity of your own?

==

save it. You guys have worn out this "racist" BS. Israel supports a movement of land thieves, violent people who erect settlements on land not theirs and immediately start making trouble, then the Iraeli Army shows up and defends them. The whole thing stinks on ice and only a total exceptionalist bigot would defend it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse


chrisfox8 --

You're one of the worst racists on these boards and one of the worst I've ever met.

Do you have any non-WASP ethnicity of your own?

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Israel has the right to exist.

So do I and every other Jew on the planet.

==

"right to exist" is logically meaningless and, revealingly, is only invoked in connection with that rotten little Middle Eastern country and its pretense to being a democracy.

I don't give a damn about it being the "Jewish State" and if everyone there converted to Christianity I would still be excoritating that loathesome Squatter Movement.

"Land thieves, well poisoners, child stealers," the old bigot line goes .. too bad only two of them are false.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

So she has been rebuked and has been reversed repeatedly. Obummer's solution: see if he can get her on the high court so she can screw up from on high. Race politics writ large going on there.

Wasn't raised conservative, but life taught me that liberalism is a lie.

Obummer has been a liar at least since he started running for Prez.

Posted by: Billll | May 26, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox,

Not saying health care doesn't need reform and I shudder to think how tough it is for those without medical insurance. I'm just saying that, given the excorbitant amounts being borrowed to finance the bailouts, it seems like the wrong time to quadruple the deficit.

A lot of what Obama says regarding health care makes sense. But the math troubles me. Let's right the ship, balance the budget, then begin to overhaul health care.

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

oh, and "drivel", as you full well know, I campaigned for Obama. To be sure, I loath him and you are his "biggest fan", I at least campaigned and voted, rather than sat home on my overly broad b*tt and blathered hysterical nonsense. That you are so intellectually inept speaks volumes about the gerbils that manage to keep faith in that con artist. As for me, I learned from my mistake, freely admit it, and spend my days trying to make amends for it by undermining him and the Democratic and Republican Parties. Between the three of them, all you have is a shell game with the pea already in the huckster's pocket.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 26, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse


Chrisfox8 --

Israel is "The holy land" for both Jews and Christians.

Moslems turn towards Mecca when they pray.

Jews turn towards Jerusalem when we pray.

Israel has the right to exist.

So do I and every other Jew on the planet.

The Arabs have thousands of times more land, gushing with oil.

There are no Palestanians.

They are Jordanians.

They already have a country.

In fact, the Arabs have a whole bunch of them.

Why do they want to destroy tiny Israel?

Why, Chrisfox8, do you want to help them destroy it?

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox,

Just out of curiosity, what rulings might have been different with Bork versus Kennedy? He's been pretty solid with the right, especially while O'Connor was still on the bench... he's moved more to the middle now.

Can you share a few of the rulings that might have been more to the right with Bork on the bench?

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

His budget -- particularly the spending on health care -- also suggest he's staying farther left than I'd hoped...

==

So you prefer the healthcare system we have now, the one that leaves a sixth of our citizens with no recourse but the emergency room.

You're not serious. Thanks for playing. Please drive through.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Yours is a reasonable and balanced article. One small point of disagreement is your statement that this selection would enrage the rightwing. It seems to me that the rightwing has been enraged about one matter or another for a long time. They remind me of belligerent drunk out looking to fight with anyone they can get to interact with them. Indeed they run a great risk of further alienating women and Hispanics which will almost certainly ensure their minority status for the forseeable future.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | May 26, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks
I used to be a Democrat, until about two weeks after..

==

You uh people have totally worn out this one. Nobody believes the Democrat Yusta Bee troll anymore.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Though I didn't vote for Obama, the ideas he outlined in "The Audactiy of Hope" and his campaigning from the center during the general election gave me hope that he would govern more from the middle than he has. Alarm bells went off when he brought in Emmanuel as COS (though that now seems more aimed at keeping Nancy in line than the right). His budget -- particularly the spending on health care -- also suggest he's staying farther left than I'd hoped...

Mibrooks may have his own thoughts...

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

My only fear is that he will abandon Israel.

==

Why should that be a "fear?" What good does our support for Israel do us? Their day of reckoning has to come someday, they need to join the civilized nations of the world and stop supporting their Squatter Movement.

Anyway, I just love how the knucklewalkers are still smarting over Judge "Weirdbeard" Bork. I remember that one. He was a seriously radical nutbar and if he had been sent to the Court we would be a lot more messed up than we already are.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker - Obama has made it known that he is willing to trade our jobs, our security, the very future of this country for the "hispanic vote". Hispanics are already over re[resented, while Naive American's are literally without any representation. The same can be pretty much said for Western values and policies. The policies, the people making those policies, the Supreme Court, the press and media, all represent an East Coast bias, a blatantly racist bias I might add, that ought to turn your stomach. Events have spun so out of control that I cannot see us surviving. In the East, outside of California, we work for a living, producing things. In the East, you produce hot air and exotic financial instruments. We have Main Street and 13.1% unemployment with illegals and guest workers competing for jobs, working trading benefits and wages to get them. You have Wall Street, *Lost* Angeles, Obermann, Limbaugh, the Brady bunch, New York and Florida, gangs, violent crime, con artists and scammers, big banks, and assorted crooked political hacks. We simply have nothing in common any longer - We want a divorce.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 26, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"I used to be a Democrat, until about two weeks after.. Obama [whom] I voted for made his... intentions actually known"

A common troll gambit.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

I am enlightened enough to acknowledge there are countless liberals who are "intelligent and reasoned".

They're still wrong, of course.


:)

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks
I used to be a Democrat, until about two weeks after.. Obama [whom] I voted for made his... intentions actually known

To which specific intentions of Obama's are you referring?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 26, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

more unintentional hilarity. just keeps acomin'.

Posted by: drivl


Kind of like when a Lib pretends to be intelligent and reasoned.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Nosy_Parker - Oh, that one is easy! How about before YOU people were here? My people, the invisible original inhabitants, have been the subject of your tender mercies for far too long. We have been the subject of mass slaughter, slavery (African's were brought here as slaves *after* the native people were mercilessly worked to death). Our children, right up until the mid-1960's, were forcibly removed from their homes and sent to government boarding schools in an attempt to wipe out our culture. We didn't even have the right to vote until the 1930's. Today, most Native American's live on god forsaken pieces of land incapable of growing anything, left with little or no healthcare, no jobs, and little hope. Most of our young men drink themselves to death and the women have children out of wedlock to get welfare checks.. it's that or starve to death. And, Native American's like me that worked their way through college pushing a mop cannot get that job today because it is held by some illegal hispanic worker. Please, don't even try to talk me about racism. Your East Coast racist culture adopted hispanics, like they were a band of stray cats, and left us to die. And THAT is the whole problem with you East Coast liberals. You twits adopt some cause and, after screwing it up, drop it like a child bored with a new toy. Oh, and I'm NOT a conservative. I used to be a Democrat, until about two weeks after that maniac Obama I voted for made his goofy intentions actually known. Now, I'm an Independent, but rapidly becoming an anarchist because "true believers" in Obama's delusions will surely wreck this country.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 26, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

are you going to respond to being pointed out for blatantly plagiarizing? or just keep spouting your nonsense?

kudos to jontorrance for such a timely smackdown.

Posted by: rpixley220


how do you know I am not he? Maybe some day I'll grow up to be a babbling Vice President plaigerizer in chief.

But I had no idea you Libs were so careful all of a sudden. good place to start, on a blog, then work your way up to books and university courses. Maybe Teddy can pass Spanish this time around and Joe can get elected.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Republicans must decide whether or not this is the hill they want to fight and die on.
If they oppose Ms. Sotomayor to the bitter end, they will lose whatever fraction of the Hispanic vote they still have while alienating a considerable percentage of independent women.
It could turn out to be a killing ground.

Posted by: stevestone88339 | May 26, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is a truly historic figure, and clearly a man of both great intelligence and true emotional maturity.

My only fear is that he will abandon Israel.

I hope that I'm wrong on that one.

Everything else about the President looks great.

Posted by: UniversalHealthCareNow | May 26, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

ToughChoices writes
"And so the most basic of American values--equality under the law--is to be sacrificed on the politically correct altar of gender and ethnic balance? That might be what we "got" but it's a "balance" that seems rather tilted."


I'm of the opinion that adding to the diversity of experience among supreme court justices is a positive, not a negative. To use your construct, which tilt is less desireable: one of an all white male supreme court, or filling the ranks from non-white non-male candidates? I think having a court weighted towards white males is less desirable. I don't think there should be some kind of formula that presidents must follow in order to form a court that exactly mirrors the makeup of America. I think the President's prerogative to appoint whomever he or she chooses should be respected. In that regard, put me in the Feingold camp - he voted for both Roberts and Alito, on the basis that the Senate is supposed to 'advise and consent' in verifying each nominee's ability to do the job, litmus tests be damned.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, I'm still a patriot and believe in the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. Your nuts, twits, fruitcakes, bedwetters, bigots, con artists, and assorted intellectual and moral gerbils on the East Coast have drifted so far from the Constitution that it is meaningless"

more unintentional hilarity. just keeps acomin'.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Tough Choices,

If you do not imply to know Obama's thought process, then you cannot charge discrimination. But personally I don't doubt that there was discrimination involved by your definition of it. Discrimination is all around you, son. Mostly being practiced by white men like me and, I strongly presume, you.

For the last time I ask you to consider context. Are you seriously charging that a court of that is 8/9 male and 8/9 white is the product of a system without discrimination? That race and gender are only a factor in THIS nomination but not in the other 8?

If so you're naive like a four year old.

Posted by: bullsmith | May 26, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1: And so the most basic of American values--equality under the law--is to be sacrificed on the politically correct altar of gender and ethnic balance? That might be what we "got" but it's a "balance" that seems rather tilted.

Posted by: ToughChoices | May 26, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Lady Justice and identity politics do not square up with each other.

I agree with the merits of your article. Obama is picking a fight with the conservative right.

I take exception with the label of confidence. It takes a lot "confidence" to pick a fight when you already have 59 votes in the Senate.

Bring it on. We conservative right cherish the debate.

Posted by: oldaggie1990 | May 26, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1 writes
"Even liberals are capitalists when it comes to THEIR money."

