world

No filibuster, but Sotomayor battle still looms

73 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

73 Comments
Login to comment

In interviews Wednesday, Sessions acknowledged that his party has to “broaden its tent” — a nod to warnings from strategists in both parties who say the GOP, struggling to draw a more diverse base, has to tread carefully in its treatment of Sotomayor...

Yes, Republicans can't come out and openly call her a "bigot," the way that some conservatives have done here on JT.

For one thing, they would be laughed out of whatever public place they uttered it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cry me a river Republicans. These guys press these fascist Pro-Lifer types as moral cornerstones and protectors of the American values. Then when faced with someone they think holds opinions they don't like, they start talking about bias and activism.

Well Republicans. Sit down and shut up!!! We've labored under your medieval thinking long enough. It is time we saw more diversity in the court and broader perspective.

As for your party. It was once the party of liberty and freedom. You are now the party of priviledge on the one side and quaint backwardsness on the other. If you want to expand your "Tent" you need move a lot closer to the legacy of Abe Lincoln and very long way away from the legacy of Reagan and Bush when it comes to how you deal with the world. That or perish from the stage for a long time to come.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something,” Long said. “They don’t believe demographics matter or gender matters; they believe the rule of law matters, and people who vote Republican actually believe in those principles.”

Well said. For "liberals" and "critical legal theory" enthusiasts like Satomayor (and Obama) the ethnicity and gender of the framers of our Constitution makes the document and American legal system invalid in their eyes.

Advocates of a more "flexible" Constitution mean to trample it. It is for them a stepping stone to greater government control over your life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Republicans can't come out and openly call her a "bigot," the way that some conservatives have done here on JT.

For one thing, they would be laughed out of whatever public place they uttered it.

Too late. Rush just did.

Republicans are going to lose this one, and they are going to look bad doing it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter. Your post is pretty revealing. First it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of American history and the changing nature of how the constitution has been interpreted. Anyone with a grasp of history can see that the most recent stint of damaging interpretations of the constitution to meet political ideology was the Neo-con period and the Bush administration who twisted and ignored the constitution to meet their political and power agenda.

Further, Republicans love to envision themselves as abosolute protectors of the constitution when faced with any challenge to their objectives. You talk about how your side sees it through pure and untainted glasses. You do this when it is convenient to your agenda, but quicly assault and tread upon the constitution when it is in the way of your agenda. Examples range of suspension of habius corpus, violations of power as enshrined in the constitution and your stead fast imposition of conservative religious doctrine into attempts and imposing laws founded on those same zealous opinions.

But when a minority, or so called liberal perspective comes along, you cry foul. In a historical context this is utterly ridiculous.

Let's be fair. America was founded on a constitution that guaranteed the equality and liberty of all yet tolerated the institution of slavery. Subsequently laws were passed to refuse human rights to native Americans, to ban Chinese and people of Mexican descent from having rights or even citizenship. Japanese were not allowed to own property. It took a Civil War and another hundred years to gain civil rights for African Americans.

There is no real separation of church and state as the conservative masses of the US rule with the bible in one hand and the contradiction of separation of church and state in a document in the other.

Our constitution is a marvel of human advancement over the past that came before it. But it is equally a document that leaves many people out of the picture and that has bee subjected to extreme interpretations whenever polical will and agenda required it. For either side to point fingers at the other for this is absurd. And for someone to portray either side as allies of the constitution is naive at best and a demonstration of astounding denial on the other.

We need different voices in the court to make it as fair as humanly possible. Our new nominee can help achieve that. And will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something,” Long said. “They don’t believe demographics matter or gender matters; they believe the rule of law matters, and people who vote Republican actually believe in those principles.”

That is one of the most laughable lines I've read in a long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gingrich has already called her a racist. Isn't he a republican?

You know if the republicans had won the elections then we'd be looking at some white guy, from some ivy league college with a nasal pitch. You would expect him to try to bring the justice and constitution to bear just as it was written with no Roe VS Wade or anything else progressive or current.

But that's okay with me today because the democrats are in control at the moment. Matter of fact, in the next 7 years how many Justices are there that could retire? Imagine even more democratic selected Justices? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans are going to lose this one, and they are going to look bad doing it.

