Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 09:55am PT
|
Funny how the righties don't apply the same complaints about Sotomayor to Clarence Thomas.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2009 - 10:43am PT
|
interesting commentary on the Republican Party and Sottomayor
Why Sotomayor's Confirmation Debate Is the D.C. Equivalent of Rock of Love
Huffington Post
Listening to conservatives like Pat "She's an Affirmative Action Pick" Buchanan, Rush "He Picked the Hispanic" Limbaugh, and Tom "Latino KKK" Tancredo play the race card in attacking the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, I've been marveling at just how self-destructive they've become.
They have to know how bad this is for their party -- especially given the shifting demographics in America, and coming on the heels of the GOP xenophobia unleashed by the immigration debate last year. The Hispanic vote was a deciding factor in Obama's win (Hispanics went for Obama over McCain 67 percent to 31 percent), so the last thing the GOP needs is to be alienating Hispanic voters. BUT THEY JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES!
It reminds me of Robert Downey Jr.'s quote after his umpteenth drug relapse: "It is like I have a shotgun in my mouth, and I've got my finger on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal."
The GOP attack dogs have an electoral shotgun in their mouth -- and they are addicted to the taste of gunmetal.
This week, I've heard numerous commentators describe the Supreme Court confirmation process as a "blood sport." I think of it more like D.C.'s version of reality TV: a bunch of spotlight-seeking people on their worst behavior in hopes of getting more air time. It's the political equivalent of Rock of Love.
Another thing that always gets me about the process: without fail, every presidential campaign features endless talk about how important the choice is because the next president will get to pick the next Supreme Court Justice -- "so vote with that in mind." So how come everyone then acts shocked and outraged when the guy who won the election then nominates someone who... shares his beliefs! Oh no, not that! How dare he?!
Newsflash people: that's what campaigns are about. To the victors go the spoils.
Here's another question: in 1998 Sotomayor was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. By a vote of 67-29, she was found worthy of the federal bench. What has she done in the last ten years to make the outcome any different? Joined the Kim Jong Il Fan Club? Voted for Adam Lambert instead of Kris Allen?
Here's the bottom line: Republicans know Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, so the howls of protest are all for show. It's all about fund-raising and rallying the base. But it's already so super-heated, what will be left to get worked up about by the time we get to the actual confirmation hearings?
Unless there are pubic hairs on Coke cans and secret porno rentals ("The Return of Long Dong Silver"!), it's going to be a total snooze.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 10:46am PT
|
Must be fun living in liberal SuperTopo fantasy land.
If you want to take a sojourn into the real word, you may be disappointed to see that high ranking Repubs--the people whose opinions count--are for the most part not really attacking Soto. Hatch just said he expected her to be confirmed barring anything new coming out.
Interesting, though, that many of you seem to think it's fine to impugn the motives of anyone questioning her selection--you think anyone who would do that is motivated by some combination of racism and misogyny (and you seem to want to work age into it as well, although that's a tough one).
Her critics, however, don't attack her on the basis of her ethnicity or sex. They instead point to her statement that a Latina would generally produce better (not just different, but better) decisions than a white man. They also point to her refusal to write an opinion in the highly controversial and troubling New Haven firefighters case. The issue there is not her decision, but rather her refusal to write a meaningful opinion explaining her decision. Graniteclimber may (try to) correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure that writing opinions that explain decisions is an important part of Court of Appeals judges' jobs in complex and important cases. Both of those criticisms seem reasonable to me, regardless of whether you find them to be a bar to her appointment.
So on the one hand, we have those of you who dismiss her critics as racists/sexists/ageists.
On the the other hand, we have those who point to specific, troubling things Soto has done, and who want to consider whether that's the person who should get lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in America.
Are you really so sure you know who the racists are? Any mirrors handy?
DMT: any evidence that mixed race is projected to a majority or anything like it? I have no idea, but that's interesting and I've never heard that before. That's a very different point from the obvious one that % of whites is going down and % of various minorities is going way up. Doesn't really matter, I'm just curious. One thing I've noticed--again sort of an obvious point--but California is WAY more diverse than most of the rest of the country. California is a huge and important part of US, but it's not everything.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 11:17am PT
|
"Listening to conservatives like Pat "She's an Affirmative Action Pick" Buchanan, Rush "He Picked the Hispanic" Limbaugh, and Tom "Latino KKK" Tancredo play the race card in attacking the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, I've been marveling at just how self-destructive they've become"
That's what I mean about Clarence Thomas.