Silly razorback, I was talking about drinking beer. That makes me a Real American®, not some kind of wine sipping liberal.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Bullsmith,

I said "probably" because--unlike you--I do not try to assume I know exactly what someone else is thinking or feeling (and I certainly do not accuse them of racism or bigotry just because they disagree with my point of view--I used the word discriminate, which in this context means to treat one group or person unequally .. it does NOT automatically imply racism or bigotry except from a leftist, identity-politics point of view)... based on all the media reports, Obama was looking for a woman or a Hispanic. "Probably" was just a qualifier for the sake of civility, which as others have noted here is rather lacking.

Posted by: ToughChoices | May 26, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@king_of_zouk:
are you going to respond to being pointed out for blatantly plagiarizing? or just keep spouting your nonsense?

kudos to jontorrance for such a timely smackdown.

Posted by: rpixley220 | May 26, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

ToughChoices writes
"If ANY person who otherwise has the qualifications for any position is automatically excluded because of his race, gender, and ethnicity, THAT is discrimination."


So... If the President's goal is to establish some gender and racial balance on the court, he's being discriminatory? Got it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks:
I'm still a patriot and believe in the thoughts of the Founding Fathers

Would you like for Brown v. Board of Education to be overturned, or for Plessy v. Ferguson to be reinstated? What about Dred Scott v. Sandford? How far back do you want to take this nation? At what date do you draw the line?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm... between milbrooks and scrivener I'm starting to wonder if a rational conversation is possible, much less a civil and respectful one.

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Why does Limbaugh and the rest of the GOP wants to label a judge as an "activist" when all they want is a judge who is an "originalist"?

Posted by: rogden71 | May 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Tough Choices,

First you say no one can deny the discrimination, then you say Obama PROBABLY never even considered White Men.

Once again, how come you can see the discrimination when you think no White Men were being considered but not, as is usually the case, ONLY White Men are being seriously considered. Open your mind a little.

Posted by: bullsmith | May 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I want to encourage mibrooks27 to keep speaking in defense of the conservative movement.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says:

"And the beer store on that side has better prices."

Even liberals are capitalists when it comes to THEIR money.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 26, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY IS WELL AWARE OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT NETWORK SPAWNED OR EXPANDED UNDER BUSH-CHENEY.

BUT 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 TO CREATE A COVERT AMERICAN GESTAPO?

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 26, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Bullsmith clearly likes to put his/her own thoughts into other people's mouths. I did not say that non-Hispanic white men are the only ones qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. What I said--and which no one can honestly deny--is that non-Hispanic white men were probably the ONLY group that was automatically disqualified from consideration for this opening. If ANY person who otherwise has the qualifications for any position is automatically excluded because of his race, gender, and ethnicity, THAT is discrimination.

Posted by: ToughChoices | May 26, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I never said they sang kumbaya and took long walks on the beach together. Together they arranged for the assumption of state debts by the federal government, which saved the infant nation, according to numerous historians; they also brough the capitol to the banks of the Potomac and Jefferson's primary lieutenant, Madison, teamed with Hamilton to write the Federalist papers -- the source documents, if you will, for the Constitution. Good stuff.

And don't kid yourself: Jefferson may have left for Monticello after his resignation but he still controlled the party he founded through Madison and others in Congress.

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I'm still a patriot and believe in the thoughts of the Founding Fathers. Your nuts, twits, fruitcakes, bedwetters, bigots, con artists, and assorted intellectual and moral gerbils on the East Coast have drifted so far from the Constitution that it is meaningless. Out West, we still believe and feel we would be much better stewards of that document and the ideas contained in it. Your over populated and polluted paradise apparently sees it as nothing more than the lining for the bottom of your cage.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 26, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

bullsmith writes
"You think you're not bigoted, but you haven't really put the shoe on the other foot, have you?"


Silly bullsmith. You're asking for empathy. They don't do empathy.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Every judge brings his or her life experience to the bench. They have to use it. When the law says something has to be "reasonable" or "fair" and they have to interpret what that means against the facts of a case, they don't have much choice but to judge the situation against what they know. And that is their life experience.

Judge Sotomayor will bring a life experience to the Supreme Court different from the others. That will enable her to provide a different perspective on what is "reasonable" or "fair".

"Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder. Usually, it is just a matter of perspective on what is reasonable or fair. A judicial activist is mainly a judge who decides differently from how the person viewing their decision would, especially if it is different from the rulings of other judges in previous cases. Bt that definition, the conservative group on the present Supreme Court is a hotbed of judicial activism.

It is all a matter of perspective on what is reasonable and fair.

Posted by: StanKlein | May 26, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"I think everything West of the Mississippi, except for California, needs to form a new nation"

No can do, brooksie. I live a mile west of the big muddy, but buy my groceries on the east side. And the beer store on that side has better prices.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Funny how the people who call themselves liberals are the ones who are the most fascist in their country.

Posted by: drivl"

ROFLOL -- zouk gets stupider by the day. must be the koolaid

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

To paraphrase Tough Choices:

"If you don't always accept that white men are better qualified for important positions you're a racist. Also, context never matters."

You think you're not bigoted, but you haven't really put the shoe on the other foot, have you?

Posted by: bullsmith | May 26, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the people who call themselves liberals are the ones who are the most fascist in their country.

Posted by: drivl

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Even Hamilton and Jefferson, who despised one another and had radically divergent views, understood they needed each other.
--------------------------------
Jefferson resigned his post as Secretary of State when he realized that Hamilton had Washington's ear. Hamilton himself was a back-stabbing politico of the highest order (and possibly a traitor). Don't kid yourself about politics being nice back in the day - remember, before they had their falling out, Burr acted as Jefferson's attack dog against the Federalists.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh -- and her comment about the Appeals Court being a place where policy is set? She's right!! Both conservative and liberal, er, activist judges (gotta say it right or I'll lose my GOP membership card!) set policy from the bench at that level. All Judge Sotomayor did was acknowledge that irrefutable truth. The nerve!

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Some of the safer Republicans will do Rush's bidding and go after her, but I think a lot of people will hold their fire and vote for her. If she turns out to be somehow a poor justice, Obama will take the blame anyway. But really, attacking the pick because she's not as smart as Sam Alito is blatant codespeak for "she's not a white man." The fact is she got better marks throughout her academic career.

Posted by: bullsmith | May 26, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"I think everything West of the Mississippi, except for California, needs to form a new nation"

What a godsend that would be. Of course they'd manage to declare war on themselves and self-destruct immediately, but that would be no loss to the world.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow... such hatred on this blog. Why can't the conversation -- whether we agree or disagree -- be civil? Liberal or conservative, progressive or moderate, I don't think anyone has a corner on the market when it comes to patriotism and genuine concern for the country. Even Hamilton and Jefferson, who despised one another and had radically divergent views, understood they needed each other. It's about balance.

Anyway, Sotomayor: I think her story is compelling and she'll be a fine justice. I prefer a more narrow interpretation of the law than the judge has apparently shown in her career but I think she seems honest and dedicated to the law. I think its high time the court more accurately reflected the population it represents, though I'm troubled by the need Obama has for "empathy" in a judge. Empathy suggests that laws aren't absolute but relative to the circumstances in which they are applied. I find that worrisome. Nonetheless, Obama won. To the victor, the spoils.

I don't see why conservatives -- of which I am one -- are getting their panties in a wad over this. The balance of the court remains unchanged, and it will even if Stevens passes or Ginsburg retires to fight her cancer. The only way the makeup of the court really changes is if Kennedy hangs up his robe. Alito and Roberts are young and it seems Scalia and Thomas will hang around until (if!) another conservative takes the White House.

Anyway, good luck Judge Sotomayor.

Posted by: outsider6 | May 26, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

kszimmerman said:

"To the extent that Sotomayor intended her quote about being a "wise Latina woman" having the experience to make better decisions than a white male to be taken seriously at all - and it's not at all clear that this was anything more than a joke - I would still take it with a grain of salt."

It was reported in the NEW YORK TIMES. They didn't report it was a joke. The "joke" excuse and the "context" excuse are sorry excuses that enable people like you to give the benefit of the doubt to people who agree with your political views, even though you do not extend the same benefit of the doubt to those who make controversial statements and that do not share your political views.

This kind of relativism has no intellectual credibility in a debate. It also has no place on the bench.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

As usual, chrissuxit and loony moonbat drivl attack and insult, further demonstrating the total lack of anything positive or substantial to offer. Pretty much the same as "blame bush" Obimbo.

Shame about those nukes going off today. But remember, there will be "serious consequences" te he. Seems the bad guys have understood quite well that there is no longer any sherrif in town.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"There is a direct link between his election and the Sotomayor pick, a series of firsts that reaffirm the idea that anyone born in this country can grow up to be anything they can achieve."

Not exactly. It was quite clear from the start that Obama was looking for a woman and/or a Hispanic. It is impossible to argue that a white male of non-Hispanic ethnicity was ever seriously considered for this opening on the court, thus it seems that anyone can grow up to be anything--EXCEPT when an identity-politics Democrat is in the White House. (And PLEASE do not suggest that the presence of other white males on the court means that this position "should" have gone to someone else--the fact is that one particular group was considered "overrepresented" for political reasons and therefore any person in that group was automatically excluded--THAT is discrimination, reverse or otherwise)

Posted by: ToughChoices | May 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

' This country has stayed together for too long. The "union" is a bust!"

Funny how the people who call themselves patriots are the ones who hate their country.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Penazoid
So he picked a baby killer. Big surprise. Just have to wait for the pendulum to swing the other way, I guess.

Maybe you'd be happier if the Pope ran the United States? That's the sort of thinking that JFK promised during his 1960 Presidential campaign NOT to do, without which he might not have been elected.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 26, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

This country has stayed together for too long.
-----------------------------------------
I suppose the conservatives weren't kidding when they said, "America: Love it or leave it."

At least no one can accuse them of inconsistency on this count.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry.. they are American Catholics..not real Catholics.. (on the bench)..

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 26, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

rkinneypa writes
"On the other hand, many Democrats opposed Justices Roberts and Alito"

When it came time for the floor vote, Dems split evenly on the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts, and voted more overwhelimngly against Alito (only 4 Dems voted to confirm him) - one Repub & one Independant joined the 'nays' for a final vote of 58-42.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Duh? What it means is the whackadoodles of the East Coast get to keep on cramming their twisted ideology down our throats. The Post and NYT's sit smug and dumb, while the West (except for California, an East Coast transplant and Western aberration) once again is shafted. This country has stayed together for too long. The "union" is a bust! I think everything West of the Mississippi, except for California, needs to form a new nation, and allow the twits and fruitcakes from the East to rot in their own mess.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 26, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

ooojane writes
"it does concern me that she would become the 6th Catholic on that bench. That is NOT representative of this secular nation."