Yep. It's going to get a lot harder to attract a lot of non-white takers to the Republican white supremacy tent.

There are some decent Republican/conservatives left. Not, however, the ones who cry and scream "bigot!" over anyone who expresses pride, as Sotomayor does, over the many beauties of her Latino heritage. (As well as the advantages in making judgments her knowledge of two cultures gives her over the similarly educated non-Latino who knows only one.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gingrich has already called [Sotomayor] a racist. Isn't he a republican?

So he has. So he has.

How much farther can the Republicans sink?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She is a racist. She believes in policy from the bench, which is unconstitutional. She is also part of the "Dumbing of America", as proven in here ruling in the New Haven firefighter's reverse discrimination case.

I am repeatedly amazed at the hatred most Democrats hold for those that voice an opinion different to theirs. Rest assured those that mistakenly voted for “Change” and now see what they have done, will not make the same mistake twice.

And for the

0 ( +0 / -0 )

javnation

Rest assured those that mistakenly voted for “Change” and now see what they have done, will not make the same mistake twice.

Psssst... I'd vote for him again. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's be fair. America was founded on a constitution that guaranteed the equality and liberty of all yet tolerated the institution of slavery.

Never heard of the 14th Amendment? I'm not surprised - it was Democrats who fought its inclusion.

And please - when the Constitution was being drafted we were basically 2 countries: the South had an economy which, like most of its sort up to that time in history, had a slave class to do what machines (like the cotton gin) eventually liberated manual laborers from.

There was no way the young republic could have eventually united and withstood the still formidable threats European powers posed at that time had the framers of the Constitution stated outright what later came to be one of their main causes under the Republican Abraham Lincoln.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream at 12:39 PM JST - 28th May Psssst... I'd vote for him again. < :-)

Please read my post. Did you mistakenly vote for "Change?" Many did, I somehow doubt you are one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No mistake, I'd still vote for his kind of change.

I would expect someone like Sotomayer to be selected by Obama. That's the kind of change I voted for. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We have an absolute constitutional duty to make sure that any nominee, no matter what their background and what kind of life story they have, that we examine that so the American people can know that the person we give a lifetime appointment to ... will be faithful to the law and not allow their personal views to influence decision-making,” Sessions said in an interview on NBC’s “Today.”

Now they do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something,” Long said.

Now they do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just a few: The reverse discrimination case, which it should have been called simply a discrimination case, does/did include non-whites in the case. She sides with the city due to the financial burdens that were to come.

I on the other hand was hoping a better outcome would have happened, especially for the Puerto Rican who was among them. It was plain discrimination.

Also, I don't know why all you white people think you won some points because Obama put a Hispanic up there. And, I don't know why you think simply because he put one up there (notice how many more blacks are getting positions and over more qualified Hispanics - NASA for example). If you think we are stupid and are easily won, you got another thing coming. Let a Hispanic for the officer of the President and all this is forgotten. Bear in mind, not all of us are happy about an "elite Hispanic" getting even more, as many of us like to call those who run La Raza these days.

And here what aday, just kissing up again: I would expect someone like Sotomayer to be selected by Obama. That's the kind of change I voted for." Why, what did you know about her before this? And why are you so happy about those fire fighters not getting what they deserved? I'd love to see you bring yourself to that part of the Bronx and think yourself is safe simply by saying you supported Sotomayor.... Better, come to Miami and say that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter,

That the Democrats fought the inclusion of the 14th Amendment in no way refutes the point that Republicans tolerated slavery.

When Sotomayor says that "our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions," she is uttering a basic human truth. Be they black, white, Latino, Christian, Muslim or Jew, everyone's experiences affect their decisions.

When she goes on to add that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," the key words are "wise" are "experiences" not "Latina woman" or "white male".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter.

Party politics aside, slavery was in stark contrast to the values enshrined in the constitution. Despite the presence of African Americans fighting in the revolution.

Your argument about two countries and two economies does not justify the institution of slavery for a nation founded on a concept of freedom.

Some real political history for you. 1. The Republican position with the south was far more about Union than about slavery. Lincoln's taking up an abolitionist position nearly cost him the next election.

