RNC Web Ad Hits Sotomayor On Comments She Already Clarified (VIDEO)

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, has not been won over by Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

About twenty minutes into the post-lunch session of Tuesday's hearings, the GOP's campaign arm blasted out a web video to reporters, accusing the Obama nominee of being a judicial activist.

"President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, she may have a different view about how the courts should work," goes the ad. "She apparently thinks the judicial branch should look a lot more like the legislative branch. Rather than interpreting the law, activist judges have used their appointments to make policy, time and time again."

WATCH:

The ad is proof, in some regards, of how much these hearings are truly theater. Sotomayor, as Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.), noted on Monday, will be confirmed to the court absent some complete meltdown. And even as she clarifies portions of her record -- including comments about how the Court of Appeals has a role in formulating judicial precedent -- her partisan opponents likely won't be assuaged, just as her backers will likely claim vindication.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[dems08]

appealing to the stupid

[TheWaffle]

I can't believe they're still going off about this crap.

Though God is mentioned in our founding documents the citizens of the United States are never beholden to any god. As such having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (again, a phrase only inserted during the Cold War) is a violation of the United States Constitution because it implies the U.S. government as a servant to a specific religion or religious doctrine.

Second, the 3 strikes rule is a farce. In California people have been sentenced to life in prison for possession of marijuana. In one case, an uncle of my friend was arrested for marijuana possession and served two years in jail. A few years later he was found breaking into a car and in possession of marijuana. He was charged with three felonies and crimes whose total maximum penalty would have separately added up to 8 years instead got sentenced to life in prison at the age of 28. Is someone's life worth marijuana possession and $5,000 in stolen property?

[shel3364]

yawwwnnnnn.

Bring me something new.

[timberdoodle]

Sotomayor is a woman and a Latina and no self respecting Klan member or Republican can stand for this regardless of what the public thinks.

[steppenwolfsayshi]

So an "activist judge" is one that overturns unconstitutional laws made by the legislative branch? I'm so happy the RNC has put a firm definition on their code words. I understand why Sonyia Sotomayor is completely unqualified now.

[care4mypeeps]

The RNC does not want clarification, they are on a mission.

[kevsters]

Check out this clip of Sean Hannity getting caught deliberately trying to misquote Sotomayor.

He is such a goof.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2164

[shel3364]

great clip.

[BruceCarson]

What in the * is up with the graphic tied to this story?

Also, it's seven Senators who are even questioning her or clearly come out against her. That's not even 25% of Senate Republicans. Hardly the entire RNC. Come on HP, time to get on the ball and do some quality reporting.

[MikeDu]

We'll have to wait.
The GOP is not exactly known for voting its conscience. 99% of the time the leadership says "jump" and the rank-and-file says "how high?" Think of all the patently *absurd* positions the GOP has voted the party lineon. Repub legislators are good-for-nothings.

[HowietheScreamer]

Yes, they are quite good at goostepping in unison.

[shel3364]

Not only "how high", but "when can I come down?"...

[lvdragonlady]

It is VERY VERY obvious that those in attendance, are NOT paying attention if they keep asking the same questions.
HOW much is this costing the American people?

[The Meek]

It's called grandstanding even by those that do it.

[BruceCarson]

Actually all the Senators are asking her essentially the same questions, or stupid questions she will never answer in a million years (like the Democrat questioning whether she agreed with our policy over the last eight years. Any numbnut knows she can't answer a policy question.)

It's a supreme court nomination hearing. I dare you to go back and watch Miguel Estrada's hearings, they will make you cringe.

Also, I'm a Democrat, but I'm also someone who calls it as they see it. I don't see anything unique about what the Republicans are doing here. And actually, fewer Republicans are attacking her compared to Bush's nominees (including well qualified ones such as CT).

[oneniner]

this rethugs just dont get it....

[jozzie]

And every "progressive" justice on the Supreme Court now, who's opinion consistently did not agree with the majority's -- what about their "credentials"?

What a nonsense ad. I don't think the Dems would ever stoop that low.

[Gidster]

That is why Democratic majorities are a rarity!

[justoverit333]

I think doing negative ads regarding a supreme court
nominee is just plain tacky and wrong. What is with
the Party of No? Honestly, every day I read about something
totally out there that they are trying to get attention for. How
much more does the Party of No intend to divide this country?
Don't they realize that is why they are all being voted out?
Is there anyone left in that party who is progressive? Or do
they just tell all the progressives to keep quiet?

[BruceCarson]

Problem is, Democrats fillibustered Bush's nominees for YEARS, and ran adds against them and anything else they could to block them. So your point is a pretty bad one.

[MikeDu]

Its a false equivalence.
Bush's nominees were, by and large, the WORST group of dangerous reactionary nutcases ever put up for the bench. The were personally vetting by Cheney himself on how far they were willing to bend over for the most maniacal lunatic fringes of the party. Think of it this way, Cheney was trying to do to the Judicial branch what he did to Justice, State, Defense, the Executive, and the entire country of Iraq.

[HowietheScreamer]

Oh, yea right... because people like Harriet Meyers were sooooo qualified. Sheesh. This is the best you trolloies got?

[Gidster]

Because they were bad choices! Harriet Miers?!?!?! Come On!

Your point misses the mark! Bush's appointees were very good for Bush Cronies, very bad for Americans, so your comparison is like comparing nettles to roses.......

[Eykis]

There was NO NOMINEES for Bush for years......he appointed Roberts and Alito, no filibuster. What is wrong with you?

[tokenconservative]

This coming from (presumably) a member of a party who filibustered a Hispanic candidate for 3 years because they didn't want him to be the Supreme Court's first Hispanic nominee.

[BruceCarson]

Yup.

Not suprising that a conservative posting here is going to be a bit more sensible. I'm a Democrat but I get the feeling that a lot of people here get all their news from MSNBC, HP and other progressive sources. It results in some obviously skewed viewpoints and flimsy arguments because they don't even know what the reasonable opposing POV is. The only Republican POV they know are the most absurd offensive ones. Right off the bat, you are obviously able to be exposed to other POVs a lot and still keep yours, so you either have good reasoning (or you are just really stubborn ;)

[MikeDu]

What's your opinion about the revelation a couple years ago that Chief Justice Rhenquist was literally a heavily-medicated paranoid raving delusional crazy in his final years, but his 'buddies' kept it a secret? Doesn't matter to the right, apparently, if their judges are as mad a hatters as long as they towed the reactionary party line. Considering their judusucal opinions, it really would be rather hard to tell.

[lthuedk 1]

Do the Republicans not care at all about the next two decades? Their hatred for Liberals has so blinded them they are about to stroll off Hatred Bluff, not even giving themselves a chance to survive. There's a name for it.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/darwins_twofer.html

[Rangergirl]

These guys aren't even listening to her answers....They just want to get in all of their digs....

[Fotios]

Why don't reporters and anyone one else hearing these accusations correct the GOPers and point out that Sotomayor's 17 year record doesn't support any of the points they are trying to make about activism, racism or liberalism?