Arianna On CNN, Discusses GOP Attacks On Sotomayor

Arianna appeared on CNN's "The Situation Room" alongside Tony Blankley to discuss the Clinton/Bush debate and what she termed the "self-destructive" GOP attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor:

Comments

[SuperMex]

I am a 63 year old Mexican American who is tickled pink with the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a Latino I have been hoping this day would come for years. I can also tell you that I have been receiving calls from family in Colorado and New Mexico just to talk about how proud and good they feel about Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She will bring a brilliant perspective to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have always been proud to be an American, but today, today I have a special kind of pride as an American.

Thank you Rosario Dawson, George Lopez, LULAC and all the others that instilled in Latinos the importance of El Voto Latino!

Gracias President Obama for nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

11,000,000 votes. Now that's power!

[take10]

The President is more that capable of extolling his reasons for his appointment of Judge Sotomayor. Who do you believe? President Obama or some republican with an agenda who seeks to impute his reasoning upon the President. There is certainly enough vitriol emanating from the rethugs to confuse the usual uninformed ditto heads who need to be guided toward a decision. Newt, Liddy, Tancredo, Limbaugh know that this is one battle they can't win, and are throwing as much sh&t on the wall as possible without expectation of anything sticking! It's their hatred of anything Obama that drives them to do and say anything!

When all is said and done, the GOP will be much closer to extinction than anyone ever imagined due to the rantings of mostly unelected loudmouths as afore mentioned! If there is a better word than 'checkmate' to describe a definite loss, then President Obama just did it to the rethugs with his supreme court appointment of Sotomayor. GOP, rest in peace!

[take10]

typo: more 'than' capable!

[Whatashame]

She is highly qualify and is more educated than all the previous judges.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

It was very interesting to see Tony Blankley avoiding the answer to the perfectly clear and straightforward question whether he thinks it's a good idea to call a nominee for the supreme court a racist.

Basically he said: Obama asked for it.

As in: don't you know the republican party panders to racists?

What a truly honest man he is.

[maninla]

Just want to make sure I have this right.

So according to Blankley, when Bush nominated Roberts, Miers and Alito to the Supreme Court, what we should have been asking was "why is the President simply putting forth his nominees based on their Anglo genetic code?"

In the same way some of us easily predicted Obama's selection of a Hispanic woman for the bench, wasn't it just as easy to predict the slew of white folks from W?

Why is this always a one way street with the minority always presumed to be unqualified but not the white person?

[freedomitchy]

Sonia Sotomayor said, "I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."

That revealed three liabilities, each of which would be sufficient to derail her nomination:
1. Exceeding the authority of judges: Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench.
2. Dishonesty: Admitting that she what she says in front of a camera is different from what she does in real life.
3. Terrible judgment: Knowing the camera was on, to lie and then admit to lying. Also, the audience was primarily law students. What sort of example does she set when she essentially tels them they should, as judges, do what they are constitutionally prohibited from doing, but on a camera, lie about it.

[pghnappyrhino]

"That revealed three liabilities, each of which would be sufficient to derail her nomination:
1. Exceeding the authority of judges: Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench."

really? perhaps someone should tell justice scalia that also?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.html

Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.

"2. Dishonesty: Admitting that she what she says in front of a camera is different from what she does in real life.
3. Terrible judgment: Knowing the camera was on, to lie and then admit to lying.

it's called a "joke". then again, these are the same people who thought a "white house watermelon roll" and the "barack obama food stamps, complete with fried chicken, watermelon and red kooll-aid" were funny. we get it - the right don't know funny

[maninla]

this is a prime example of being taken out of context

what came before and after this particular quote (and others) keeps getting dropped as though it has no merit to the conversation when it absolutely does

and how in the hell does one draw the three conclusions listed above? hell, even Scalia said Judges legislate from the bench.

[lysistrata]

When they appointed Bush to be president did they not exceed their authority?

[cjk002]

You completely discredited yourself when you got the qoute wrong. Sotomayor has never said anything about legislating from the bench. What she said was true, circuit courts do make policy with their decisions.

[sviolette]

She didn't say that it was right to legislate from the bench she only said that it happens.

[genia]

I don't think they will self destruct..­..I think this is a brilliant Rovian plan. We seem to forget that there is a large percentage of the population that just does not vote.....e­ver.
The right is recruiting new members. They are trying to attract the unregistered voter. The bitter white uneducated racists and supremacists who..... may have never voted before in their lives.....­it's all their strategy..­... that Rush and Cheney , Gingrich..­.all of them are on a mission with their daily racists remarks .. What better way to get them stirred up, fired up and voting with the right then daily comments from Newt and Rush, Che ney and others ?
The republicans have this whole good cop bad cop thing going on and we all think they are losing it...lol..­no...it's a Rove grand plan....I'­d bet on it.
If they win Pa. and Michigan..­..they win the next election.
Where did Bush give a speech the other day? ..........­....Michig­an.
Which state carried an ad in a newspaper today asking will Obama be assasinated ? ..........­......Pa.
...and here we are the left.....n­ot only giving the lunatic fringe a spotlight.­.our dem leaders are waiting for them to self destruct..­....
NOT

[Ju2]

Seems that Tony Blankley thinks it's the victim's fault. You know, if Obama had picked a conservative white male, or Sotomayor was named John Smith and was white, this hateful speech would not be happening. Nice.

[Eris23Skidoo]

Exactly.

[pghnappyrhino]

if it would have a white male at a symposium entitled "raising the bar: latino and latina presence in the judiciary and the struggle for representation" started talking about his expriences as a "latina", it would look almost as foolish as the attacks on one sentence targeted for distortion. which is withy they ignore this part:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

[wifitekman]

I guess socialism is what everybody wants?

[Norman Karrols]

Hmmm... or maybe socialism is what everybody HAS .. and then this is owned equally?

[babina]

We already have socialism, there fore your question makes no sense. Public schools, libraries, police department, fire department, highways, the military, etc., etc., etc. So what exactly is your point? What does a supreme court nominee have to do wtih socialism?

Judege Sotomayor has impeccable credentials and more than qualifies to be confirmed as a supreme court justice where she will decide cases based upon the rule of law and constitution. Socailism has nothing to do with this.

[Eris23Skidoo]

Irrelevant?

[triplbee]

Sotomayor will be the first Supreme Court Justice EVER, who is neither male nor white. She is supremely qualified. Why do all of these white male right wingers, diminish her to "identity politics"? It's infuriating and pathetic. do they think that only white men are qualified for these jobs?

[Kateyras]

Yes, they do.

[Eris23Skidoo]

Yes. They do.

And then they call Obama racist.

[take10]

What they fear most is integrity! They can spell it, but don't have it! Education and experience has alway been what white men have required of others while they didn't need it to get ahead! All they ever needed was to be a 'good ole boy!' My, how times have changed!