|
||
Republicans and Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Perfect Together
The ghost of President George H. W. Bush and the moderate wing of the GOP is about to come back and bite the more conservative GOP base in the proverbial "butt."
Once again the new young president (Mr. Obama) has made a brilliant political choice by picking Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his 1st Supreme Court Nominee. How so?
It's simple: Bush '41 choose both Souter and Sotomayor during his term as president from 1989-1992. By replacing Souter with Sotomayor Obama keeps the balance of the court exactly the same, but he adds some "color" and another "female" voice to the Court's balance. How do Republicans effectively attack a nominee that a Republican President first placed on the federal bench?
The Republican minority can carp, whine, and wince if they like but this one is done folks. The GOP must be very careful with how they handle this nomination because Sotomayor is a woman of color, and a Hispanic. The GOP is already alienated from America's diverse populations. Blacks voted 96% for Obama and Hispanics 67% in the 2008 election. Any move by conservatives to attack her nomination will be played by the media as racist and sexist. The GOP simply cannot afford this now.
My guess is that the GOP will make the usual protestations and they will think carefully about how they handle the controversial firefighter "reverse discrimination" case where Sotomayor ruled in favor of the City. Does the GOP want to pick a fight on so-called cultural issues like "affirmative action"?
Only time will tell, but my guess is to do so only further alienates Republicans from the mainstream views of the American public.
All in all, this was a good pick by the president and his nominee will be confirmed with little pushback from the GOP.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Reading the comments on various newspapers, the right wing is in full blown bigot mode over this. The GOP base is indistinguishable from the KKK.
It never ceases to amaze me how extreme the charges of racism are against conservatives and this charge that "the GOP base is indistinguishable from the KKK" is among the most obscene I have seen, if not *the* most obscene. I could be described as the "GOP base" so you are saying I am indistinguishable from the KKK. Because I -- someone in the GOP base -- am concerned about public comments made by Sotomayor regarding judicial activism (an ideology that is opposed to a view of the Constitution that is primarily responsible for giving "conservatism" its name), I am "indistinguishable" from people who have practiced lynching. It would take a great deal of restraint on my part not to physically slap someone in the face for saying this to me in person.
In my view, this tactic is political expediency that results in the watering down of the horrors perpetrated on human beings by the KKK. It is shameful and dangerous to water down the crimes of the KKK in this manner and to paint other people as something they actually ABHOR.
Michelle Malkin has already made a racist comment about Sonia Sotomayor. I hope to hear lots more racist comments from the right wing, just so that they show themselves for what they really are.
Well, if they are that foolish they deserve what they get. This nominee is totally qualified. Two ivy league degrees, law review, top of her class both schools, stellar corporate law and judicial career. Most experience of any nominee in over 70 years. Great American up by your booth straps story--I mean what the frick else do they want from the nominee???
What else do they want? For the nominee to be a far-right-authoritarian radical.
Its pretty simple. We all know it. Whatever her qualifications or disqualifications she can't be opposed simply because she is Hispanic. The Republicans can't do it.
All candidates should be vetted with extreme vigilance, regardless of who they are. These justices will be interpreting law for decades that will have an impact on society for hundreds of years. That is not something that should be taken lightly or given away just because of someone's ethnicity, social background or sex. I thought that we were supposed to moving towards a color-blind society?? It will truly be a great day in our society when we no longer have to limit the pool of "qualified" candidates based on their ethnic background or fear retribution for opposing someone just because of their ethnic background. It will be a great day when we really are homogeneous, color blind and equal. Only then will we really be judged on the merits of our accomplishments and the contents of our character rather than the color of our skin. Just to be clear, I do not know enough about Judge Sotomayor to have any opinion on her qualifications at this point so I am not lobbying for or against her. I will only judge her when I have more facts about her opinions and her qualifications.
I think his selection of Sotomayer is great. The court needs some diversity. Its about time to get some Hispanic representation. Now if we could get some African-American representation....
Whattttt???? How about Thomas?
From your lips ....
HuffPost's Pick
Sophia,
On a personal note, I appreciate the way you frequently interact with posters. It makes for a much more intellectually engaging process. Not all HP writers do that, but I wish they would. Thanks.
Are you kidding I love back n forth even when it gets rough and tumble. Thanks for stopping by.
Well said, Sophia!
The point of contention conservatives may focus on is 4 words, taken out of context, from a remark Judge Sotomayor made four years ago: [regarding the Court of Appeals is] "where policy is made." They will accuse her of being an "activist" judge.
But that is not the case. Sotomayor was explaining that the District Courts deal with individual cases, but the judicial decisions made by the Court of Appeals set precedent for all District Court judges to follow. In other words the appellate court decisions become policy. If the case goes to the Supreme Court those decisions could be overturned, but that is rare.
In 1998 while the overall vote was 67 to 29 in favour, republicans opposed Sotomayor's confirmation 29 to 25. Seven of the 25 republicans who voted in favour are still senators. It will be interesting to see whether those 7 remain consistent.
