Rachel Maddow Interviews Slate's Dahlia Lithwick On Sotomayor Spin (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow had Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick on her show tonight to discuss the degree to which conservatives are trying to paint Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as an out-of-the-mainstream liberal whom Obama selected solely for her inspiring life story. Lithwick explaining that Sotomayor is a moderate judge who is eminently qualified to be nominated and that Obama has simply found a nominee who is well-qualified and has an uplifting life story.

Lithwick also highlighted a key point about the right's accusations concerning Obama wanting someone on the bench who has empathy. Lithwick said that this idea of empathy has been distorted to mean "bias," when really what it means is an ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to be able to listen to them and understand where they're coming from.

Watch Maddow's interview with Lithwick below.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Wall Street Journal has a nice article detailing how Sotomayor is well within the mainstream of Democratic judicial appointees, and that she doesn't adhere to strictures which always put her in opposition to business interests:

Her record in more than 4,000 cases, including those from 11 years on the Second Circuit, shows her occasional siding with corporate defendants or diverting from a standard liberal position...

..."There is no reason for the business community to be concerned" about Judge Sotomayor, said Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP who has represented businesses including Wachovia Corp. and Dow Chemical Co.

Comments

[Star2000dancer]

I feel like Bush is still in. We still have FISA & the Patriot Act plus. If I wanted to destroy the word I;d be making the same decisions our law makers are & have been.

[Jazzman323]

Dahlia Lithwick makes Rachel Maddow look like Carrie Prejean.

[Star2000dancer]

Let's see, Bush nominated her first. No way!!! Czars & Bushites? Bailouts for the rich & crumbs for the poor & poorer.
We the people have never had to pay fpr a war before, Russia had Carz, with Bush we had all the Nazi's thcame over here to continue their holocaust.
I really want a new party organized with a candidate before the next elections. I nominate Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich to organzie & run the party.
I have NEVER wanted Clarence Thomas & we need to make a law thatat Justices can be elected in & out. Not a forever job.
Ialso refuse to pay for Bushes & Cheney's healthcare,m pension & especially security. You both did losey things to & for the people & you should be in jail. Your things liquidated & a big party with the heaps od money we get to deance in , throw in the air, & share with each other. I want to see you without teeth, you pick uourself up by your own bott straps, not ones we paid for,

[Star2000dancer]

Help! I need to get a spell check somehow!!

[SILVANUS]

Kiss off conserves. We are here to KICK YOUR butt.

[DJ23]

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/

Alito: "My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook"

Via Glenn Greenwald (and one of his readers) comes a moment from Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings that will either silence Sonia Sotomayor’s conservative critics or expose their hypocrisy for what it is.

In an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, who had asked Alito to discuss how his personal experiences shows that "he cared for the little guy," Alito said that his family’s experience as immigrants influenced his outlook on immigration cases.

Alito:

"And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

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

Watch:

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/

[eden4barack08]

HA HA! Good work.

[epiphany1234]

Thank you Rachel and Dahlia for getting down to the "nitty gritty" on the bias and dumb propoganda being perpetrated by the ReThugs in their effort to bring down Sotomayor. I knew it would take a woman, or women, to push back at the ReThuglica­ns....beca­use it's clear no established Democrat in DC has the cojonas to do it. I'm surprised I haven't seen Obama himself out defending his nominee....inasmuch as Rush, Newt, Buchanan et. al. are out bashing her mightily, 24/7. Dahlia's point that "empathy" does not equate to "bias" is very, very important.­....Democr­ats across the spectrum should be all over the tube making this distinction. The problem is they usually allow ReThugs to set the topic, tone and tenor of the debate without pushing back, since they are so skeeeted of the ReThugs, and that's how they lose each and every the battle. Democrats should be
be out talking up Sotomayor's smarts, balance,..­.suitabili­ty as a justice non-stop, each and every day.
Where are they??????­??????????­???

[gorideabike]

As usual, Rachel is the smartest person on the tube.

[tds1273]

Why is there no coverage of the interview that Rachel Maddow did just before this with Barbara Boxer, where she(RM) very eloquently exposed Sotomayor for being the conservative in disguise and had Sen. Boxer squirming, clearly uncomfortably, in her seat as the truth was being called on her?

[freeme6]

This is why her show is terrible no one cares what RM has to say and surely no one cares what litwick has to say.two left wing loons sitting around with their pom poms cheering each other on. Again the ratings are in msnbc in last place!

