Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[Praktik]

God, it is so annoying that conservatives bemoan the liberal media, yet every news station accepts the "racist" comment as if it is fact. In context, she really was talking about race and sex related cases. I don't know of any way that conservatives could claim she was talking in general except if they were lying or didn't read the context they claimed to know.

Exactly - she wasn't talking about ALL cases. And what she said differs little from Alito:

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

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.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. 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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.

SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.​

And to be honest, I don't see what's so controversial about either Sotomayor's OR Alito's similar positions on this.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly - she wasn't talking about ALL cases. And what she said differs little from Alito:

There is an important difference, though. Alito is talking about what influences him personally, and made no claim to any of those experiences making him a better judge compared to someone without those influences. Sotomayor's comments were about hypothetical generic people whose only characteristics were their race and gender, and suggested that those characteristics would make one person a better judge than the other. Yes, there is a superficial resemblance between what they both said, but there are rather important difference as well.

 

[dudalb]

Rush Limbaugh screaming about racism is one of the funniest things ever, since Rush has been playing the "Angry White Man" card for his whole career as a commentator. Let's be honest, Limbaugh whole shtick, although, of course , he never says so in so many words and would violently deny it, is that the country was much better off when "things were the way they are supposed to be"...ie, White Anglo Males dominating the country.
The GOP seems intent on throwing away another block of voters. Soon the only blocks the GOP will have left is white males and the Fundy Christians...and that is not enough to win in today's country. I see no hope for the GOP until they accept that playing the Angry White Man and Angry Fundy Christian cards are not winning hands after the last election.

 

[KingMerv00]

Like I said though, in my ideal world, we have to live with the justices (supreme and lower) we get to encourage more due diligence at the ballot box.

It sounds like you are more interested in teaching the American people a lesson than proper checks and balances.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Rush Limbaugh screaming about racism is one of the funniest things ever, since Rush has been playing the "Angry White Man" card for his whole career as a commentator. Let's be honest, Limbaugh whole shtick, although, of course , he never says so in so many words and would violently deny it, is that the country was much better off when "things were the way they are supposed to be"...ie, White Anglo Males dominating the country.
The GOP seems intent on throwing away another block of voters. Soon the only blocks the GOP will have left is white males and the Fundy Christians...and that is not enough to win in today's country. I see no hope for the GOP until they accept that playing the Angry White Man and Angry Fundy Christian cards are not winning hands after the last election.

Yup, with the Latino/Hispanic population growing in the U.S. at the rate it is, the GOP is practically guaranteeing another round of major losses.

I wonder how long this sort of thing will go on with the GOP? Will the Republican party have to wait until guys like Limbaugh die off before they change their course? Man, I hope we don't have to wait that long

 

[corplinx]

It sounds like you are more interested in teaching the American people a lesson than proper checks and balances.

A check and balance that wasn't historically a rectal exam consisting of placing a 3 ring circus up the person's backside.

"Is this person looney or seriously defective?"
"No?"
Check.

Edited to add: Case in point, I see they are digging on Soyomawhatever's college records now trying to find something to Bork her with. Its just silly.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Edited to add: Case in point, I see they are digging on Soyomawhatever's college records now trying to find something to Bork her with. Its just silly.

Man, it seems the GOP is getting dragged by the Rushies into another round of losing strategy. I sense some major fail coming their way.

 

[Brainster]

Rush Limbaugh screaming about racism is one of the funniest things ever, since Rush has been playing the "Angry White Man" card for his whole career as a commentator. Let's be honest, Limbaugh whole shtick, although, of course , he never says so in so many words and would violently deny it, is that the country was much better off when "things were the way they are supposed to be"...ie, White Anglo Males dominating the country.

I have never gotten any sense of that at all in the years that I listened to Rush (1998-2008). I do not listen to any of the conservative talk shows anymore other than Medved (and that only irregularly), but I never felt he was racist. He may pine for the 1950s in some ways (although I doubt he would enjoy the marginal tax rates back then), but I never sensed racism from him, and would have turned him off back then if I had. Remember, Barack the Magic Negro is a song about Al Sharpton, who's supposedly singing it.

 

[Praktik]

Ya well I think with Rush its not so much the overt kind of racism you'd see from say, Michael Savage - its a little more subtle than that and the weird thing is, from my Rush exposure, I don't actually think he's consciously racist, but unconsciously so.

Its the way his wounded white male routine works him into some subtle racism, rather than being out and out, white robe type stuff.