None of those yappers said one word about Thomas, who was much, much less qualifed that Sotomayor, being an AA Pick.
Hypocrites.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 11:58am PT
|
DMT followed up--"The tide has turned against the old white majority there is no doubt about it."
I fully agree with that, and perhaps most of agree more than the sophomoric attacks that come out on this site would indicate. It will be one of the main challenges of the 21st century to make the new melting pot work (in addition to a hell of a lot of other challenges). Our ancestors did sort of an OK job in some respects and failed in others--maybe we and our children (or yours, I don't have any) can do better. Electing Obama (cuz you like him, not cuz he's black or biracial) is a promising start.
dirtbag--I agree that those who criticize Soto as an AA pick and said nothing about Thomas are hypocrites. But that doesn't mean that those who question Soto based on specific, troubling statements and decisions (as I've mentioned in a previous post and as have been widely reported on) have any sort of racist/sexist agenda. We just want someone who (1)is qualified (which she clearly is), and (2) will give everyone a fair shake. I have some doubts on (2). After all, she presumes that a Latina will make better decisions than a white man. I'd rather have someone who wouldn't make such a presumption, in either direction.
Last post from me on this one; interesting stuff and thanks for sharing your thoughts, even when those are that I'm ignorant, stupid or, most likely, both. But hey--what do you expect, I'm a (near) middle aged white guy.
Edit: just saw this on Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2219251
(quick summary--she persuaded her conservative colleagues to overturn a jury verdict *against* an off duty cop who beat up and arrested a trucker--read the link for details)
Haha--meet the new boss, she may have brown skin, but maybe the same as the old boss. Unless she changes her spots, she does not seem to be any sort of flaming liberal, that's for sure.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2009 - 02:21pm PT
|
Karl Frisch
Media Matters
The Right's Supremely Flawed Opening Argument Against Sotomayor
President Obama could have nominated just about anyone to fill Justice David Souter's seat on the Supreme Court, and the conservative movement would have reacted just as they have to his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Don't take my word for it. The Right made its intention to oppose Obama's nominee -- no matter who it was -- abundantly clear in the weeks leading up to the president's selection. They see the nomination process not so much as a necessary function of our democracy but as an opportunity to, in part, "help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats"; "build the conservative movement"; and "prepare the great debate with a view toward Senate elections in 2010 and the presidency."
Worse than its conviction of the president's nominee for high crimes against conservatism -- before there's even been a trial -- is the convoluted "evidence" media conservatives have presented to the American people as part of its opening argument against Judge Sotomayor.
By now you've no doubt heard Exhibit A -- Sotomayor's February 2005 comment at a Duke University School of Law forum that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." This, they claim, proves that Sotomayor would be little more than an evil activist jurist on the bench. Her words -- taken out of context time and again by conservative and mainstream media outlets -- make clear that Sotomayor was simply explaining the difference between district courts and appeals courts. Her comments were in sync with the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States' explanation of the federal appellate court's "policy making" role. That's a view even conservative legal god Antonin Scalia seems to share and even go beyond, having articulated the "policy making" role of the courts himself and noting that "the judges of inferior courts often 'make law.' "
For Exhibit B, we find media conservatives in a huff over not only Obama's stated intention to nominate someone possessing "empathy" among other qualifications but also Sotomayor's 2001 comment that a "wise Latina woman" might bring a little something extra to the bench in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Conservatives in the media leapt at the president's "empathy" comment, typically portraying it as proof of Obama's intention to nominate a liberal activist to the Supreme Court rather than a jurist committed to the Constitution, even though the president said that his nominee would demonstrate both.
Equally disjointed has been the Right's reaction to Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, as numerous conservatives in the media have savaged her as a racist and a bigot. Radio talker Rush Limbaugh, de facto leader of the conservative movement, said of Sotomayor, "So here you have a racist. You might -- you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. ... Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one." Marching in lockstep with El Rushbo, Fox News crazy man Glenn Beck said Sotomayor's comment "smacks of racism" and is "one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard," adding the following day on his radio show his assessment that "I think she's a racist. I think she has decided things based on race." Never one to skip an opportunity to slight a person of Hispanic descent, CNN host Lou Dobbs called Sotomayor's comment "racist," describing her nomination as "pure, pure absolute pandering to the Hispanics, and, you know, filling in the box on one more minority."