The 19th century period political planks of the Democrats matches well to the 20th and 21st century Republicans. After the turn of the 19th to 20th century the political positions of Republican and democrat, as understood in Lincoln's age reversed. The Democrats took up a more liberal idealogical path, while the Republicans abandoned their's for a more conservative and anti-central government position. So your modern day GOP party is not in any way the Lincoln Republican party. Claiming it is flies in the face of fact and history.

Lastly, you did not address all the other violations and contradications of constitutional values I mentioned.

The GOP is a dying party out of touch with the nation and with the modern world. The change that America needs is towards far more inclusion, lesser barriers of race and culture and the implementation of idealistic and effective solutions to very real problems left unaddressed by the GOP in the last eight years of power.

Change is here, and the majority of us are ready to back and support it. Your GOP lot should learn from Lincoln and take up a more humanitarian and rational approach to the real problems in America. If you fail to do so, and carry on being the party of reactionaries and priviledge, then your party will continue to decline. Period.

And please get your history right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sotomayor is an american yes? so what is the problem then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Change is here, and the majority of us are ready to back and support it.

Change? To listen to most "Liberals" you'd think slavery, which was basically limited to the South, is still practiced throughout our great nation and that American women are still denied the vote.

The constant charges of "discrimination" by the army of lefty moralists out there is vital to your pathetic identity politics.

The noble, color-blind proscriptions of the 14th Amendment would put you out of business if we had judges who truly honored the ideals in our Constitution.

I predict Democrats and "liberals", in their desperation, are going to reinstate segregation wherever they can.

It's already happeneing on campuses - which have been dominated by Lefty control freaks for decades now.

You need to create as many little aggrieved constituencies as possible.

Even more repugnant is how you seek to basically bring millions of blacks back on the plantation, so to speak, by implementing (first with the "Great Society") a whole spectrum of legislation aimed directly at corrupting and or destroying the black family, particularly in urban areas.

But of course the fatuous rationale for all of this is that it is being done in the name of "diversity", when in fact it is all in active and corrosive opposition to the founding ideals of E pluribus unum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

telepromter: I'm not sure where you are going with this. I like your posts and I respect your straight up-ness, but are you saying the US can't be diverse? You wouldn't want someone like me living near you?

I can understand your concern how many lefties, and many on this board will go way overboard usually because they are scared, however, it seems your post above is tilting towards hate.

As I said, I feel there are many more people out there, and I admit, only after the fact that I only as of now looked into it, who would have been a better choice but it seems you are more upset at her being Hispanic. I hope that is not the case. We have been in the US since it came to be if not even before so and we too are of European Culture as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” She added, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

I haven't made a decision about his choice yet. I'm going to wait until the hearings and what she really has to say then. I also tend to agree with the Whitehouse that this comment should be taken in the whole context of the speech that it was pulled from.

But.... On the face of it, I was pretty put off by it though. I strikes me as elitist clap trap of the type I have never cared for. I'm a white male but I also happen to be half German, I've had just as a diverse life as she had, with my own rich multi-cultural upbringing. I found her comparision that she would be more able to reach a better conclusion than a person such as myself or millions of other white males, who grew up in multi-cultured families or in rich diverse neighborhoods and towns, to be a little insulting myself.

Again I'm reserving judgement, but I really was put off by what she said about herself in that quote. We will see if that was just an aberration or if that is her real character during the hearings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every time anyone mentions race, gender, consideration of economic or social status or need the GOP crowd start screaming foul. It is almost as if they believe that if anyone is given any consideration for their unique sitution, that it somehow undermines the rights of everyone else and casts the value of American independent intrepidness into doubt.

If we help the disadvantaged you call us socialists. If we try to offer employment diversity you cry reverse decrimination or segregation. This is of course utter nonsense.

Now granted the US has never been a bastion of equality despite our propaganda. It has been white first and everyone else second or last. But this extends beyond that, because a lot of those left out in cold were also white, poor whites or poorly educated whites. The poor masses, no matter what race or creed, have had more in common with each other's struggle than they every fully appreciated. And it has been the duty of conservative politics in the US to foster fear and hatred between these groups rather than allow them to become unified in a cause to improve things for all disadvantaged people. Afterall if Hispanics are in conflict with African Americans and all in conflict with disadvantaged whites, then they won't notice the economic exploitation and political isolation that they all mutually suffer under.