 

[rwguinn]

I find it interesting that you folks would rather show even more evidence that Rush is an idiot and a jerk, and try to tar Republicans with the same "Rush Brush" than actually discuss the implications of her decisions and utterances...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why is it that when a liberal interprets the law, the liberal is an "activist judge" but when conservatives do it, they're "just following the law"? Do you conservatives actually think we don't see the double standard here? Why is it that the experiences and decisions of liberals tend to be opinion over "law" but when conservatives assert "values" over the law, it's fine?

This woman will become a Supreme Court judge, there is just no reasonable justification to not confirm her.

 

[Praktik]

I find it interesting that you folks would rather show even more evidence that Rush is an idiot and a jerk, and try to tar Republicans with the same "Rush Brush" than actually discuss the implications of her decisions and utterances...

Chalk me up as fascinated by the discourse on the right. I think its a valid topic of discussion and inquiry.

Rush is an interesting phenomenon.

 

[Cicero]

Why is it that when a liberal interprets the law, the liberal is an "activist judge" but when conservatives do it, they're "just following the law"? Do you conservatives actually think we don't see the double standard here? Why is it that the experiences and decisions of liberals tend to be opinion over "law" but when conservatives assert "values" over the law, it's fine?

This woman will become a Supreme Court judge, there is just no reasonable justification to not confirm her.

Same with Roberts and Alito, both of whom then Senator Obama voted down, and he joined a filibuster against Alito.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Same with Roberts and Alito, both of whom then Senator Obama voted down, and he joined a filibuster against Alito.

See, this is what some people have trouble understanding.

The "good" side (usually referred to as "we") raises troubling issues about a candidate for one of the most important positions in the country whose decisions will have serious, far-reaching implications. It is imperative that these people are given proper scrutiny.

The "bad" side (usually referred to as "you," or sometimes "they") willfully obstructs and goes digging through the garbage of upstanding persons with reputations of public service in a partisan witch hunt in order to be vindictive.

Pick either side you like.

I hope this helps.

 

[fishbob]

You would be wrong. FDR was the only president who tried to radically expand the size of the court in order to fill it with his own appointees.



That's not stuffing. You don't seem to understand what FDR really tried to do.



The real problem with Meiers wasn't that she was an ideologue, but that she was unqualified. And I've seen nothing from Alito or Roberts on the bench to suggest that they are ideologues. They are conservatives, to be sure, but why is it a problem for a republican president to appoint conservative judges? It's not, just as it's not a problem for a democrat president to appoint liberal judges.

Par 1 and 2: Move a goal post why dontcha, then go all semantic on me.

Par 3: Meirs was a toady. Not saying that Alito or Roberts are ideologues, but that because of Meirs - and the Bush penchant for valuing loyalty over competence - Bush appointees were rightly considered very carefully, being checked out for toadiness.

 

[fishbob]

You don't understand. Liberal SCOTUS nominees are never ideologues; they're just liberals.....

Whiff - - - you missed that one by a mile.
Consider my response to Zig, then try again.

 

[fishbob]

There is an important difference, though. Alito is talking about what influences him personally, and made no claim to any of those experiences making him a better judge compared to someone without those influences.

I disagree with you.
I think Alito was saying exactly that these experiences made him a better judge. And I do agree with him.

 

[Cicero]

See, this is what some people have trouble understanding.

The "good" side (usually referred to as "we") raises troubling issues about a candidate for one of the most important positions in the country whose decisions will have serious, far-reaching implications. It is imperative that these people are given proper scrutiny.

The "bad" side (usually referred to as "you," or sometimes "they") willfully obstructs and goes digging through the garbage of upstanding persons with reputations of public service in a partisan witch hunt in order to be vindictive.

Pick either side you like.

I hope this helps.

In short, what goes around comes around.

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree with you.
I think Alito was saying exactly that these experiences made him a better judge. And I do agree with him.

You seem to be choosing to read that into his words, but no such claim is actually made. Furthermore, it is (as I already mentioned) purely an issue of his individual experiences, and not a quality of his race or gender, as Sotomayor is framing it. That too is a significant difference, which you have not argued against.

 

[Skeptic]

Harumph!

From what I know about her, yes, she seems to be an activist judge, which is a bad thing.

The problem is, that is FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT HER.

And what do I know about her? Well, bits and pieces I've read on both conservative and liberal web pages.

They both single out the same phrases from the same decisions, more or less -- the liberals for praise, the conservatives for blame. (In addition we have the usual nonsense that doesn't even pretend to deal with her legal views: the conservatives snickering, "well, she's not that smart, look what she wrote here...", the liberals whining, "everybody who doesn't want her nominated is a (wait for it) raaaaaaaaaaacist!!!". Ah well.)

Color me unimpressed. Every judge writes TONS of opinions. It is probably possible to quote-mine anybody to prove just about anything. Is there anywhere objective I can go to to make up my mind?