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

[kimbutgar]

Notice how Executive is not capitalized just judicial and legislative is? Hmm I wonder?

[NelsonBig]

Wow. Nice catch. Seems like a nice little jab at the Pres.

[Eykis]

Like all of them who call him Barck or Obama, ANYTHING but President?

[bosha]

OMG the RNC is so full of bull.

[IbeHappy]

For the party of the religious right, all this criticism of law versus whatever is pretty hilarious.

In the Bible, the great judges are those who not only knew the rules of law but applied them in the most humane manner for the good of the people. And even Jesus interpreted the law when he went into the fields on the Sabbath and gathered wheat that had been left by the harvesters.

Republicans forget that the law is always spoken of as the letter and the spirit of the law. That spirit part is where we get a lot of the real meaning.

[MikeDu]

To a judicuary committee Republican, Solomon SHOULD'VE chopped the baby in half. To do anything less would've been to show 'empathy'.

[IbeHappy]

Of course, it would have been acceptable since the baby had been born.

[GoDogGo]

As someone formerly open to voting Republican, this just reinforces that the party has no basis in reality anymore. What is the goal, given that her confirmation is so solid? All it does is further alienate potential GOP voters.

[lydiajean]

The fireman issue was proof she is a racist.

[Megan97401]

Ummmm . . . . yeah . . .

So what do you think of Pappas v. Guiliani? Does that fit into your fantasy?

[RadicalRepublican]

How so?

[justoverit333]

yeah explain it Lydia.

[IbeHappy]

You're hosed on that one.

[maggiee]

I think you need to retrace your steps from this morning as your brain obviously dropped right out of your skull before you made that comment. Do you purposfully avoid learning about issues before commenting on them?

Do a little research before you spout off.

Here is a vocubulary word for you to focus on; precedent.