MSNBC's Ed Schultz had it right when he said that conservatives were suffering from a case of "selective amnesia" when it comes to the importance of judicial empathy -- lest we forget, then-President George H.W. Bush cited Clarence Thomas' "great empathy" when announcing his selection of Thomas to serve on the Supreme Court, and the words of Thomas during his confirmation hearing; responding to the question of why he "want[ed] this job," Thomas said in part: "I believe ... that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the court does."
As if its willfully misleading and downright incendiary attacks weren't enough, in exhibits C and D we find media conservatives attacking Sotomayor's effectiveness as a jurist as well as the summa c#m laude Princeton grad and Yale University law review editor's intellect. Take this gem from The Washington Times, for example. The conservative rag uncritically quoted Wendy Wright, president of the right-wing fringe group Conservative Women for America, saying that Sotomayor's reversals -- which the Times reported as three of five cases, or 60 percent -- were "high." Would it have been too hard for the Times to note that since 2004 the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of all federal appeals court cases it considered each year? Perhaps it would have been too much effort for the Times to let its readers know that conservative darling Samuel Alito had his share of decisions reversed by the Supreme Court prior to his confirmation.
If this is the Right's idea of an opening argument, one can only assume how equally misleading and disingenuous its trial of Sotomayor will be. The media should do a better job of shooting down these demonstrably false attacks rather than perpetuating them as one side of a he-said-she-said debate.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 02:54pm PT
|
It's been a lot of fun watching the right-wingers wiggle and stab themselves over this. :-)
"On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a 'reverse racist.' I gotta hand it to Limbaugh. That guy is a “reverse genius."
-Jimmy Fallon
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2009 - 03:08pm PT
|
Although I don't expect it to happen, I hope that Judge Sottomayor turns out to be very liberal in her decisions
and what I see as activist as the court's conservatives.
Replacing Souter as another moderate does nothing to break the
current 5-4 conservative dominated present court.
Net result in court decisions should be no difference.
Much ado about nothing when this is all said and done.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 03:12pm PT
|
A huge difference would be made if Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, or Kennedy retire.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Well, she's got game.
Busted ankle but not missing any meetings.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Sotomayor busted her ankle walking through an airport. Clearly unfit to sit on the bench.
(and obviously a racist)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I thought she would've broken it kicking Rush in the ass. I would cheer that.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Maybe Limbaugh will get her some Oxycontin out of his private stash to help with the pain.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 8, 2009 - 03:48pm PT
|
nah, his multiple pharmacy single prescription oxy picker upper latin American maid was given a life sentence for being caught with a roach in her purse
|
|
anointed one
Gym climber
my mamma
|
|
here's how it works:
after shelling out unprecedented amounts of money to banks and insurance companies, you call your political rival a socialist
after calling your opponent inexperienced, you choose a white trash beauty pageant winning University of Idaho communications major as the vp candidate
after getting beat in an election by a gay black Muslim socialist, you assign one of the whitest black puppets around to "give the GOP a hip-hop make over"
after years of racial discrimination in a political system dominated by old white men, you call a Latina woman a racist for integrating her real world experience with a sound legal background
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
The Right should be grateful to get Sotomayor.
Given the large majority in the congress and senate, they could be staring at Ralph Nadar or Noam Chomsky. (maybe that's pushing it)
At least grateful Hillary is Sec of State. She'd be a shoe-in liberal choice.
Peace
Karl
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 04:22am PT
|
bump for no climbing content
|
|
cody hall
Sport climber
apple valley
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2009 - 07:15am PT
|
IS IT NOT OBVIOUS????ARE YOU BLIND OR JUST SLOW???? If any judge ruled that 5 qualified firefighters could not recieve thier promotions because they are all Black and no White firefighters qualified for the promotion, THEN WHAT WOULD YOU THINK???
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
|
I'm not fully behind Rabbi Lerner (of Tikkun magazine) on all things (though many), but I thought this opinion piece brings up some worthwhile thoughts...
(Sorry for long paste - it came in email with no link available)
Dems Blowing IT Again…at Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
The Senate Judiciary hearings could provide an opportunity for liberals to present their worldview to the millions of Americans listening in. But once again, they are showing that they have no such worldview except the worldview of not having a worldview! It's a stark contrast to the Republicans who unashamedly are asking Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to swear loyalty to their perspectives on major political issues facing the court.