Clearly the best remedy is to encourage the other 5 catholics to consider retirement. If we could retire them all over the next 6 years, I'd be thrilled.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

" When have Republicans ever attacked a Democratic judicial nominee? "

Oh, look, here's someone with Alzheimer's.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

however it does concern me that she would become the 6th Catholic on that bench
------------------------------
To be fair, there's regular Catholic and then there's Scalia Catholic. Without knowing anything about her beliefs, I am confident she's not Scalia Catholic.

Neither is the Pope, for that matter.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"Flooding the country with the people that has been underway provides very little to expect for the future."

Both hilarious and pathetic. This thread has been rich -- full of the absolutely braindead bemoaning the lack of intelligence of others. I don't even know how people manage to be this illiterate and just plain dumb.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It sure is funny to read all the comments from liberals here expecting attacks on Judge Sotomayor from Senate Republicans. When have Republicans ever attacked a Democratic judicial nominee? That has been the province of Democrats, ever since Ted Kennedy's scurrilous slurs of Robert Bork. Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly to confirm both Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. On the other hand, many Democrats opposed Justices Roberts and Alito, despite their sterling credentials and a lack of any sort of extremism in their previous rulings or writings. I have no doubt that had John McCain been elected President and nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin would have already made scathing speeches denouncing her.

Posted by: rkinneypa | May 26, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I am delighted that the President has announced a Supreme Court nominee that is a female (represented by more than 50 % of this country's population), and one that has overcome a vast number of obstacles, however it does concern me that she would become the 6th Catholic on that bench. That is NOT representative of this secular nation.

Posted by: ooojane | May 26, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

In the coming weeks, expect to hear the words "liberal activist" on a daily basis, along with concerns about Sotomayor's "temperament", and of course a barrage of criticism about having "empathy" coming from the Right-Wing lunatic fringe.


Oh, no! Empathy! Do Republicans even know what that word means? Do they realize how bad it makes them look to try to demonize someone for having empathy? Of course not -- they don't stop to think about niceties like that.


And "liberal activist" = any judge that does not rule 100% the way the knuckle-dragging Republican base wants them too.


I love it that somebody who grew up poor in public housing will be challenging the Robertses and Alitos on the court. Good on Obama.

Posted by: DrainYou | May 26, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Flooding the country with the people that has been underway provides very little to expect for the future.
----------------------------------
A sentiment that no doubt brings a smile to Rahm Emmanuel. Now, if we could only get that on video - preferably with a confederate flag in the background. If you could sit in a folding lawn chair with a shotgun "guarding" the border at the same time, I'm sure you'll end up on his Christmas card list.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Another sad day!!
Obama is just trying to be too cute.

One has to feel sorry for the way the country is changing. America will no longer remain in the leadership position and it is because of what Obama and the likes of him will be doing. Flooding the country with the people that has been underway provides very little to expect for the future.
What has happened to the conservatives in the country?
Another big mistake in the nomination to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: 68b2b | May 26, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

There is a direct link between his election and the Sotomayor pick, a series of firsts that reaffirm the idea that anyone born in this country can grow up to be anything they can achieve.
------------

Ah, the myth lives. Politics is everywhere. If you don't connect or network and play the game, you can't grow up to be anything. Hard work doesn't always get you where you want to go. Knowing the right people is far more beneficial.

Posted by: itsagreatday1 | May 26, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

@ Bondosan "But really, how would YOU decide who's "most qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court?"

I have nothing wrong with his pick, just the blatent homerism of the media by going the Hispanic Woman route. My Criteria would be she is a great judge who deserves to be on the Supreme Court, not that she is a Hispanic Woman, but that does not sell newspapers or make headlines now a days. There always has to be an angle.

Posted by: Krazijoe | May 26, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

jacaver -- your post is eloquent and i am happy for you today.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I beam with pride as a Hispanic-American citizen today, Sonia Sotomayor's story is our story, a daughter of Immigrants, growing up in a public housing project in the Bronx, graduated from Princeton and Yale law school, for the first time in the history of the U.S., we, Hispanics-Americans will be represented in the highest court in the country, I thank President Obama for this choice, let's see now how smart the Republican party is, they are losing our Hispanic votes ( I voted for George Bush and the GOP in 2004 ) with so many anti-immigrant, anti-hispanic- anti-black, anti-jewish people in the so called "conservative base" They talk about reaching out to us Hispanics and other minorities, let's see them prove that they are really trying to reach out to us. The vote of Hispanic-Americans for decades to come may depend on how the Republican party deals with this nomination.

Posted by: jacaver | May 26, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

So Zouk reads World Net Daily? I always wondered what kind of frenzied nut case would be attracted to that rag. Question answered.

Really, check it out, everyone. It's a paragon of hyperventilating right-wing paranoid fantasy. I keep waiting for it to print an article by General Ripper on the urgent necessity of protecting our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"Drindl, (and the rest of my spellcheckers) how am I doing on my spelling.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 1:06 PM"
====
In this case you're doing just fine with the exception of leaving out the question mark.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 26, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Why does anyone respond to zouk? You only need to read one or two of his posts to see that he has the mind of a child

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

It only means politics.

Posted by: ravitchn | May 26, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

so i see the unemployed zouk will be posting his peculiar nonsense every 2 minutes for the rest of the day. razorback/jaked off/ zouk on, right on schedule.

Posted by: drindl


I keep forgetting that is your role.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

This selection is pure genius. Whether they like it or not, Republicans have to go along with the nomination and support it, no matter what they think of her record.

Who among them wants to go on record as opposing a Hispanic American for high office??

Any Republican from any urban area of the country who votes against her will be looking for a new job after the next election. Guaranteed.

Posted by: loulor | May 26, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

When I was a child, the bogyman was an imaginary creature hiding under my bed. Now, thanks to Al Gore and his ilk, bogymen are lurching across the countryside like the zombies in horror movies, terrifying the kids. That’s all the kids, including the little sons and daughters of liberals. According to recent studies, a huge percentage of 10-year-olds believe the earth will be entirely under water before they’re grown-up. I call it child abuse, and if those parents weren’t a bunch of politically correct, brain-dead, pantywaists, they’d put a stop to it.
----------------------------------
Note to parents: It's perfectly okey-dokey, on the other hand, to threaten your kids with everlasting hell fire if they make googly eyes at someone of the same sex. Or if they support a woman's right to choose. Or if they support making birth control freely available. Or if they believe in evolution. Or vote for a democrat. Or...

Well, let's just summarize: If it's a real threat with a basis in science that big business doesn't like to talk about - teaching it to your children in abuse. If it's a lesson based on an abstract code of morality from thousands of years ago based on a book written by uptight shepherds, go with it.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

so i see the unemployed zouk will be posting his peculiar nonsense every 2 minutes for the rest of the day. razorback/jaked off/ zouk on, right on schedule.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk,

You wrote "According to recent studies, a huge percentage of 10-year-olds believe the earth will be entirely under water before they’re grown-up.".

Firstly, could you please define what constitutes a "huge percentage"? Secondly, please give us links to at least two such "recent studies" - I haven't found them in my initial attempts and it doesn't seem worth trying very hard without some proof that they exist. I can, however, find the column by Burt Prelutsky from which you lifted your entire post that I excerpted above without attribution. It's at http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98587

Posted by: jontorrance | May 26, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm late to (re)post, but I'll try anyway.

From DDawd, in reference to the "reasonableness" of Alito and Roberts: "What do you use to define reasonable? Do you mean in terms of ideological position or in terms of qualification (or a bit of both)?"

A bit of both. Mostly I'm reiterating that it's unreasonable to expect I will agree with positions the justices have staked out, or even the judicial philosophy that guides them. That was something I believed even when the party I most closely identifies with was out of power.

As to Razorback, seriously, get help to deal with your anger. To the extent that Sotomayor intended her quote about being a "wise Latina woman" having the experience to make better decisions than a white male to be taken seriously at all - and it's not at all clear that this was anything more than a joke - I would still take it with a grain of salt.

As a reflexive and pre-emptive defense against racism, some on the right seem to really wish to pretend the conversation about race were being held in a vacuum, that almost 400 years of history in the U.S. could magically be erased. So they can disingenuously scream "racism!" when others point out that it can't.

Posted by: kszimmerman | May 26, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

What garbage. Why is it that when Republicans routinely select minority people it is rarely noticed... but when Obama picks a minority, it becomes...

"The Sotomayor pick also reaffirms the idea in Americans' mind that the Obama presidency is an historic one"

So Obama is "historic" doing what Republicans routinely do?

This is garbage reporting, Chris Cillizza

Posted by: wilsan | May 26, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

the meltdown of our financial system?

Posted by: drindl

A result of liberal big government meddling. It is only going to get worse. Car industry like Amtrak. Health care like medicare, broke and ineffective with limited choices and long lines. Taxes sky high and handouts to all the preferred voters. You remember Jimmy Carter? Energy policy consisting of sweaters and gas lines. On so on.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent.
----------------------------
In which case, would the ideal politician just spout utter nonsense without a veneer of reason? Finally, the rationale of a Bush supporter explained!

By the way, how stupid does that make us for allowing Bush - with his dedication to virtuous and unapologetic nonsense - to lead us into all those real (rather than imagined/feared) catastrophes we're currently facing?

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

@Cornell1984 - Actually, I can solve the confluent hypergeometric equation. Next canard?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 26, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes " --- like the meltdown of our financial system?

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

It means another blow to the white establishment and white privilege in America.

Posted by: TalkingHead1 | May 26, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"But, in picking Sotomayor, Obama is expressing his supreme confidence that even a united GOP can't beat the White House."

Is there ANYONE (realistically) that Obama could have picked in which he wouldn't have had that confidence?

Is there ANYONE (realistically) that Obama could have chosen which wouldn't result in the 60 Democratic Senators voting "yea"? 60 yea votes beat 40 nays everytime.

Why pretend that Republican dissent matters? Because this is all political theater designed to sell papers and boost ratings.