But things are changing and that has the GOP and conservatives trying to stir up racial and economic anxiety between populations again. Well.. this time it won't work. Thanks to eight years of patently obvious exclusion of nearly all disadvantaged strata of people in the US during the Bush dark age, we collectively see how things really are from the GOP side. The exception being a few zealots who don't see their own downfall from that party.

Things need to change. We want more diverse representation in government, in the courts and in society in general. We are open now to leaders of color and of different origins. We now more clearly see that the struggle of a white working class many in Alabama is the same struggle as the Hispanic worker in the run down regions of LA. We know that our collective struggle is for health care, for security for our families, for protection of our civil rights, and for the development of our economy. And we know that the GOP will not do that because your partrons of industry do not benefit from these achievements. So you would leave working class Americans out in the cold in favor of benefits for corporate and rich Americans. That is going to end.

Change is here people. And the sad thing is that Teleprompter and his lot would most likely benefit from the changes too. If they would look past the propaganda they have been fed to see that what raises one working class man or woman, raises us all in the better creation of a society with opportunity and consideration for all instead of priviledge and exploitation as we have seen throughout our history. Change is overdue, change is here.

Moderator: Readers please stay on topic. Posts that do not refer to Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Teleprompter. I think you just showed your colors here.

"Every single American I know has had far, far more troubling experiences with Americans of races other than their own."

What you could have said is that all American have had some troubling expereinces with other Americans. That is a better reflection of our multi-cultural reality. There are good and bad people of all races, creeds and economic strata.

"But I know very few people who let those unfortunate experiences so affect and condition them that they let it decide their political philosophy."

But yet you allow your experiences and bias to encourage you to stereotype and attack the nominee. This statement is absurd because all people base their political philosophy on the collective experiences and ideologies that make up who they are. Some do so with a more enlightened way that recognizes that race is not the defining factor of any individual, while others engrain their racial bias into both philosophy and political motivation. This is simply a fact of human nature. But one that must be curtailed with the rule of law that protects all equally.

"May I ask in what city you experienced this "southern racism"?" Tyler, Texas in the summer of 1971. Thought it is hardly the only example I have seen in my life. Racism was and remains a real challenge.

I welcome a supreme court justice who can bring her cultural, racial and gender background to the table. We need that kind of understanding together with the collective understanding of the rest of the court to make decisions that reflect our nation and interpretations of the constitution and the law that assure the equality and protection of our laws and rights.

I want to see our constitution evolve in ways that better protect all our citizens. And I want to see a supreme court that rules by law and not by political agenda as we have seen in recent years. We need balance in court to air all sides and to reach decisions that protect us all.

I welcome this new candidate and feel confident that she will have every opportunity to prove her worthiness for the court.

One last note. We should spend more time listening to the true stories of real American experiences. We can learn from them. We can feel from them. And we can grow from the knowledge they give us. Do I think a little anecdote can persuade Americans here? Yes I do. Because those who take the time and patience to listen to other's experiences and have the empathy to try to understand, can become instruments of change. We see this all the time. One small story can lead to activism and change. That is the power of a society that is free to speak, to write and to exclaim an opinion or share a true experience. That is more American than anything in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, I don't know why all you white people think you won some points because Obama put a Hispanic up there.

A highly qualified judge who is also a Latina means that all of the US wins -- not just white people.

As for partisan points, I have noted a number of posts which crowed about how the previous administration put minorities in key positions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the law, for conservatives, is further constrained to treat us as individuals, not to elevate certain groups above others.

Judges, in theory, are supposed to be able to rise above human nature. In reality, human nature always plays a part.

For most of US history, the courts have elevated whites, especially white males, above all others -- regardless of the words of the 14th.

When the vast majority of white folks in the US can feel a similar pride to Sotomayor's Latina heritage as she herself does, it will mean that the dominant, non-Latino society is respecting her as the individual she is. Speaking as one whose ancestry is entirely northern European, I am delighted that President Obama cast his net to include representation on the highest court of the land from qualified judges who are female and non-Anglo.