[The Ghost]

If nobody cares, yet you are posting (which implicitly means that YOU care) does that mean that you are nobody?

[Golden111]

RM is "Kazoo" Ol ber ma nn's 'mini-me'.­..........­..........­.....

[feltdizz]

The GOP is done. All they do is beyotch and moan...

[jmpurser]

They would be gone if we had a alternative. Sadly, the Democratic party hasn't stood for anything for 30 years or more so they can't even knock over the empty shell of the Republican party.

Sad days.

[yphili184]

The republicans would attack anyone the president chose. We're going to have to suffer through 8, possibly 16 years of cry baby-ism from conservatives. They lost the election so now they are going to annoy the crap out of everyone-- for the foreseeable future.

[theclosetconservative2]

The Republicans would only be critical of a left wing judicial activist who telegraphed by her own words that she would legislate from the bench. But what do I know. A wise Hispanic female is naturally smarter than any of us pasty faced white guys. lol
As far as crybaby-ism (if that's a word) we've been tolerating that from the secular progressives. ad nauseum. http://theclosetconservative.com

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

you made phili's point

[Counterglow]

Care for some cheese with that w(h)ine?

[freeme6]

He could have nominated O J and the left would cheer him on!

[mpreston504]

I guess you didn't actually watch the video, or look at any full quotes in context and just repeated what you heard from Limbaugh and Hannity. There is plenty of evidence that she does not legislate from the bench, and that she has actually favored big business in multiple cases. Get some full perspective and information before you make your statements next time. Oh, by the way conservative judges legislate from the bench all the time, they just do it for things you like such as illegal wiretapping and gay marriage bans.

[ComeOnAmerica]

Try reading the entire quote correctly...She said "I hope that a Latina......" Just like you would hope that your child is better in school than others, that he/she would have better standards, values, etc. It was a statement to inspire others to achieve higher levels, that's all.

And let's be honest here. The righties have been acting like a bunch of spoiled, petulant obnoxious kids since the election. My God, I've seen children act better than the whiners out there.

And for what it's worth, look at the records of the conservatives on the Supreme Court now. Each one overturns existing law at least 54% of the time. ISn't that being an activist judge??

[triplbee]

Why are progressives like Lithwick and Maddow defending Sotomayor's moderate judicial record? I think it's unfortunate that Obama has nominated her. She is obviously intellectually brilliant, and her life story is compelling. But he has an opportunity to appoint a real progressive and he is blowing it. All the while, the handful of progressives who serve as mouthpieces, have almost universally supported her nomination. It's too bad. We're giving Obama a free pass, and he's drifting rightward.

[CryptoSolipsist]

First of all, let it be said that I voted for Obama. With joy in my heart. But the entire federal government is controlled by liberal-leaning politics right now. Do you understand the concept of checks and balances? It is a GOOD thing for Obama to drift a little to the right at this point.

[jmpurser]

First, there's nothing in the theory of "checks and balances" that has anything to do with "liberal and conservative". Second, I can't think of a single "liberal-leaning" branch of the federal government.

[triplbee]

The Supreme Court is liberal leaning? Harry Reid, the pro-life Senate Majority Leader is liberal-leaning? Are you being serious?

[freeme6]

he nominated her for political gain party first country second even pelosi sees that

[triplbee]

I think you're right.

[tds1273]

Maddow is not, she is the only one, on cable news at least, that is calling Sotomayor out as a corporate friendly conservative in disguise. Look for her interview, your guess is as good as mine why it is not on here, that she did with Sen. Boxer just before this one. She(RM) exposed the growing unbalance of the court and (pardon the pun) had Boxer up against the ropes.

[ComeOnAmerica]

Let me offer a different take......Sotomayor is the 'safe' pick now. With all that's going on, the President is picking his battles so to speak. He'll nominate a progressive down the line. No free pass, and no drifting to the right.

[tds1273]

One can only Hope...

[epiphany1234]

Let me offer the suggestion that Obama is clearly not a progressive himself and very unlikely he will appoint such to the court. He's clearly demonostrated his centrist politics.
You're indulging in wishful thinking.

[triplbee]

Safe pick? In another couple of weeks he'll have a filibuster proof majority. Any pick is a safe pick. The GOP has essentially no power. A Supreme Court nominee serves FOR LIFE. This is no time for a safe pick. The current Supreme Court is packed with extremists...so much so that all of the moderates (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens) are commonly referred to as liberals, and the very conservative Kennedy is described as a moderate. The other four jurists represent the extreme rightward end of the spectrum. He needs a young, competent liberal on the court, not another moderate who will side with corporate interests over individual interests. I am disappointed.