Judge Satomayor's confirmation and swearing-in is a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: MDLaxer | May 26, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

When I was a child, the bogyman was an imaginary creature hiding under my bed. Now, thanks to Al Gore and his ilk, bogymen are lurching across the countryside like the zombies in horror movies, terrifying the kids. That’s all the kids, including the little sons and daughters of liberals. According to recent studies, a huge percentage of 10-year-olds believe the earth will be entirely under water before they’re grown-up. I call it child abuse, and if those parents weren’t a bunch of politically correct, brain-dead, pantywaists, they’d put a stop to it. Instead, they take their kids to see left-wing pap like “Earth,” and they cheer on people like Gore and Pelosi, who are making millions upon millions of dollars off their investments in this massive hoax. These self-righteous cretins love green, okay; greenbacks, that is.

Unlike Chicken Little, who insisted the sky was falling, and scared all the critters in the barnyard, these greedy little creeps are screaming that the ice is melting, and scaring all the kids in the schoolyard.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow -- the seething racism and self-pity is so pathetic, but so typical.

"
"Chris is like all the other white male, liberal media types out there today: agreeing that Latina women are smarter than white men. I was wondering if when white liberal men wake up and hit themselves? Stare in the mirror, and tell themselves they are worthless? That they are so stupid, so out of touch, that they couldn't add 2 and 2.

I was wondering why the Washington Post doesn't give Chris Cillizza's job to a Latino woman. That was, he may have a more empathetic reaction to the fact that Judge Sotomayor made a decision that qualified white men cannot be given a job they earned because of the color of their skin."

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

You will note that even the elected leaders of the R party use exactly the same words as each other. They follow the talking points from the strategy document I posted earlier to the exact litter, so you cna't even tell them apart from each other -- identical dittoheads just like the ones we get here.
-------------------------------------
Clones of the Attack?

Perhaps the vapidness of the debate here is making me silly - or perhaps you really can explain the entire universe through Star Wars.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

these people are getting nuttier and nuttier.

Posted by: drindl |

Approaching drivl land if the insanity continues.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 26, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse


"Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said Sotomayor must "prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences."

You will note that even the elected leaders of the R party use exactly the same words as each other. They follow the talking points from the strategy document I posted earlier to the exact litter, so you cna't even tell them apart from each other -- identical dittoheads just like the ones we get here.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html

Sotomayor's full speech that contains the line about Latinas making better decisions than white males. The line is on the fifth page if you want to skip to it.

Contrary to what I thought, it doesn't appear that she was referring to a specific case or a group of cases.

It's a pretty fuzzy paragraph overall. Actually, calling it fuzzy is too kind. It's pretty poor. The following paragraph gets to her meaning a lot better and goes so far as to recognize that people can empathize with those outside of their demographic group. Brown v Board was decided by nine white men. To recognize that separation is inherently unequal, these guys needed to empathize with those being discriminated against. This doesn't mean they were being activists. This doesn't mean they were applying different standards to different people. It meant that these guys were able to see the effects of a ruling and recognize its real world implications.

But go read it for yourself.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

And Cornell, just because we're white men doesn't mean some of our relatives aren't Latina.

Face it, your day has passed.

America is what it is.

Adapt or die.

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 26, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Looking forward to all the young moderate and liberal justices that will comprise the majority of SCOTUS over the next eight years.

Man, it's gonna be fun!

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 26, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Chris is like all the other white male, liberal media types out there today: agreeing that Latina women are smarter than white men. I was wondering if when white liberal men wake up and hit themselves? Stare in the mirror, and tell themselves they are worthless? That they are so stupid, so out of touch, that they couldn't add 2 and 2.

I was wondering why the Washington Post doesn't give Chris Cillizza's job to a Latino woman. That was, he may have a more empathetic reaction to the fact that Judge Sotomayor made a decision that qualified white men cannot be given a job they earned because of the color of their skin.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | May 26, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris is like all the other white male, liberal media types out there today: agreeing that Latina women are smarter than white men. I was wondering if when white liberal men wake up and hit themselves? Stare in the mirror, and tell themselves they are worthless? That they are so stupid, so out of touch, that they couldn't add 2 and 2.

I was wondering why the Washington Post doesn't give Chris Cillizza's job to a Latino woman. That was, he may have a more empathetic reaction to the fact that Judge Sotomayor made a decision that qualified white men cannot be given a job they earned because of the color of their skin.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | May 26, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I believe they should just vote on it. The months of back and forth on these issues serves nothing but to divide an already torn country apart and in the end will change nothing.

People here are so concerned about how they appear to other countries. Have you ever considered how you look when people from other countries read your comments? Aren't you at all embarrassed by your comments?

Posted by: ktchvl | May 26, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Progressive Pragmatic writes: But politically - man, oh man. Obama has likely sealed the fate of the Republican outreach to hispanics.
__________
This was my first thought. Sotomayor's an excellent choice on her own merits, she was appointed by both a GOP and a Dem president, thus should in theory be palatable to both sides of the aisle, and is outreach. What this means is Obama is on the path to reelection, next time winning Texas. Couldn't be a better pick.

Posted by: Cyclopsina | May 26, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Today's headlines about Sotomayor remind me of one thing - Admiral Ackbar from Return of the Jedi. Stick with me for a moment...

Adm. Ackbar, of course, is famed for his pithy assessment of the Emperor's plan to destroy the rebel alliance - "It's a trap!" Republicans, I would argue, should adopt Ackbar (rather than Limbaugh or Beck) as their mascot. This would help remind them that, with a president as smart as Obama, it's always a trap.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the analogy of their party with the rebels quickly breaks down. They would never let Lando Calrissian fly the Falcon (affirmative action!), ally themselves with alien races (America First!), accept the leadership of Luke Skywalker (No gays in the military!), trust in the Force (it's witchcraft, dagnabit!), or oppose a patriarchal figurehead no matter how blatantly evil (If the emperor says we need to torture, then we need to torture!).

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm... I'm willing the Repugs on this board will parrot some of the following points: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points-2009-05-26.html

Posted by: hiberniantears | May 26, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Judge Sotomayor clearly despises White Males."

If this is true, perhaps it will help mitigate the male-centric biases of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Posted by: MaryLouR | May 26, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Do some of you conservatives even listen to yourselves?

The rights of the UNBORN? Really? Can the unborn vote or hold property?

As a lawyer, I didn't know that we had given the UNBORN legal standing. They can sue now? Wow.

Keep on believing that dinosaurs existed 6,000 years ago and the earth is flat. And you wonder why America is losing its standing, it's not because of liberalism, it's because of blatant anti-intellectualism and an irrational fear of science.

Posted by: bhuang2 | May 26, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Judge Sotomayor clearly despises White Males. She clearly despises the US Constitution which never meant the USSC to legislate from the bench. I bet she didn't pay her taxes like all the other Obama nominees."

Actually, it's clear that it's you that clearly despises hispanic women. Keep it up, people-- your racism is showing.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1,

You disapprovingly wrote of Sotomayor "She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power”".

Are we to understand that you think judging cases in the courts isn't an exercise of power? If you really believe that, why do you care who sits on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: jontorrance | May 26, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I assume that Glenn Beck and Limbaugh typify the kind of "reasoned debate" that jaked and Razorback1 are looking for.

Posted by: nodebris

==

Are you sure about that "and?" I think a forward-slash would be more accurate

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Judge Sotomayor clearly despises White Males. She clearly despises the US Constitution which never meant the USSC to legislate from the bench. I bet she didn't pay her taxes like all the other Obama nominees.

Posted by: dencal26 | May 26, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"'Reacting to Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a “horrible pick,” said that Republicans should “go to the mat” in their efforts to oppose her confirmation in the Senate"

==

Let them howl all they want. They won't be able to block her nomination and they will alienate a lot more people with the vast ugliness of their attempt.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I assume that Glenn Beck and Limbaugh typify the kind of "reasoned debate" that jaked and Razorback1 are looking for.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

From Politico -- omigod, what a gift this would be!

“If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh,” Cheney said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

This led to immediate speculation that Cheney and Limbaugh intend to run as a ticket in the 2012 election. A full-blown international crisis like the one President Barack Obama is now facing with North Korea gives that possible ticket its first real test."


The two most hated men in amrica, together on the republican ticket. you cna't make this up -- these people are getting nuttier and nuttier.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

But Glenn Beck, always in the vanguard, goes after her in a unexpectedly creative way:

"Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask?"

==

WOW.

These guys are going down like a cheap wh0re

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"'Reacting to Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a “horrible pick,” said that Republicans should “go to the mat” in their efforts to oppose her confirmation in the Senate"

Is there anything that guy DOESN'T think Republicans should go to the mat for? If Limbaugh were to say, "I disagree with the Dems on this particular issue, but I'll let it slide. We have more important battles to fight." then my ears might perk up.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Leave it to Glenn Beck, who's trying to out-obnoxious Limbaugh.

Before this is over there won't be a single Hisipanic in this country who will ever vote Republican again. Here he MOCKS her for having diabetes. Wingers, the gift that keeps on giving.

"I assume the right will find ways to insult the new Supreme Court nominee's gender and ethnicity in a thousand different ways. But Glenn Beck, always in the vanguard, goes after her in a unexpectedly creative way:


"Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask?"

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans, and by Republicans I mean their unelected talking heads more than the Senate version, try to attack and savage this nomination then Obama wins big again. Because unless she has tax, gambling or a drug problem this is what the country will here:
"The hate filled Republicans are opposed to Obama. People go on with their daily lives"

This is what a majority of the portion of the population descended from Spanish speaking ancestors will here:
"Republicans hate me."

And this is what the whole country will here on election night 2024:
"Republicans won Idaho, Utah and the Deep South again as the Democratic hold on the Presidency remains uninterrupted since 2008."

Posted by: caribis | May 26, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

• Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

• Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

• Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

• Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

• Abolishing the death penalty;

• Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

==

fear! hate! outrage!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Here's what's coming:

Oops. The Republican National Committee prepared a detailed set of talking points for key Republicans to use regarding the Sotomayor nomination -- and then accidentally sent it to the media.

On the one hand, the talking points say to put up an initially fair-minded neutral approach: "Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor's record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments - which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations."

On the other hand, the talking points go on to lay out some clear lines of attack:

• Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president's choice of judicial nominees.
...

• Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

• Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

• Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

• Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

• Abolishing the death penalty;

• Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"UPDATEAt the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb writes, "[O]n the issue of diversity, Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl -- that is, only by having a black president, an Hispanic justice, a female secretary of State, and Bozo the Clown as vice president will the United States become a true 'vanguard of societal ideas and changes.'"

Go for it, wingys -- that's right -- just slur Latins and blacks and women at every opportunity. Watch people turn out in droves not to vote for you.