Yes, I know that the candidate has to pretend to think and act like a white upper-class man to get confirmation to the bench, and to have no political views shaping her judicial perspective.
But Democratic Senators could use their time to ask questions and make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.
Here's the message they ought to be conveying if they had even the slightest backbone:
"We intend to vote for you, Judge Sotomayor. But we hope that you overcome this notion you've been putting forward that your task on the Supreme Court is simply to enforce the law. You see, we've been around for a while and heard the right-wing ideologues who currently dominate the Court say the same thing about judicial neutrality and opposition to judicial activism to this very Senate Judiciary Committee while they were seeking confirmation, and then go on to become the most activist justices with clear intent to override previous Supreme Court precedents and impose their right-wing agenda. What we need on the court now are people who have some principles that they will fight for.
"If our system wanted judges who had no ideological commitments whatsoever, we would not have put the appointment of judges in the hands of a politically elected President of the United States. George Bush had no problem nominating right-wingers to the Court, and they have done all they could to overturn past precedents in favor of their worldview. The reason we are voting for you is that we hope President Obama picked someone who was not just a passive ratifier of precedent, but a creative thinker who could look at the needs of American society today and help shape laws that fit these new realities.
"In the past, nominee Sotomayor, the Court has done what it could to challenge the racism and sexism that have been a major part of American society. To do that, they've had to declare segregation and discrimination against women to be unconstitutional, though our Congress might still be debating those issues today if it hadn't been for the courage of some liberal Justices in the past forty years. It's no secret that the Republicans' crusade against "activist judges" is a code word for opposition to judges who want to extend human rights and civil liberties to everyone. But we liberals want to do just that, and we want you, Sonia Sotomayor, to do that when you get to the Court.
"You'll be facing an even more difficult challenge when you get to the Court: taking on the class biases that still shape legislation in the Congress and that have been part of past Supreme Court nominations. To take the classic one: the Supreme Court decision a hundred and thirty years ago to call corporations "persons" and interpret the 14th amendment, meant to protect former slaves, as protecting the so-called "rights" of corporations. From that has come a series of decisions that favor America's rich and powerful at the expense of the American middle class. Ever since then, the Court has bent over backwards to twist the Constitution in ways that serve the interests of the rich and the powerful. For example, when the Congress tried to put some restraints on the way that the rich can buy the legislation they want by spending endlessly to elect candidates to serve their interests, the Court said that "free speech" of corporations or the rich would be impeded by spending limits on campaigns. To tell us that you are going to be bound by these biased decisions of the past, because you "respect the precedents and must abide by them as a judge," is to ignore the ways that the Court itself continually undermines the desires of the people when those desires conflict with the interests of the powerful. We hope that you will reverse that kind of judicial activism by an activism favoring the poor and America's working families.
"Frankly, Judge Sotomayor, our only reservation about you is that you might follow the path of so many liberals in not fighting for your political principles. Or even worse, that you don't have any such political principles anymore, that you've become so indoctrinated by the false notion that law is somehow impartial, when in fact law is made by human beings, and in this country the overwhelming majority of people who have made the laws of the past have been white rich men, and now white rich women, who know how to serve the interests of the people who donate the huge amounts of money that it takes to get elected in the U.S. to a Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential spot. If so, you'll only ensure that the right-wing bias of the Court remains unchallenged. We are hoping that underneath all this neutrality that you present to this committee, that you actually will be a champion for the ten of millions of Americans who have no one on the Court who cares about their well-being, rather than simply passively applying to new situations old laws made by rich white men who care more about corporate power than about the wel-being of ordinary Americans. Please remember that we who are voting for you are voting for change, not just for continuity and more of the same. Be as vigorous for a liberal worldview as the conservative on the court are for their right-wing worldview. It is our hope that that is who you really are, or else President Obama has made a terrible mistake in selecting you, and we will be making a mistake in confirming you!"
Of course, if there were Senators who could speak with this level of honesty, the country would be far better off, and the Democrats would have far greater support. But when they speak in the wimpy tones of people who have no convictions, they make many Americans feel that they can't trust these Democrats, and that may contribute to a revival of the political Right, something that would be very destructive to the entire world. It's moments like this that I mourn once again the loss of U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, one of the few who had the courage of his convictions.
--Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org and chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives www.spiritualprogressives.org. He can be reached for media interviews at 510 644 1200.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!