« NYC Prep: The Virgin Talk | Main | Honduras Update »

July 15, 2009


"It is for these reasons I’ve repeatedly said it would be stupid for Republicans to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. "

Huh, what?

It would be a mistake for the Republicans to demonstrate what an affirmative action action hack Obama has nominated and have this approach discredited before the public because then Obama would nominate even more or a polarizing left wing ideologue? That seems like the opposite of what would happen.

Since every news article on the hearing is required by law (or something) to note in the first paragraph that Sotomayor is assured of confirmation, what is the harm in making sure everyone knows what these left wing justices do? As RBG admitted in the New York Times, they come up with the desired results and then work backwards to their "three part tests" etc.. to justify their actions after the fact.

"It is for these reasons I’ve repeatedly said it would be stupid for Republicans to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination."

Does that mean you think they should vote overwhelmingly to confirm her like they did with Ginsberg and Breyer? They obviously don't have the votes to defeat her nomination but being tough on Sotomayor could expose to the public the extremism of modern American liberalism on issues like affirmative action, abortion, etc. It could also possibly energize the Republican base come election time and stimulate fundraising.

I like how he refers to Scalia, Alito, and Roberts as a "3 ring circus". What does it say about Sotomayor, and the liberal Justices in general, that they can't hold their own with a bunch of clowns?

It's not irony, it's the way the liberals expect AA to actually work. As I've noted before - there is rarely liberal AA regarding positions that count. In 20 years I've never met a truly powerful black man in the finance world, the business world, the legal world or even in Academia. Smart NAMS are supposed to know their limits - get a cushy job, live a good life but don't mess with the way things really work. AA is a sop to give smarter blacks a stake in the system, but liberals never give away the real power. Ironically it's often conservatives who fall into the trap of taking AA seriously and promoting unqualified blacks into positions of power (Exhibit A - Condoleeza Rice).

"It is for these reasons I’ve repeatedly said it would be stupid for Republicans to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination."

With 60 Democratic senators there's no way of stopping her. Do you want them not to ask questions?

The other irony? Co-opting a phrase frequently used by the right, "liberal judicial activists", changed to "conservative judicial activists".

Reminds me of the old schoolyard taunt: "I know you are, but what am I?"

"This court needed a powerful, immutable and unwavering liberal voice of unquestionable expertise as its next Supreme Court Justice to offset the 3 ring circus of Scalia, Alito and Roberts."

In other words, Sotomayor isn't in the same intellectual league as Scalia, Alito and Roberts. Even some on the left get that, they just can't bring themselves to say it. Not to say she's stupid, or even that she's unqualified for a lower court, but she's not at the top of her field.

"It is for these reasons I’ve repeatedly said it would be stupid for Republicans to oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination."

If you mean strategically letting her pass with the lowest necessary number of moderate Republican aye votes I might agree. If you mean publically rolling over, I disagree strongly. GOP votes and statements now are going to be quoted against them on Obama's next nominee if there's any benefit to doing so. Standing on principle now may let them hold the line on the next nominee (depending of course on future Senate composition). And if they can make this a close fight Obama may be forced to moderate on his next pick; an easy confirmation now only guarantees more court-packing.

And let's look farther ahead. If Sotomayor really is pro-affirmative action, anti-2nd amendment and a mediocrity to boot, that's going to come out over the course of her appointment. Even if it takes years or decades, Republicans will be able to say "I told you so" in a way that may help them with voters. If they back her now, they're going to have to pretend later they were shocked, shocked! to find she's an idealogue, which is to tacitly admit they'll have been rolled.

"In 20 years I've never met a truly powerful black man in the finance world, the business world, the legal world or even in Academia."

You may have never met them, but men such as Stan O'Neal (former CEO of Merrill Lynch), Ken Chenault (current CEO of American Express), Don Parsons (Time Warner CEO and Citigroup Chairman), etc., certainly exist. What's interesting is that folks on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum are often ignorant about their existence as well.

For example, a commenter on Ta-Nehisi Coates's Atlantic blog once went on about Aetna's complicity in slavery, apparently unaware that Aetna's board of directors included three black men, one of whom was the company's CEO ( I blogged about this in more detail elsewhere at the time: http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2009/06/senate-apologizes-for-slavery.html ).

I found this interesting, if our host will forgive the link.


Some of these answers are... less than impressive. Another reason for the GOP to let Democrats take all the blame for confirming her.

Republicans have no power to stop the nominations. The best they can do is to set themselves up for an "I told you so" moment when Sotomayor starts legislating from the bench.

***The confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor continue to resemble the Academy Awards as opposed to a substantive event mandated by the Constitution of the United States.***

"[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..." U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. II.

The Constitution does not require "a substantive event", it requires the "Advice and Consent of the Senate". I see no reason to think that a hearing is necessary to fulfill that constitutional obligation, or any other "substantive event" besides a vote.

Once again, facts have an "progressive bias". An inconvenient fact for conservatives: Conservative SC Justices are the ones likely to "legislate from the bench"

article link

"We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist."

No Mames Buey,

Another way you could look at the article you link to is that conservative justices are more likely to take the Constitution seriously and strike down laws by Congress which overstep Congress' power as delineated in the Constitution. The liberals may just be rubber-stamping unconstitutional power grabs by a progressive legislature.

Please, just because a couple of, probably, Liberal, activist law professors say something doesn't mean it is true. In fact, I take it as evidence that it is false!

All the Republicans in the senate can do is vote against her -- which is what I would do. Start sending a message right now that NO activist judges will get their votes in the future.

Even though Sotomayor disavowed the "wise Latina" statement, does that really convince anyone? Her 3 paragraph Ricci dismissal provides more evidence of her actual view than any specious claims at this questioning.

What we need to learn:

Charming NAM mediocrities are happy to destroy this nation, because they had little say in its creation.

And letting in more NAMs from places like Mexico will guarantee the elevation of other Obamas (yes, Michelle Obama will be ready for her close-up real soon)

"Condoleeza Rice"

In what way was she unqualified?

"Condoleeza Rice"

In what way was she unqualified?

Posted by: honest | July 16, 2009 at 04:15 PM
She's stupid. Read the reviews of her thesis. Media lied about her all the time. Could she speak fluent Russian? No.

Respected historians have labeled her the most inept secretary of state in the nation's history

Condi's story is as preposterous as Obama's; in Condi's case she was given an administrative deanship at Stanford. Given her melanin superpowers, onto national security advisor and sec of state.

I need to buy me some melanin

This from Slate on Condi when she was national security advisor. Incredibly incompetent:


The comments to this entry are closed.