The great pretense and hypocrisy on the part of conservatives is their delusion that the dominant white society is always right in the exercise of its judgments, especially the more those judgments match what they believe are those of the founding white fathers. Judge Sotomayor will be there to ensure that such a delusion can not take too great a hold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So reading Sotomayer's comments we have the GOP posters trying to drag the slavery issue into the story. It's kinda funny listening to their scare tactics.

I'm very proud to be from the South and totally respect the reasons for the South to take their stand against the North and the trash that they pulled on the North. If it wasn't for the South ceding from the North, the North would have continured treating the South like Red-Headed Step-Children. The worst race riots this country ever saw were in Pennsylvania after the War between the States.

Sotomayer is a product of America. She was raised like so many other poor Americans and made her way above that. She worked hard, succeeded and has been confirmed by congress twice. The GOP knows that this isn't a battle they want to take on. They will pick their battles and this isn't one of them. Sure McConnell will beat the drum, some republicans have to fight back just for the fact that they can't just let her float through with no decenting votes.

I think that Sotomayer is only the first of more democratically selected Justices. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I happen to find people of color to be very beautiful. Especially when added to the group with white folks like myself. (Does that make me a racist?) Since people of color make up a certain percentage of American society, I have to wonder about settings like the Supreme Court where they have never had representation in proportion to their numbers.

It is an issue of character and understanding of the law.

These are nothing less than code words. Sotomayor understands "the law" just fine. She wouldn't have gotten to where she has under Democratic and Republican administrations otherwise. The problem Sotomayor's critics have with her is that she refuses to interpret the law from the perspective of narrow-minded, angry and fearful white males.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The GOP knows that this isn't a battle they want to take on.

You are right on.

The Sotomayor nomination hits home that the party is over for the time being for the Republicans, and they are forced to confront that they are being marginalized by Americans in general.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 10:45 PM JST - 28th May I happen to find people of color to be very beautiful. Especially when >added to the group with white folks like myself. (Does that make me a >racist?)

It does is you hire some one based on the color of their skin or their race! It is so funny that people who purport to stand for equal rights are so quick to discriminate. Talk about dual standards!! I have no knowledge of the makeup of the Supreme Court, but I would hope it is made up of the best people for the job and I would hope none of them consider themselves better qualified JUST BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN or if they look beautiful.........

Code words, my God, but it amazes me how people will bend things so they are comfortable.

narrow-minded, angry and fearful white males

Hey got any other pet hates?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It does is you hire some one based on the color of their skin or their race!

So when a white person looks at a corporate board or a panel like the Supreme Court and sees nothing but white men, we can safely assume that they are all there because they are inherently better than anyone else. Uh-huh.

What if I was president, and I wanted to nominate someone especially because I wanted their expertise and perspectives of the Latin-American -- as opposed to Anglo-American -- point of view?

Are you denying that the United States is made up of several different sub-cultures, and that the Latin community is one of those very important ones in terms of sheer numbers? And that anyone who comes from that community who acknowledges its values and wisdom should be excluded from a position historically granted mainly to white males?

I don't "hate" narrow-minded and fearful whites; I've lived around them most of my life. It is especially fun to watch them on the occasion when they try to dress it up, as they are doing with the Sotomayor battle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see it is automatically because the people who made the decisions were white racists.

I prefer the term "scaredy-cats" to "racists." Scaredy-cats feel comfortable around people they feel are most like them, and feel uncomfortable around those they feel are "different." Sotomayor makes those who emphasize their "Anglo-ness" very uncomfortable.

How come Clarance Thomas is there.

Thomas is there to provide cover for scaredy-cat white conservatives who use him to fend off arguments like this one. It is called a "token." There is no way in God's green Earth that the conservatives would ever have recommended a Thurgood Marshall. Conservatives at the time were opposed to Justice Marshall, just as they are opposed to Sotomayor today.

That said, Clarence Thomas is a white conservative's wet dream.

I am sorry you feel guilty about being white.