Will the media challenge the "activist" judge argument? I wouldn't bet the farm on it because too often the conservative talking points are picked up by the press without question or further research.
Nevertheless overall I think Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.
Interestingly enough she upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and in Amandola v. Town of Babylon, she wrote that denying use of a town hall annex for their worship services violated the First Amendment. This is hardly a far left ACLU type position.
Actually, that is EXACTLY an ACLU-type position.
Obama again displayed brilliance and common sense.
love your handle AND your comment! :)
YES WE CAN!!
"The GOP must be very careful with how they handle this nomination because Sotomayor as a woman of color, and a Hispanic."
What?
That should have read Sotomayor is a woman of color and is Hispanic.
Woman of color? I'm not sure, does everyone really believe Hispanic is a bonafide race? How could that be when you obviously have Hispanics of all colors, some Black, Some Blond with blue eyes?
I will tell you how the right-wing is planning on attacking her, because I have already seen somebody use the comment on a newspaper forum, right after the announcement.
Just watch...the righties are going to replay, ad nauseum, a comment she made on how women of color and different ethnicity can offer better judicial decisions. This is the quote, found at CNN:
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]"
I am glad President Obama chose her, and hope he will have the support of the party and the 2 moderate GOPers in the Senate, when it comes to standing up to the shrill attacks that are sure to come.
There needs to be a push to get Al Francken seated, already. Why should Democrats be held hostage to the possibility of a filibuster, ESPECIALLY after having Justice Roberts and Alito shoved down our throats?
All Franken won't be seated if at all till late this year. Also Democrats like Ben Nelson are plentiful enough. Many of the Blue Dogs that have been elected in order to attain the majorities are coming back to bite the hand that fed them.
If the GOP attempts to savage her, they make a grave political mistake. Obama has indeed made a brilliant pick on the political numbers. I'm not comfortable with her decision on the firefighters case at first blush, but I don't know enough about the facts there to decide.
Trust me the GOP will not savage her.
The issue of the fire fighters in not an easy one to decide. The central issue is how can a test be fair if no minorities pass it? Are minorities inherently stupid? Or was the test written up to favor those who came from more privileged backgrounds?
Then again, it certainly is no fault of the White Firefighters themselves who passed it, and they should not be denied their promotions imo...but then the test should be ripped up and a new criteria for promotion decided upon that all candidates have equal chances to pass.
It has to be related to the requirements of the job. They can't just pick some criteria out of a hat.
Here's the thing...
I really don't think this pick matters *much* anymore, because SCOTUS just made a ruling that has potential for monumental sweeping changes to this country.
Most people probably didn't notice, but last week, SCOTUS ruled on a case where 10 California counties were objecting to the requirement that they comply with the state medical marijuana ID card law, requiring county officials to give medical marijuana to their ill and dying patients.
The defendants ruled that they would not be required to distribute the ID cards, because "federal law supercedes state law", and since marijuana is still considered illegal under federal law, the counties could not comply because they were breaking the law.
SCOTUS disagreed, and said that there "some* cases where a state law can supercede federal law, as in the marijuana laws in Ca. so the counties were ordered to comply with state law and give out the ID cards.
But, if SCOTUS has any intention of remaining powerful and relevant, they must be consistent. The idea that law applies in "some" cases but not all just doesn't fly. So, in theory, someone can bring DOMA and DADT up to Supreme Court Challenge, and I dont see how SCOTUS can rule with a straight face that the law applies in one case (ie marijuana law) but not another case (marriage law), and when enough states make laws allowing marijuana, or enoough states for gay marriage, then those laws become irrelevant and essentially nullified.
@PlaceboStudman. I'm not clear as to what you are saying. The 10th amendment specifically points out that there are areas in which Federal authority supercedes State authority and vice-versa.
But what those areas are or may be changes over time, and until/unless laws like DOMA and DADT are challenged, we may never know, and even the fact that SCOTUS has opened the door to these laws challenging SCOTUS means that there may be issues in them that may make them irrelevant.
Justice Scalia has already said that there are questions about DOMA and its conflict with Article 1 Section 1, the Full Faith and Credit Clause
If wishes were fishes you would be a genius.
I don't think she will be handled with "kit gloves" so to speak but she will be handled carefully as I stated by republians who MUST do well with Hispanic voters in order to become a majority party again. period.
Yeah there won't be "kid gloves". The GOP will do better with Hispanics when they stop talking down to them and start engaging them. The needless immigration debate of either you are for amnesty or against all immigrants was stupid. We could have had security first and streamlined citizenship second but the Bush White House after 2006 went stupid on this issue and tried to force feed what was a horrible immigration bill. I still believe Hispanics are a natural constituency for the GOP.
well, I am not sure. Obama is a brilliant politcal mastermind. He is making a big play for Hispanics with this pick. He has the black vote locked for the next 25 years or more. If he can build on the 67% he got last go round he will crush the GOP.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