Once again proving that your party has become too stupid to survive.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The Latina choice is a NOP. Had Obama chosen someone unqualified (google "Clarence Thomas") for the gig and overlooked quialified white-haired white men, the goopers might have a point (now THERE would be a first). But Sotomayer is anything but unqualified, so why don't you guys go suck eggs some more.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

And here's the traitorous FatMan with his take:

'Reacting to Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a “horrible pick,” said that Republicans should “go to the mat” in their efforts to oppose her confirmation in the Senate, and — echoing his hopes for Obama’s failure — declared that he wanted Sotomayor to “fail”:

LIMBAUGH: Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes! She’d be a disaster on the court. Do I still want Obama to fail as President? Yeah. AP you getting this? He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better."

The fat, ugly traitor who wants to see America go down. Why do wingers hate america so much? Let the bloated face of Limbaugh stand as the hateful, snarling face of the repubican party today -- and even more will flee from this shrinking band of fascists.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
" I'm just saying that I want the context before deciding how to interpret the remark.

I think that's fair. Don't you?"


If you like your debates to be dripping with irony, scroll down & review razorback's whining about being selectively quoted.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"Razorback1:

They are not here for a reasoned debated.

Posted by: JakeD "

Precious. The purveyors of puerile wingnut propaganda make this remark. Hilarious.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 you lying embicile. You selectively quoted what I wrote to change the context. Only a simple minded liar does something like that.

Posted by: Razorback1

==

(*guffaw*)

You misspelled "imbecile," Cletus.

I quoted your own words without any editing. There was nothing to mitigate the idiocy of what I quoted in what I didn't, so go lick your wounds somewhere else.

Hmmm, The Fix's most compulsively prolific poster appears to take a breather and another one shows up, trying to overwhelm the comments section with his own posts and, like his other moniker, makes no sense.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"When Obama says, as he did in his announcement of Sotomayor, that finally our court is fair -- he is blanketly impugning the Supreme Courts' historic ability to arrive at a fair decision."

See, this is the kind of statement that deserves a link. How can he say that the Court is finally anything seeing how she's not even on the Court yet.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"I am glad you are paying attention to my typing because you have nothing to contribute to a discussion about judicial philosophy or the proper role of courts in society."

LOL -- this clown is making my day.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, clearly I am outclassed by the acute legal mind of one Razorback1 and there's just no challenging your irrefutable arguments. It is sheer cowardice that is causing me to run from your superior intellectual firepower, which, like JakeD, you can keep up all day as you are unemployed. I imagine there will be quite a victory party tonight in your mom's basement. Oh right, trailers don't have basements.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 26, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD, you say won't consider the remark because of "context"."

Nope. I'm just saying that I want the context before deciding how to interpret the remark.

I think that's fair. Don't you?

I do think its kind of ridiculous to say that a Latina woman would be better at judging any and all decisions than a male Caucasian. Is that what she was saying or was she referring to a specific case? In one context, her statement is pretty absurd. In another, its a lot more reasonable.

So yeah, I need the whole speech. Without it, the default option is to assume that you're being intellectually dishonest. I hate to do that, but you don't exactly have the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The "first" portrayal of Sotomayor's pick is being greatly over-hyped. And this could come back to hurt Obama. If the country hasn't learned from his election that we are moving swiftly past racialism in our day-to-day lives, then we never will. Obama didn't break the racial barrier -- he was the one who ran at a time when race no longer mattered to a lot of people.

Sotomayor's pick is not the result of Obama's doing a "first." It is the result of a society which, over the past many decades, could support the education and robing of someone without consideration of their race or gender.

When Obama says, as he did in his announcement of Sotomayor, that finally our court is fair -- he is blanketly impugning the Supreme Courts' historic ability to arrive at a fair decision. (I mean, how on earth could we have lived this long without His wisdom on this and His salvation through this simple nomination?) By setting expectations that a new justice will somehow be sympathetic to the rights of one group over the rights others or the Constitution, he raises questions in my mind about how capable a constitutional law professor he really was at U of C.

(BTW, I finds this to tantamount to Michelle Obama's declaration that for the first trime in her adult life, she was proud to be an American -- and a whoile lot of us found that offensive.)

The GOP found with Souter than the best laid plans of conservatives gang oft awry. And, Obama, by over-promising to the latino community and by over-playing the significance of this selection, may well find that the Supreme Court will remain the Supreme Court, and not a forum of popular opinion.

Posted by: DOps | May 26, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, (and the rest of my spellcheckers) how am I doing on my spelling.

I am glad you are paying attention to my typing because you have nothing to contribute to a discussion about judicial philosophy or the proper role of courts in society.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The Sotomayor nomination: What does it mean? Chris, the only question more perplexing is: Why do you presume to read the president's mind? I have no idea what you think you do for a living, but it is not journalism.

Posted by: jaytingle | May 26, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, you say won't consider the remark because of "context".

Do you extend that same courtesy to Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney?

No, you don't. What you do is have one standard for those you disagree with, and another standard for those you agree with. You use this silly relativist ploy to attempt to argue that Sotomayor said something other than what she said, a benefit of the doubt which you only extend to those who share your political philosophy.

That is the same kind of relativism embraced by the Judge in her remarks.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

How very amusing, jaked pretending to champion "reasoned debate." Mr HUSSEIN, watermelons-on-the-whitehouse lawn, birth certificate, gay-baiting jaked.

You need a reasonable opposite for a reasoned debate, troll. Neither you nor Razorback1 qualify.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD, read the quote. The quote answers your question.

Does it matter who threw out the test in order for you to determine whether the resolution of Frank Ricci's case by Judge Sotomayor was just?"

Link me up to the decision, not a quote from something unrelated.

Let's face it, her detractors don't have a lot of credibility. I would like to judge the context for myself. No offense, but you all tend to lie a lot.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

benjaminanderson, you don't have a choice when it comes to debating me.

You can't alter the meaning of what Sotomayor said with some silly "context" argument. You don't even have the guts to try.

Do not pretend that it is a waste of your time to engage in a debate that you are too stupid to win.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse


She's no Harriet Myers.

LOL

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 26, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"Consider the following quote:

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor."

I wouldn't consider the quote without a link to the full speech.

I'm just getting to know about her, but if I can judge someone based on her detractors, she just might be pretty swell by that standard.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Great pick! As a woman with diabetes I am proud beyond belief that President Obama has stepped up to this historic challenge and nominated Judge Sotomayor.

I am looking forward with unadulterated delight at the prospect of hearing from all the extremist Republicans and radical anti-Americans on the right who will oppose this nomination. Republican opposition to Sotomayor will seal our view of the GOP as the party of blind extremists who hate woman, hate minorities, hate freedom, and hate the United States of America.

Posted by: dee5 | May 26, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, read the quote. The quote answers your question.

Does it matter who threw out the test in order for you to determine whether the resolution of Frank Ricci's case by Judge Sotomayor was just?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Razorback, what ultimately would be the point of engaging you and similarly situated right wingers? Is there anyone to the left of Bork that y'all wouldn't have smeared? Or picked quotes from out of context? Or denigrated? or tried to paint as the "most liberal" blah blah blah? Of course not, so I'm not even going to waste my time. Your side lost. Your side will keep losing until you recognize the fact that this country isn't just one big Arkansas.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 26, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

kszimmerman:

Consider the following quote:

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor.

Is that position "untenable"??

Is the quote from Sotomayor absurd enough to make one wonder why someone would bother making such an absurd argument???

Sotomayor didn't say her ethnicity was one of a thousand things that might impact her decisions. She said her decisions would be better because of her ethnicity.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD re: Miers and Gonzales

Taken in the abstract, your analogy is not without merit - after all, it is a bit condenscending to assume that groups as large and diverse as latinos and women would react so uniformly and predictably.

However, there are two flaws in the analogy: First, it's much easier to paint Republicans as racist/sexist - partly, this is self-inflicted damage from the conservative movement's war on diversity. Second, look at the specific quote getting so much attention here about Sotomayor's experiences as a latino woman impacting her perspective on cases - how do you attack this statement without appearing to attack the idea that a hispanic woman's experiences are worthwhile? Forget about abstract legal theories and logic and think about sound bites and appearances. This is a lose-lose situation for the Republicans in a way that Miers (obviously) and Gonzales never were for the Democrats.

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Frank Ricci is a fireman who happens to be dyslexic but still managed to come sixth out of 77 candidates who took an exam to become a lieutenant. But the city of New Haven, Connecticut - home of Yale, where Judge Sotomayor studied law - threw out the test because none of the 19 black firefighters who took it qualified for promotion."

Ok, so you are saying that it is the COURT that threw out the test?

I just want to make sure that we are unambiguous as to what you are saying.

The COURT threw out the test?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Frank Ricci is a fireman who happens to be dyslexic but still managed to come sixth out of 77 candidates who took an exam to become a lieutenant. But the city of New Haven, Connecticut - home of Yale, where Judge Sotomayor studied law - threw out the test because none of the 19 black firefighters who took it qualified for promotion.

After no one was promoted, Ricci and 17 other non-black firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued the city alleging racial discrimination. Sotomayor was one of seven judges (six were against) who wrote a one-page judgement throwing the test results out and denying Ricci his promotion.

"Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And 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.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

Indeed, Frank Ricci can attest that impartiallity was not achieved by Judge Sotomayor.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1:

They are not here for a reasoned debated.

Posted by: JakeD | May 26, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

kszimmerman:

Did you even read the NEW YORK TIMES article linked to re: Sotomayor drawing the conclusion that the Latina would make a "better" decision than a white male?!

Posted by: JakeD | May 26, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Jesse Helms gives his thumbs up from the grave:

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/helms_voted_for_sotomayor_in_98

Tom in NC

Posted by: jojojojo1 | May 26, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

This is priceless......

Razorback1 wrote: "chrisfox8 you lying embicile."

Is this how you spell in Arkansas?

Hey Raxzorback1 - you and good ole Mike Huckabee are doing a great job helping people understand what a complete bunch of morons are left in the Rethug party.

Posted by: paguy1 | May 26, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"Alito and Roberts were very conservative and obviously would not have been my picks, but I didn't favor filibustering then. They were reasonable choices for President Bush. Conservatives lost, now they get to take their lumps."

What do you use to define reasonable? Do you mean in terms of ideological position or in terms of qualification (or a bit of both)?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I am not "racist" (I voted for AFRICAN-AMERICAN Alan Keyes for President).