I have never felt guilty about being white. I once considered myself a conservative, but then eventually felt guilty about being among such petty and fearful people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A political gift to the Obama's hardcore leftist supporters for sure and one that will probably haunt moderate democrats for foreseeable future. no big deal to the nation, she is just a replacement for another left leaning judge and it will interesting to learn how left leaning she is and if her track record of being on the wrong side of the law 60% of the time holds true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...her track record of being on the wrong side of the law 60% of the time...

I don't think there is any such track record. I'm fairly sure, however, that there are people who do not like 60% of her decisions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RASMUSSEN: 87% of Americans expect Sotomayor will be confirmed, only 45% say she should be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: "RASMUSSEN: 87% of Americans expect Sotomayor will be confirmed, only 45% say she should be."

And yet only yesterday...

"(teleprompter at 06:20 PM JST - 28th May - "Polls" are important in Europe, where they are one of many devices used to tell the sheeple what to think, but in America they mean little."

'Nuff said. Except I find your argument a little 'interesting':

A first ever African-American president electing a Latino woman to the Supreme Court = (somehow) Democrats wanting blacks at the plantation.

Does anyone else see some extreme problems with teleprompter's line of 'argument'?

Obama has made a fine choice, and he did so more on her qualifications and experience than on her ethnicity. That the latter adds to the overall mix of the Supreme Court judges is an excellent plus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

87% of Americans expect Sotomayor will be confirmed, only 45% say she should be.

Apples and oranges. An individual's expectation of whether a thing will or will not happen is largely independent of their value judgment of whether or not it is good for it to happen.

The same poll shows that only 29% say she should not be confirmed. It's a relatively safe bet that her confirmation is expected by many of those who say she should not, many of those who say she should, and many who say they are undecided. This is particularly true since no one so far has enunciated a compelling reason as to why she should not.

With Harriet Miers the case was rather clear as to why she should not. Both sides of the aisle opposed and for different reasons. However, Miers lacked the essential gravitas necessary for the position. Not so, Sotomayor. There is yet no serious objection to her--save for the fact that she is Obama's nominee.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something,” Long said. “They don’t believe demographics matter or gender matters; they believe the rule of law matters, and people who vote Republican actually believe in those principles.”

What a joke that is. In 2000 the SCOTUS suspended the constitution and appointed Bush President. Any pretense that the SCOTUS was not a rightwing political hackhouse filled with republican appointees following the party line was gone. That case, how it was handled, tarnished the SCOTUS forever. Republicans care about only one thing, power. And now they have been totally corrupted by it and our soon to disappear forever as a party.

Obama has whamped the repubs once again on this appointment. No way they can protest too loudly for fear of losing even more of the hispanic vote. And Bush senior appointed her first. Done deal. Next appointment will be outright liberal. And if Thomas gets caught again reading porn on the job his replacement will be not be another Uncle Tom type who sleeps during most cases.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:"A first ever African-American president electing a Latino woman to the Supreme Court = (somehow) Democrats wanting blacks at the plantation."

No one gets elected to the SCOTUS. They are nominated. The first "Hispanic" was nominated by Bush in 2001. "Liberals" opposed the confirmation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: All that and yet you fail to deny that your logic is utterly flawed on this thread. Fine, I'll edit my post slightly.

teleprompters logic: a first ever African-American president NOMINATES the first ever Latino woman (and she will be the first there, since the GOP can't refuse her) = the Dems want the blacks back on the plantations.

There, now instead of nitpicking terms you can actually try to defend your ludicrous (but very funny!) assertions.... or CAN you? haha.

Seriously, though, as I said, good on Obama yet again. The GOP canNOT deny this one, and would simply sink down in flames even faster if they tried. Hence, they're not going to filibuster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter at 10:37 AM JST - 29th May No one gets elected to the SCOTUS. They are nominated. The first "Hispanic" was nominated by Bush in 2001. "Liberals" opposed the confirmation.

OK you may have mislead many people by your comment. Miguel Estrada was not nominated for the Supreme Court. Bush nominated him for the "D.C. Circuit".

The Democrats opposed his nomination because he was too far to the right for their liking. So they filibustered his nomination and he was denied.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"a first ever African-American president NOMINATES the first ever Latino woman (and she will be the first there, since the GOP can't refuse her) = the Dems want the blacks back on the plantations."

smithinjapan:"Seriously, though, as I said, good on Obama yet again."