[ceindependence]

Any truth to the rumor that Rachel and Sean Hannity are actually twins seperated at birth?

[freeme6]

I heard that to but which one is the girl

[The Ghost]

I'm gonna' say Insanity's a girl 'cause she's scared of water.

[epiphany1234]

They do have similar hair.....!

[TJCole]

She votes 95% of the time with the right wingers...

Her flight 109 decision was really disgraceful, the work of a corporate shyster and hack....

Her other Judges voted her down thankfully..!

[rickczar]

95%? Where'd you get that figure? Thin air?

The TWA case was regrettable, but I don't think she merely chose TWA's side. Law is not simply a choice between A and B. I suspect she loathed having to make that decision, but like she said, "The law's the law."

[triplbee]

Apparently TJCole read the tag line at the bottom of the screen on the attached video which read "Sotomayor voted with conservative judges 95% of the time."

[Nonpartay]

The figure 95% appeared in the video on the panel below the picture.

[Roses]

Probably not out of thin air.
It was probably pulled out of someplace much closer, more personal, and darker. That's where numbers usually come from when they are entirely fictitious.

[jmpurser]

Actually from the decisions I've heard she's not saying position "X" is "right". Just that it's supported by law. I can respect that in a judge.

[tds1273]

Yeah, she has just willingly gone along with the corporate side of the rulings, not even bothering to really go into depth on her decision.

[WilliamBradford]

The question is, can she say this without being a liar:

"I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Empathy is the opposite of impartiality. President Obama needs to read this oath again - or admit that he wants it to be rewritten. His published statements repeatedly confirm that this is not his image of the duty of the Supreme Court.

[CraigLove]

Your nose is quite brown from all that empathizing you've been doing on Steele's behind.

[WilliamBradford]

Thank you for that substantive contribution to the debate.

[lobear00]

Its always laughable when rightwingers pull words like constitution or truth, or "Its not torture, from their mouths and try and define it as something else.

Or they come up with a term from their caustic think tanks, like Activist judges, as if the judges that have been apointed by bush are somehow squeaky clean, "now that is a joke!

[ComeOnAmerica]

Ireich-wingers wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the behind. They lie and twist the truth so much theyt can't even keep their lies straight. Also, did you hear what i did yesterday......That each of the conservatives now on the Supreme Court has voted to overturn existing law between 54% to 63% (or thereabouts). Isn't THAT an 'activist judge'?!

[roblabrousse]

Do you think the founding fathers were hard ass conservatives? They tried to give as much balance and freedom while allowing some strong guidelines to how things should be done. But they were not trying to create a country of tyranny or one only of the privileged. There was an element of empathy for humanity. If the Constitution was such a clear cut document we wouldn't need "supreme judges." One can have empathy and also be impartial. Empathy means being able to be sensitive to and have the understanding of a subject. This would mean not just having a knee jerk reaction on a decision. Like the knee jerk reaction made on the Gore/Bush Election for example. It's all about balance. Sotomayor's record is balanced and in fact maybe too moderate.

[WilliamBradford]

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

--Thomas Jefferson

[playgroundking]

Great post William.

[Simian]

Empathy is not the opposite of impartiality. Empathy is the opposite of indfference.

Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of others. It is not anathema to making good judgements, quite the opposite. The Supreme Court should be taking into account changing times and the diversity of our populace. There is nothing in this woman's history that suggests she is more empathetic to any particular groups, institutions or political philosophies. She appears to be an excellent candidate and I'm rooting for her to be confirmed without the ugliness that this process usually brings out.

[chemistrydoc]

Good point, Simian -

Methinks that WilliamBradford didn't do too well on that part of the SAT that deals with word relationships...... And, it is this selective indifference to the situations of the vast majority of Americans (but tremendous empathy with the ueber-rich) that characterizes our right wing jurists.

[WilliamBradford]

Empathy is the enemy of impartiality.

Read the oath above. It is very specific. The Supreme Court should make decisions based on the facts presented - regardless of the types of individuals that bring cases before it. If a Justice is specifically chosen because she is "empathetic" to a certain kind of people - as has been stated by President Obama - then she is not going to be impartial, by definition.

If we want to rewrite the oath and the purpose of the Supreme Court to say that its job is to "change with the times" and "aid in bringing about social justice" then that's what we should do. Just don't pretend.