JRM2:

It didn't seem to matter re: Gonzales or Miers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 26, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

From razorback: "Who is the racist? The person who says her decisions will be better because of her race, or the person who points out this perspective? I would not want to be judged by a person who says that their race makes their decisions different..."

I'm not calling you a racist, but it's an untenable position to pretend that race, just like gender, or class, or education, or one of any thousands of different experiences that change perspective, wouldn't have any affect on your perspective at all. It's enough to make one wonder why someone would bother making such an absurd argument.

Posted by: kszimmerman | May 26, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"Judge Sotomayor is a relativist int that she believes that there is "no objective stance" regarding the law and that ethnic differences should be injected into decision making."

What Judge Sotomayor is saying is that we each are informed by our experience. By the nature of our society, an hispanic woman will ahve a different set of experiences than a white male. She is admitting that their approaches cannot be objectively identical precisely because their backgrounds are different. That is not a flaw, in my view. She has not said that the courts should treat people differently - as you imply. She has only said that people with different experiences - like you and I, to pick two random examples - might look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions. That is a very realistic view of how the world works. People who deny such are living in an imaginary world of theory unencumbered by the reality of human existence.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

If you knew as much about logic and the law as you do about spelling, you might be able to offer a defense of what Judge Sotomayor said.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead Republicans, try to obstruct her nomination, women and hispanics will remember it come 2010 and 2012.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 26, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"vrbjunk, trial courts and practitioners like me do not want any court of appeals to simply write "affirmed" or "reversed and rendered". We rely on appellate courts to clearly state the policy of the law in any close case so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel and so we can tell our clients what we think the result of their potential litigation will be.

Not every appeal requires a policy opinion, of course. But in my 42 years of practice, the most restrained appellate court judges I ever saw or heard from would explain the policy of the law in writing an opinion on a close case.

I do not expect non-lawyers to get this at first blush, but when SS explained the difference between trial judging and appellate judging she properly included the announcements of policy that appeals courts must make.

Posted by: mark_in_austin"

Yeah, I was guessing this is what SS meant. I think Roberts' balls and strikes metaphor is too simplistic. Cases reach the Supreme Court because of their ambiguity. To say that no policy is made through court decisions is at best naive.

I hope you're around here a lot for the confirmation process, Mark.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

'As you pointed out, it was the RACIST New York Times "

Headline: Pot Calls Kettle Black

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"The simple fact that she said "the court of appeals is where policy is made" should disqualify her. Law is not "made" in the courts, unless you are an activist judge.

Posted by: vrbjunk | May 26, 2009 12:00 PM | "
=============
The simple fact that you failed to do your homework and bought into a right-wingnut lie should disqualify you from this thread.

What you heard or read was yet another "edited" tape or paper to take her statements out of context to make it sound like she said something she did not, in fact, she was stating the opposite.

But don't let vetting the facts get in the way of your argument fool.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 26, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1:

As you pointed out, it was the RACIST New York Times who simply used Sotomayor's own words “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,” so why all the venon against you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 26, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Twit" is definitely easier for the hooked-on-phonics crowd.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 26, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"Judicial activism" has become a meaningless buzz word. Whether conservatives like it or not, decisions from conservative justices have "made" law, if that's the definition of their choosing. According to the more favored definition - that the justice weights the decision based on the supposed outcome rather than the law per se - well, conservative justices have done that in more than their fair share of cases, too. So it would seem it's only "judicial activism", whatever that means, when a liberal judge does it.

Alito and Roberts were very conservative and obviously would not have been my picks, but I didn't favor filibustering then. They were reasonable choices for President Bush. Conservatives lost, now they get to take their lumps.

Posted by: kszimmerman | May 26, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

An excellent judicial choice and a perfect way to cleanse the stain left by Gonzales.

Brava!!

Posted by: wpost4112 | May 26, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1 wrote: "you mindless little twit"

That's good; you're better off stick to short, easy-to-spell insults. Five letters max, I'd suggest.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, I think switching to "twit" was a wise move given your inability to spell "imbecile."

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 26, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. consumer confidence soared in May to its highest level in eight months as severe strains in the labor market showed some signs of easing,"

Obama is quite popular now -- and it would be politically stupid for Rs to bash a latina, eespecially one with such excellent credentials.

. Yet I don't think they can stop themselves -- I don't honestly think anyone can stop the wingnuts from driving the party over the edge.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

benjaminanderson, you mindless little twit:

I quoted the Judge:

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor.

Who is the racist? The person who says her decisions will be better because of her race, or the person who points out this perspective?

I would not want to be judged by a person who says that their race makes their decisions different and who also questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases, particulary if I was of a different race than the judge.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"i'd say this is more angry white conservative male again feeling sorry for himself."

Right on with that, vwcat. These people are the world's biggest whiners--professional victims.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The more loudly Rush and Hannity attack this woman, the more likely she is to be confirmed. Not only that, but the more the R's attack a latino woman, regardless of the reason, the more latinos will relate to Obama. If the R's have a clue they will shut up and let this one go without much of a fight.

Posted by: hacksaw | May 26, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"He is an embicile because anyone (other than a fool like nodebris) can see what he did."

And you are an imbecile because I corrected your spelling for you and you still didn't get it. You only make yourself look like more of a fool, if that's possible.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I like her and I am glad her mom lived to see the day. That was a very affecting announcement. Which, as usual, was completely ignored. You may recall President Clinton throwing a hissy fit after his presentation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was followed by political questions from the press. It always happens. Great intro, but the reporters ignore it. In the Youtube era, though, the public gets the last word, because we can see the video ourselves.

One question: Is it unusual to nominate someone with diabetes to a position like this? Seems like that's a first, too.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | May 26, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

To all my lefty friends engaged in name calling of Republican supporters: Remember that Obama won the election being cool, not hot. Today’s Independents are put off by divisive name-calling. By questioning their intelligence you wrestle in the gutter with them.

Posted by: paulchouinard | May 26, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, the citation has already appeared. Here it is again:

Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

Judge Sotomayor is a relativist int that she believes that there is "no objective stance" regarding the law and that ethnic differences should be injected into decision making.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: DDAWD: I'll say this is pretty racist, wouldn't you?


I'd say this is more angry white conservative male again feeling sorry for himself.
It seems conservative white males do alot of that. whining, crying, temper tantrums and feeling sorry for themselves.
And, oh yea, pointing fingers and always looking for someone else to blame for their own incompetence or misdeeds or fault.
The same ones that are always talking about taking personal responsibility are the same ones who have to blame someone else and never take responsibility for their actions

Posted by: vwcat | May 26, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Really, this pick is genius! First, she seems to be a competent judge if not universally beloved - the baseball strike angle makes a great sound bite, though.

But politically - man, oh man. Obama has likely sealed the fate of the Republican outreach to hispanics. If the conservatives had a brain they would realize that this isn't about judiciary politics but electoral politics and it would be best if they just rolled over - of course, I don't expect them to realize this (or, at least, be able to help themselves).

Posted by: progressivePragmatic | May 26, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Here's to hoping that cave dwelling haters like Razorback1 are the voice of the incredible shrinking GOP in their opposition to Sotomayor. At this rate we should capture Utah by 2016. My only regret is that Nixon is not alive to see the final results of his Southern Strategy come to fruition: his party has been captured by permanently angry and resentful bigoted fools -- and they are a disappearing minority (hurrah!).

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 26, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

vrbjunk, trial courts and practitioners like me do not want any court of appeals to simply write "affirmed" or "reversed and rendered". We rely on appellate courts to clearly state the policy of the law in any close case so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel and so we can tell our clients what we think the result of their potential litigation will be.

Not every appeal requires a policy opinion, of course. But in my 42 years of practice, the most restrained appellate court judges I ever saw or heard from would explain the policy of the law in writing an opinion on a close case.

I do not expect non-lawyers to get this at first blush, but when SS explained the difference between trial judging and appellate judging she properly included the announcements of policy that appeals courts must make.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 26, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1 wrote: "nodebris clearly falls into the relativist legal philosophy camp . . . This fits right into the Sotomayor relativist view of justice, where someone with the preferred ethnicity can expect one result, and someone else can expect a different result."

You could tell all that from my brief comment, eh? How powerfully perceptive you are. I bet you see interesting things in your cereal bowl each morning, too.

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Penazoid

So he picked a baby killer. Big surprise. Just have to wait for the pendulum to swing the other way, I guess.

________________________________


And yet, somehow conservatives feel so righteous because they only care for another human being besides themselves before it's born.
Once it's born they could care less and don't care if the baby suffers, starves or dies - unless there is something in it for them personally, that is.

It's like their silly claims of 'activist judges'.
Only if they are centrist or to the left do the conservatives have a problem with activist judges.
If they are to the rightwing, then it is cheered on.
Like the activist judges in 2000.
And studies have shown that by far the conservative justices on the court are by far the most activist.
Thomas and Roberts leading the pack.
So, the whole argument about activist judges is simply more gop spin and little more.

Posted by: vwcat | May 26, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"Razorback1 writes
"This fits right into the Sotomayor relativist view of justice, where someone with the preferred ethnicity can expect one result, and someone else can expect a different result.""

I'll say this is pretty racist, wouldn't you?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Judges are only activist when they do something we disagree with. More importantly, all judges set policy, but that does not make them activist. If a judge issues a ruling overturning or upholding a law, then they have set policy that allows that law to be ignored or enforced.

Posted by: hiberniantears | May 26, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Razorback1 writes
"This fits right into the Sotomayor relativist view of justice, where someone with the preferred ethnicity can expect one result, and someone else can expect a different result."


citation please. I suspect you're doing some activist reporting of her record.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

So the point is, the wingers intend to give her a 'difficult time' and it's all about shearing the sheep and fleecing the goobers.


"When Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, President Obama saw an opportunity to appoint an outstanding jurist who will shape the Court for a generation. But right-wing interest groups saw dollar signs:

[W]ord that Justice David H. Souter plans to retire at the end of this session sent a jolt through the right-wing fundraising circuit late Thursday night.

“This is a nuclear weapon for the conservatives out there,” said Dan Morgan, a veteran conservative fundraiser who founded Morgan, Meredith and Associates. “When you do fundraising, there’s an emotional component in this and boy the emotion is there magnified times 100.”