You really amuse. Good on Obama? For what? Do you imagine you live in the US and will, by some chance, somehow benefit from a future decision by Sotomayor?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter:

Do you imagine you live in the US

You imagine you do, apparently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You imagine you do, apparently.

I'm a US citizen residing in Japan.

You?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sotomayor is a member of National Council of La Raza, which is basically a supremacist group advocating secession.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

She's a racist who needs to be borked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: "You really amuse. Good on Obama? For what? Do you imagine you live in the US and will, by some chance, somehow benefit from a future decision by Sotomayor?"

What's amusing are is your continual posting that people from countries other than your own, or that are not residing in your native country (including you, I might add!), are not entitled to their own opinions on a Japanese news site. It always proves without a doubt that you actually have nothing of worth to contribute to such issues, and therefore likewise proves that those of us NOT from the US usually have more relevant contributions to make on the topic, and are often vastly more informed than natives to the country.

While we appreciate your indirect validation, it really does scrape the bottom of the 'argument' barrel to say that people can have no say on issues of race or decision-making when they are not American, and in particular when it's bad for the GOP (you never say such things when people are arguing, say, against Pelosi).

"She's a racist who needs to be borked."

Yeah... this from a guy who thinks that the first African-American president nominating the first Latino Supreme Court judge is tantamount to Democrats demanding the 'blacks' go back to the plantations!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Americans here know that the New Republic is one of the more respected and principled voices on the Left. They published their reservations about Sotomayor weeks before Obama nominated her.

"Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative."

"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter. Post Date Monday, May 04, 2009

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: Look, I think tkoind and yabits covered the bases on your comments pretty thoroughly, so I won't add anymore (since it's pretty clear you don't listen anyway), except to what you posted towards the quotation:

'“Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something,” Long said. “They don’t believe demographics matter or gender matters; they believe the rule of law matters, and people who vote Republican actually believe in those principles.”'

You commented that this was 'well said', etc., when it reality, as tkoind and yabits pointed out, Republicans always say this kind of drivel when it suits their purposes, and ignore the constitution when it doesn't.

Lest we all forget, let's take a look at the biggest Republican in recent history, and what he had to say on the subject of the constitution:

(in regards to a meeting to discuss the renewal of the Patriot Act, after being questions about the constitutionality of certain elements of the Act): “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a god-damned piece of paper!”

Or how about old Gonzo, while still White House council: "The Constitution is an outdated document.”

Anyway, teleprompter, care again to tell us how Republicans care about the constitution?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

National Council of La Raza, which is basically a supremacist group

Is this the same "La Raza" that George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain have supported by making appearances before them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The New Republic" did not voice its reservations; one writer -- Jeffrey Rosen did. There have been voices of support coming from TNR, a magazine which I've subscribed to for nearly two decades.

Here is what Rosen said as a follow up to the piece about Sotomayor that so many mindless conservatives have apparently siezed upon:

Many people have mischaracterized my argument, and I can understand why. The headline--"The Case Against Sotomayor"--promised something much stronger than I intended to deliver. As soon as the piece was published, I regretted the headline, which I hadn't seen in advance. The piece was not meant to be a definitive "case against" Judge Sotomayor's candidacy. It was intended to convey questions about her judicial temperament that sources had expressed to me in the preceding weeks. That's why I concluded the piece not by suggesting that Sotomayor was unqualified for the Supreme Court, but by suggesting that "given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

"Not that smart". She did, however, graduate summa from Princeton and was an editor at the Yale Law Review. I'm not sure who the law clerk was (and Jeffrey Rosen didn't say) and why the clerk had it in for her (although Rosen assures us that it could not possibly have been personal). However, one of the most telling sentences of the article is where the author says:

I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.

At least he was honest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

You know when folks like teleprompter start quoting The New Republic in an attempt to influence the rejection of Sotomayor -- when the TNR writer Rosen is saying that she might not be a strong enough liberal (!) to counteract the conservatives on the court -- you know they are getting very desperate.

