Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Can he nominate four more as well?

Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

If approved by the Senate, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic to sit on the SCOTUS (maybe - definitely the first in a long while). She is considered a liberal judge, though she has had the support of presidents from both parties as well as easy bipartisan support from Congress in the past.

Republicans have expressed a desire to confirm her, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promises it won't be a "rubber stamp." That's fair. However, there are a couple of subtexts that suggest the GOP is going to fight dirty. For one thing, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is quoted by the Washington Post as saying this about Sotomayor:

"She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences."

And that, too, seems fair. Except that, according to the BBC:

Conservative activists have already challenged comments she made a few years ago that a judge should not dismiss their own gender or ethnicity in deciding cases, our correspondent says.

So it sounds as if they're setting up a partisan challenge predicated on the notion that someone's life experience should not influence decisions - wrapped up in a 'gee, shucks' veneer. Kinda fishy.

Also, GOP leaders have expressed concern that they won't have time to thoroughly vet her in time for her to take her seat by October, as Obama has requested. Never mind that this announcement is actually earlier than most, and that most others have made it in plenty of time. Prepare for stonewalling by the minority party. And that's exactly what it would be, because it doesn't take five months to learn about someone from scratch, much less someone who has been part of the judicial system for decades.

I just hope any criticism of her is based on reality and judicial matters rather than her last name. "Sotomayor? That sounds like Soetoro! Where's her birth certificate? And where's Obama's?!!"

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.


TJenkins said...

She's a dunce, everyone that knows her says her opinions aren't very intelligent and her rulings get reversed because she fails to show even rudimentary of case law. I hope she gets shredded in confirmation.

Ian McGibboney said...

That's an interesting perspective, because everything I've read suggests that she has tremendous bipartisan support and more experience than anyone nominated for the post in decades. I'd be curious to read your source for that.

TJenkins said...


After reading that it makes sense why Obama nominated her, small minded people with an over-inflated opinion of themselves gotta stick together I guess. Of course the fact that they both hate white people might be another reason why he chose her.

Ian McGibboney said...

Jeffrey Rosen's point is not that she's unqualified or up Obama's butt or racist. His point is that some suspect she does not meet some impossible standard of liberalism. That could apply to any leader, ever.

Rosen even admits that he doesn't know enough about her to form a cogent opinion on her legal abilities. Good for him, but this isn't the most compelling argument against Sotomayor.

NOLA Progressive said...

She's been vetted by the Senate before. Initially put into play by Bush I believe. If she was sufficient for the Bush monarchy I don't see the source of any worry for her being some ultra liberal. Indeed my concern is that won't add the liberal counterbalance that I believe the Supreme Court needs.

Of course now that Obama nominated her the talking GOP heads have to get out the torches.

I say vet the woman. If specific challenges arise; fine work them out. However, if all that can be done is mock her life struggles and victories and reference her as an affirmative action case stop wasting our time.

TJenkins said...

I'm just waiting for the inevitable tax problems she's sure to have, we all know the track history of Obama's "vetting".

Plus did I mention she hates white people? If not then yeah, she hates white people. fyi

Ian McGibboney said...

Yeah, you mentioned she hates white people, but you mention a lot of things. Where, exactly, did she say this?

TJenkins said...

Why don't you read up on her yourself instead of mindlessly clapping your hands in glee at whatever Obama does? I know researching the subject of your articles isn't your "thing" but really, try it once in a while.

You know it's funny, in a way your kinda like Judge Crackhater, your opinions are light, with little substance and a tad superficial.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, I have been reading up on her. I haven't seen anything that could even be somewhat construed as being "anti-white." So I'd say the burden is on you to back up your accusation.

TJenkins said...

This most likely hasn't been posted on any one of the liberal blogs that give your opinion on a daily basis so you probably missed it, here is her at Berkley giving a speech in 2001:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Now before you reflexively defend her based solely on her ideology, imagine she said that about a black guy.

harold D said...