So it should come as no surprise that these interest groups were already demanding that conservative senators obstruct the President’s choice before he announced his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. One right-wing group had been running web-ads against three of the front-runners for the nomination. Another was threatening to run ads targeting GOP senators who fail to obstruct the President’s nominee.

Speaking to Politico, Gary Bauer of the anti-choice, anti-gay group American Values urged Senate Republicans to follow their House counterparts’ “Party of No” strategy:

“Republicans in the House have gone a long way [toward satisfying conservatives] with votes on the stimulus. … But when it comes to the Senate, there are still a lot of people not convinced that … what people expect is for them to carry the banner of our philosophy as boldly and with as much confidence as the other side does.”

“The other side does not agonize about whether they are going to give a Republican Supreme Court nominee a difficult time, they just do it.”

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I already said my piece on Sotomayor when her name was first floated as a trial balloon -- I do want to dispute The Fix's contention that this pick "reaffirms the idea in Americans' mind that the Obama presidency is an historic one [] filled with 'firsts' that might have seemed unimaginable even a few years ago." The first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court Justice was going to be Alberto Gonzales but the war on terror derailed that -- don't forget that Harriett Miers was nominated by Bush as well -- careful what you libs wish for.

Posted by: JakeD | May 26, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she can use John Roberts' "a judge is an umpire who calls balls and strikes" routine, just repeating it over and over without giving any usable information. It's not like the idiotic press would notice or object.

Posted by: johnc_80 | May 26, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

@Krazijoe - My point is that this standard (best qualified) wasn't applied until very recently. And it has been shown that having women serving on a court makes a difference, even in the opinions of the male justices.

@drindl - The source was identified as conservative. I'll leave you to continue working the ref.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 26, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

nodebris clearly falls into the relativist legal philosophy camp.

chrisfox8 is a liar because he intentionally cut a sentence in half while quoting what I said in order to change the meaning of what I said into a straw man that he could not down.

He is an embicile because anyone (other than a fool like nodebris) can see what he did.

Nodebris is apparently offended by my tone, but not the tone of others who disagree with me. This fits right into the Sotomayor relativist view of justice, where someone with the preferred ethnicity can expect one result, and someone else can expect a different result.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) is a "Republican-organized web site [that] has direct connection to the White House and is promoting the meme that the Senate has 'an obligation to bring these nominations to the floor for a fair vote.'

it should be clarified that this referred to the BUSH WH.

"Its easy to see why this same group of morons that calls every policy decision that they disagree with "illegal". They know nothing about the law."

While, clearly you are a logal scholar with great standing at the Limbaugh-Hannity Institute for Invented Jurisprudence.


Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The most "activist" action any judge has ever taken was Scalia's intervention in the 2000 presidential elections to hand the presidency to Bush. Scalia was convinced in his "feelings" for Bush. How has that worked out, by the way, Antonin?

Posted by: osullivanc1 | May 26, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The simple fact that she said "the court of appeals is where policy is made" should disqualify her. Law is not "made" in the courts, unless you are an activist judge.

If the left want to treat the arguments AGAINST her as racist, when she obviously is a activist, well it just go to show their mentality. They can never debate the actual issues, withouht losing, hence the name calling.

Posted by: vrbjunk | May 26, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

What a very welcome change from all of last week's Cheney vs. Obama nonsense!

As for Judge Sotomayor, the pick--while obviously a shrewdly calculated political move by the President--has both upsides and downsides:

The upsides:
Judge Sotomayor fits all of the political requirements (Hispanic, female, pro-choice, young enough to counter Justices Roberts and Alito)

She is clearly tough enough to 'fight' for her views (can anyone imagine Harriet Myers, had she been confirmed, standing up against Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia)

She has plentiful real-world experience plus a first-rate legal mind

The downsides:

Her (politically unfortunate) comment on policy-making (since we're expected to maintain the fiction that SCOTUS is above policy shaping, if not its actual creation--thank you for Gore v. Bush!)

Her perception on the right as an ultra-liberal 'activist judge' (why, when the court makes conservative decisions, are the majority 'just following the Constitution'?)

Her general outspokenness, which MIGHT cause her to flub some of the questions in the (undoubtedly contentious) hearings--let's hope she has a latent gift for unctuous blandness like now-Justice Roberts displayed at his hearings, and that the WH gives her the proper shepherding through the process.

On President Obama's part, there IS no downside. This shows what a clever politician he is: He strengthens his hand by nominating a (well-respected) Hispanic female jurist.

If the right opposes her--even using their 'clever' recent tactic of drawng on female spokespeople (imagine Michelle Bachmann or Marcia Blackburn), they can be accused of anti-Hispanic, anti-female bias, thus solidifying Obama's outreach to Hispanics.

The special-interest groups and Talk radio hosts won't be silenced, of course--quite the contrary--but that will just errode the Republican party's base even further.

It's a win-win situation for Obama, even in the (extremely) unlikely situation that Judge Sotomayor's nomination doesn't get out of committee or doesn't get confirmed by the floor vote.

That will have the additional advantage of showing up Senate Republicans. I'd like to see Sentors Kyl or Sessions spin that to their advantage.

It's a brilliant move!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | May 26, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

drindl, Bondosan and other assorted dopes do not even make an attempt a defending statements made by Sotomayor in the New York Times to the effect that she, because she her ethnicity, is capable of making better decisions than others.

She also says that results in cases sometimes turn on ethnicity rather than the facts and the law.

Its easy to see why this same group of morons that calls every policy decision that they disagree with "illegal". They know nothing about the law.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The further Obama successfully marginalizes the Reactionary Right-wing Republican (RRR) Party, and the more irrelevant it becomes, the next logical step is a split in the Democratic party between right and left. The Republicans are destined for the dustbin of history. Hurray for a two party system between Progressives and conservative Democrats. Hey Cheney, could you speak a little louder, we can't hear you!

Posted by: paulchouinard | May 26, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

How is it that anyone thinks Sotomayor is unqualified? Have you seen her credentials? Her opinions? This is no lightweight nominee...whether you agree with her opinions or not, I don't see how one can say she's just a token pick!

She's a brilliant nominee; I hope she does well.

Posted by: owl1 | May 26, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

YOU OUGHT TO LOOK INTO YOUR SOURCES, CC:

This Wendy Long person is affiliated with the Swiftboaters. Anyone surprised? Expect a professional swiftboting of the nominee. I'm sure the Donaltelli Group has a whole bunch of smear ads cooked up already:


"The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) is a "Republican-organized web site [that] has direct connection to the White House and is promoting the meme that the Senate has 'an obligation to bring these nominations to the floor for a fair vote.'

The web site is adminstered by Campaign Solutions (whois record), the PR firm for Bush-Cheney '04, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee."

The link for online donations connects to a donation page bearing the same logos and information as other JCN web pages. However, the web address is that for DonationReport.com

The connection for the DonationReport.com website arrives at a Login page—requiring both a User ID and Password—which belongs to eDonation.com, a member of The Donatelli Group, a fundraising company that has raised campaign funds for the RNC, Republican National Convention, Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., John McCain, the NRA [4], and an exhaustive list of Republican members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as other political organizations. ]

The Donatelli Group, using its "primary segment" Campaign Solutions [6], is associated with Creative Response Concepts, the public relations firm that advised Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the "organization that accused Kerry of inflating his Vietnam War record" during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives want it all one way. Huckabee has been quoted as denouncing Obama for not being a centrist. To the former Arkansas Governor, apparently a centrist is one who would vote with Scalia and Thomas and Roberts, et al. right down the line. Conservatives will, and alredady have, denounce the nominee as being one who votes her "feelings" instead of voting the demands of law. But again, who can say that Thomas and Scalia vote anything but their "feelings." Just live with the same fact that progressives lived with for awhile, you lost the last election.....and by a much larger margin than Geo. W. ever won by.

Posted by: dmiller3 | May 26, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Razorback1 wrote: "chrisfox8 you lying embicile."

That comment kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Posted by: nodebris | May 26, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"Just pick the one who is most qualified."
—Krazijoe

How would you go about doing that, Krazi?

Find a pick who graduated summa cum laude? (Sotomayor did).

Find a pick who went to a top, Ivy-league school? (Sotomayor did).

Find a pick who worked as a prosecutor? (Sotomayor did).

Find a pick who has experience as a federal trial judge? (Sotomayor does).

Find a pick who has experience as a federal appeals court judge? (Sotomayor does).

Find a pick who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president? (Sotomayor was).

Find a pick who was appointed to the appeals court by a Democratic president? (Sotomayor was).

Find a pick who was born poor and "pulled herself up by her bootstraps?" (Sotomayor did).

But really, how would YOU decide who's "most qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: Bondosan | May 26, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

By picking the most liberal of the leading candidates, Obama seems finally to be giving up on bipartisanship. Good riddance, I say. Bipartisanship takes 2, after all, and the Repubs just wanna play rough. I'm glad that Obama is finally gonna give them what they want. By cramming this pick down their throat, Obama is going to give the Repubs plenty of rope to hang themselves as the racists and wingnuts they are.

Posted by: Dan4 | May 26, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"chrisfox8 you lying embicile. You selectively quoted what I wrote to change the context. Only a simple minded liar does something like that."

I love it when the idiots out themselves. Mispelling 'imbecile' and then calling someone else simple-minded has to go down in the Fix annals of unintentional hilarity. A classic like a poster who once referred to me as a 'moran.'

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone ever noticed that the right wing nuts only label a judge as a "judicial activist" if they don't agree with the decisions that the judge makes. If they like they judge then they're label as a "constitutionist"

Posted by: ECo34 | May 26, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I wish that the media, who seem to be obsessed with quoting Wendy Long, would note that the "Judicial Confirmation Network" consists of two people: Long and Gary Marx, both far-right activists.

I did find an interesting quote by Long, though:

"Seeking a 'consensus' candidate is not the right thing to do. It is not what the Constitution contemplates, in our system built on the consent of the governed... By definition, those will never be 'consensus' nominees. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were not 'consensus' nominees, nor should any Republican nominees be—particularly when Republicans control the Senate, for heaven's sake."
—Wendy Long, June 22, 2005

I especially like the part about Republican control of the Senate. It should also be noted that Long was an outspoken proponent of the "nuclear option," that is, eliminating the filibuster in judicial nominations -- at least when the nominees were conservative.

Sauce for the goose...

Posted by: rashomon | May 26, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan, a non sequitur is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). A non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it. It is a type of logical fallacy.

Bondosan, do you really believe people of aparticular ethnicity make better decisions than others?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives always bang on about political correctness but then get upset when someone like Sotomayor has the gonads to be honest about the fact that her identity informs decision making. They'd prefer she offer up PC baloney about how 'all she does is interpret the law' like you'd get from a conservative justice invariably unaware of his own biases.

Take their lion, Justice Scalia. There he was in the recent DC handgun case penning a long impassioned ode to the handgun in writing up the majority decision. That soliloquy by the way had, get ready for it, SWEET F$CK ALL to do with the law at issue in the case. Nothing. Zero. And yet clearly the passion Scalia has for gun ownership and the identity and experiences that gave rise to it informed and influenced his decision on that case, no doubt unbeknownst to him.

The bottom line is that, as usual, conservatives are just plain ignorant. They don't know thyself, and that is the wellspring that keeps on giving.

Posted by: Majorajam | May 26, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Penazoid: have to wait til the pendulum swings to the other side---news flash: the pendulum was on the other side fully for 8 years and did your anti-abortion WH, Congress and SCOTUS do anything about Roe vs Wade when they had the power to do so? No, cause then what would they use as a wedge issue to get the base rallied?

Posted by: katem1 | May 26, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Well, you knew that the filth would come out of the woodwork on this one. Expect this thread to be filthy. I see our selected rightwing village idiot of the day is Razorback. Guess zouk and jaked are on vacation.

But what's funny here is how smart Obama is. He's going to give the GOP the opportunity to do a whole lot of ugly Latina bashing -- and don't worry, they will -- and drive a big wedge between them and the Hispanic community -- and guarantee themselves permanent minority status.

"If it all depends on the perspective, and ethnicity is so important, I wonder if this judge would cut loose a Puerta Rican who rapes a rich white woman?"

"If Puerta Ricans were actually better at making decisions than all of these damnable while males, why is Puerta Rico such a rat hole?"

if white southern males are so superior, why are trailer parks such ratholes?

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"If Puerta Ricans were actually better at making decisions than all of these damnable while males, why is Puerta Rico such a rat hole?"
—Razorback1

Razor: If you work a little harder on your spelling and your typos, that GED you've been dreaming of might actually, someday, become a reality.

Posted by: Bondosan | May 26, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

@bs2004 - I believe you meant to say "no tienen..."

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 26, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

@BB
If the President feels they are the most qualified then so be it. I could care less if it's a freaking Martian, as long as they are qualified. Does her being a Woman and Hispanic make her a better judge than someone else? Probably not...Then why do we have to label her as such. Does it say on her Judge Certification, Hispanic Woman Judge? Being a female and Hispanic does not make her qualified for anything, except being a Hispanic woman.

And yes she is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, by her experience, not by her genes...

Posted by: Krazijoe | May 26, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

It's good to see diversity on the high court.

I trust that President Obama's constitutional law background has helped him pick the right person.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | May 26, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Yeah - You don't like it, then go WIN back the White House and YOUR PARTY can name them.
GRANDPA, WHAT WAS A rEPUBLICAN?

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 26, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Yeah - You don't like it, then go WIN back the White House and YOUR PARTY can name them.
GRANDPA, WHAT WAS A rEPUBLICAN?

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 26, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 you lying embicile. You selectively quoted what I wrote to change the context. Only a simple minded liar does something like that.

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Los republicanos no tienes pantalones.

Posted by: bs2004 | May 26, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

@Krazijoe - Funny how for 180 years, the best qualified candidates all happened to be white men...

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 26, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The republican response was going to be the same no matter who Obama picked. "Blah blah liberal blah blah judicial activism," that lovely buzz word which doesn't really mean anything. If nothing else I hope the fight republicans will put up will teach the democrats not to just roll over in the future like they did with Bush's nominees.

And why all the flak over Sotomayor's qualifications? You're assuming she was picked entirely for her race and gender rather than only partially. She's no Harriet Miers, she's an actual judge. And even if you are only looking at qualifications, it's a bit suspicious that until about 25 years ago the "most qualified" were all white men.

Posted by: thecorinthian | May 26, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

From the Akin-Gump law firm, which has a major appellate practice, the following analysis of her civil cases.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Read this for yourself. Nothing jumps out for me.
Of the hundreds of very well qualified candidates, she is among the best. Y'all know that I favored Wood [Hook 'em Horns!] but like Wood, who has anti-trust expertise, Sotomayor adds experience in a "federal specialty", in her case, IP. This is a good thing. She also has experience as a trial judge and with Souter leaving, I do not think the others had that experience.

Remember that GHWB nominated her to the bench, originally. She would be the 6th Roman Catholic, serving with two Jews and one Protestant white male.
An interesting turn, I think.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 26, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

She is head and shoulders above Clarence Thomas.

==

Talk about faint praise ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if this judge would cut loose a Puerta Rican who rapes a rich white woman?

Posted by: Razorback1

==

Why don't you go pick the lice from your family's fur, you silly four-legger

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I hope the rethugs go balistic over Judge Sotomayor's appointment, they'll push themselves futher in the minority, which in my mind is a good thing.

The Judge's credentials are impeccable and her personal story is amazing.

Posted by: paguy1 | May 26, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

She is head and shoulders above Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | May 26, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Who the hell cares what her heritage is? Just pick the one who is most qualified. All this PC crap is revolting. It's always got to be about something other than what is supposed to be about. Now she is not a nominee, she is a Hispanic Female nominee and all that does is overshadow the whole process.

I would like to see a headline of "Highly qualified person is nominated for the Supreme Court."

That day, I fear, is over...

Posted by: Krazijoe | May 26, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

If Judge Sotomayor cannot acheive impartiality, maybe she shouldn't be a judge.

If it all depends on the perspective, and ethnicity is so important, I wonder if this judge would cut loose a Puerta Rican who rapes a rich white woman?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse


It's pretty funny watching Republicans and Obama haters whine on and on about "litmus test" when they have their very own set of litmus tests.

Grow up. You lost the election. Deal with it.

Obama's doing great in my opinion. This is a nation of firsts. It would make for a humorous metric to list all the "firsts" found in SCOTUS benchers. You know, first Jew, first Catholic, first westerner, first (insert age here), first alumni of this ivy league school or that.

No doubt it didn't hurt Clarence Thomas that he happened to be black. Or that Scalia had Italians in his bloodline. So why not Sotomayor?

I'm just looking for more SCOTUS picks from my favorite President.


Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 26, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

And of course the GOP is already rolling out the big guns, too bad all they have to shoot is blanks. They're already speaking of Sotomayer in negative superlatives. The most this, the most that. How completly absurd. They will continue to marginalize themselves, with Dick Cheney giving another of those "calmly authoritative" speeches that almost sound like he knows what he's talking about until you listen to the words.

I'm glad Obama is willing to take on the radical right, and I hope they burst blood vessels in their hysteria and outrage. We will be certain to be treated to a huge display in these comments as every one (maybe all three) of the gooper trolls show up with their canned recitations, fresh off the radio press, each of them posting under a dozen monikers and all using the exact same words and phrases and with the same synthetic intensity.

Meanwhile, Sotomayer should sail through confirmation.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Good pick. And the fumbling dinosaur GOP's first response is Huckabee coming out and calling her "Maria."

Nice work. Too much West Side Story, Huck? Racist much?

Party ID for Repubs is at an all time low and Obama's about to solidify the Latino electorate for good.

Eat it, GOP.

Posted by: OctoberLanguage | May 26, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

If Puerta Ricans were actually better at making decisions than all of these damnable while males, why is Puerta Rico such a rat hole?

Posted by: Razorback1 | May 26, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Hoping Scalia's physical condition and temperament give him a nice coronary in the next few years, since Thomas would have to follow suit and have one too.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"Without know anything yet about her qualifications, I would be willing to bet there were other clearly more qualified candidates who failed the gender and ethnic litmus tests."

Without knowing any of her qualifications, why would you make such a statement?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 26, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"Republican strategists have fretted openly that if their party can't find a way to make Hispanics a swing group electorally ... they may find themselves in a permanent minority status. Bridging that gap between the GOP and the Hispanic community just got a lot more difficult."


Ignoring the hyperbole (the GOP minority status will be as 'permanent' as their former majority), a good point is made. Will the GOP stoke the base, or will they consider the political ramifications of appearing to be anti-latina and tone down the rhetoric? Given whom has the power right now, I'd bet on the former.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure the Cheney-Limbaugh Party is outraged that they can't add to the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito wing on the court. That wing may even shrink over the next eight years. Which puts a particular bounce in my step this morning.

GObama!

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | May 26, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I have no great opinion of Sotomayor either way, but I am concerned at level of political correctness exhibited here. Feminist groups lobbied hard for ANY woman. Hispanic groups lobbied hard for ANY hispanic. So we get a female Hispanic.

Without know anything yet about her qualifications, I would be willing to bet there were other clearly more qualified candidates who failed the gender and ethnic litmus tests. These tests, which gave us the likes of Clarence Thomas, have no place in such a critical position as the US Supreme Court.

Posted by: bidalah | May 26, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Great choice! She will be confirmed easily.

Congratulations on your ignorance, Penazoid. Judge S. has never authored an opinion on abortion, how do you know where she stands? Guess you're just taking the word of the usual suspects without actually doing anything like, oh, reading so you could decide for yourself.

Posted by: Gordon16 | May 26, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

So he picked a baby killer. Big surprise. Just have to wait for the pendulum to swing the other way, I guess.

Posted by: Penazoid

==

If this sort of juvenile hyperbole and hysteria is all you have to offer how about you find somewhere wlse to surf. Referring to abortion as "baby killing" is over-the-top nonsense, and there is a lot more to a SCOTUS pick than your one and only issue.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 26, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

It would be nice for a reporter to point out that Brown vs Topeka, Mapp vs Ohio, Loving vs Virginia, griswold vs CT, the one man one vote decisions are the result of an "activist" court.

What is Wendy Long's problem with those decisions?

Posted by: edlharris | May 26, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

So he picked a baby killer. Big surprise. Just have to wait for the pendulum to swing the other way, I guess.

Posted by: Penazoid | May 26, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse


Rate President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5344


.

Posted by: usadblake | May 26, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe this will play out as a contentious pick at all, Chris. Yes, of course Sotomayor is liberal, but she's pretty middle-of-the-road. It's her biography that is so compelling and will propel her to a fairly easy confirmation.

I personally would have preferred Pamela Karlan, but there will be more picks in the future....

Posted by: Bondosan | May 26, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company