That's it?... That's your smoking gun proving that Sotomayor is a racist? Seriously?
Imagine that... someone actually had the audacity to suggest that white males don't have all the answers. Balsphemy.

TJenkins said...

What a shock that a self hating liberal full of white guilt sees no problem with that statement..

Imagine if Samuel Alito had said this;

"I would hope that a wise Latino man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life."

You and every other liberal blog that you get your opinions from would be frothing at the mouth.

TJenkins said...


Sotomayor reversed 60% by high courtgg Obama, picked another winner

Ian McGibboney said...

In typical Washington Times fashion, the story misrepresents that she was only heard five times, and overturned on three. Kind of takes the sting out of the 60 percent, huh? It's most likely on par with the other justices, anyhow. It's not an indicator of anything.

And Harold is right: that statement is not racist. For all we know, she was talking about the Latina experience in general, or perhaps the idea that those who lived that life would be the best to make judgments about how to improve their communities.

Anyway, couldn't we argue that, because she hasn't made a statement like that since 2001, she in fact deserves credit? That logic seems to work for Bush apologists.

Tjenkins said...

If I was tasked with 5 jobs by my boss and got 3 of them wrong I would be in trouble.

Of course you don't think her statement was wrong, Obama can do no wrong in your eyes, even though he's shown some pretty horrendous judgement and even worse decision making ability.

Ian McGibboney said...

No, I'm just not going to judge a woman by a tiny fraction of her decades of work, or over one context-free quote she said eight years ago. That's what Republicans do.

Tjenkins said...

So there is a time limit on overt racism in your eyes? Is 8 years the cutoff for you? Had she said this racist bile 7 years would you be angered?

Ian McGibboney said...

I don't see that comment as racist. Sorry. In any case, I don't judge people by one thing they said in 2001. Though maybe I should, because a lot of people got really vile after 9/11.

TJenkins said...

So racist statements have a shelf life to you? got it.

Ian McGibboney said...

What's it like having your brain?

Tjenkins said...

What the fuck is that weak ass 3rd grade shit? Your comebacks are a lot like your writing, uninspired and amateurish.

Ian McGibboney said...

If your arguments ever approached the third grade level, this would be a lot more enlightening.

Hell, I'd even settle for weak-ass shit. Would still be an improvement.

TJenkins said...

Oh wow, an I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I comeback! I haven't heard one of those since at least kindergarten.

Ian McGibboney said...

Which year of it?

NOLA Progressive said...

The guy talking about comebacks is going to accuse someone of 3rd grade mentality. I enjoy this blog as it dovetails often with mine. I'll continue to read it, but as long as TJenkins can't do anything but denigrate to insults that are baseless, I'll refrain from acknowledging his comments existence.

Of course he'll follow this up with something like "oooh I really care about recognition from a pansy liberal blogger" blah blah...That's all good, but this guy is basically worthless for discussion and debate.

Olbermann read the entire quote in context that you guys were discussing in this thread, and it was very enlightening. Definitely not racist.

Ian McGibboney said...

NOLA, I think TJenkins knows that too. But when don't have a leg to stand on, you either move on or you resort to childish, personal insults. It's frustrating (not to mention boring) to engage people like Tjenkins these days, because they have all the fire but no arguments. They know their time is done, and they blew it. Or maybe they don't. Either way, it's annoying.

NOLA Progressive said...

Here Here!

TJenkins said...

My insults aren't baseless, Ian is a horrible writer without an original thought in his pee brain.

Liberals Rules of Engagement:
1. Try to be intellectual
2. Call opponent racist/bigot
3. Call lame ass friends for backup
4. Pretend to have won the argument

It's so cute and predictable.

Michael said...

So, TJ, was it racist of Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings a few years back to mention that his parents came from Italy and that his family's immigrant experience influenced the way he rules on cases that come before him? And if it wasn't, then why should Sotomayor's remarks be held to a different standard? And further, given that Alito was ultimately confirmed, why should Sotomayor not be? Especially given that she has a longer record as a jurist than Alito did when he was confirmed.

It's so easy to undercut conservatives. They never bother to do research!