Just as a conservative like TP will quote a liberal when it suits their purposes, they will, as you said, cherry-pick the constitution to achieve the same. Of course, they have to make a show of caring about it. But that is all it is: a show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, teleprompter, care again to tell us how Republicans care about the constitution?

Smithinjapan has demonstrated repeatedly he doesn't understand even the most basic procedures involved in this case but all I need to confirm the statement in the article

“Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something.They don’t believe demographics matter or gender matters; they believe the rule of law matters, and people who vote Republican actually believe in those principles.”

is a Rasmussen poll taken during our last presidential campaign:

"While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree."

That sums up pretty clearly the differences between Left and Right in America.

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."

~ Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis, in 1820. [ ME 15:277 ]

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "You know when folks like teleprompter start quoting The New Republic in an attempt to influence the rejection of Sotomayor... "

Dude - nobody here influences the potential rejection of a SCOTUS nominee. Hell, it's very rare that someone here even changes the minds of other posters.

I still read the TNR from time to time. Also get their podcasts. I'd like to think the old Democrat Party - the one of Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey et al can hopefully one day make a comeback.

I highly recommend reading and listening to what the other side has to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I strongly believe that judges should rule on what is in the Constitution. For Supreme Court justices, that is exactly what they often have to do.

That is the question: what is in the Constitution?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: "is a Rasmussen poll taken during our last presidential campaign:"

So, we have a guy quoting polls when only yesterday he says:

"(teleprompter at 06:20 PM JST - 28th May - "Polls" are important in Europe, where they are one of many devices used to tell the sheeple what to think, but in America they mean little."

So which is it, teleprompter? Which of the flip-flops you've been doing day in and day out do you actually believe... or does it just change when it suits you, like your support of, ahem, in the words of biggest Republican in recent history, "...a goddamn piece of paper!"?

Hahaha. That was a rhetorical question. But it does beg the question of how you could possibly convince yourself that someone doesn't know about the article when he points out a quote saying, “Republicans actually believe the Constitution means something" and counters that with two of the biggest Republicans in history saying, "It's outdated", and just a "Goddamn piece of paper". Sorry, but spin all you like, that certainly doesn't sound like it means much to them at all.

But, once again, I challenge you to explain how the constitution means more to men like bush, who say what he said and pi$$ed on the constitution with the Patriot Act, and less to people like the Democrats who actually stand up for it and deride such comments like those made by bush and gonzo, and then fight against the Patriot Act to defend the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Again, try not to spin, and try directly to answer my questions. I know you won't be able to, because it would require you to admit that your logic on this thread is fundamentally and utterly flawed.

Gawd, man, you still haven't denied you linked the idea that an African-American president (first ever) nominating a Latino woman for Supreme Court judge somehow means Liberals want 'blacks' back at the plantations!

Seriously, dude....

At least your last post to yabits made a LITTLE bit of sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter at 01:39 PM JST - 29th May Sotomayor is a member of National Council of La Raza, which is basically a supremacist group advocating secession. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html She's a racist who needs to be borked.

Oh my god NOOOOOooOOOOooooOOOo, this can not be, she is a member of a Hispanic civil rights group! I can not believe this, the world is going to be subverted by this evil far left wing nominee! The very fabric a wholesome red blooded Americans is in danger!.....

Hey I have a great idea, let us see who are partners with this Stalin like group!

Ok let's see who are the Companies who support this evil group!

The Allstate Corporation Bank of America The Coca-Cola Company Citi Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation PepsiCo Foundation The PMI Group, Inc. State Farm Insurance Companies UPS Univision Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Ok, let's make sure every red blooded American boycotts these far left groups......

OK now let's see what the agenda of this pinko group is!

the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans.

errrr wait, wait a minute....Ah La Raza is a Hispanic civil right group!

Ah Teleprompter, is there something wrong with civil right?

I did not get the memo you got, so could you please share with the rest of us, what is wrong with civil right?

http://www.nclr.org/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

telemprompter: That I actually have to point out this fact to you shows just how utterly in denial you are. On November, 2005, Capitol Hill Blue: Goes something like this:

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions" of the Patriot Act "could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Bush: 'I don’t give a goddamn,' Bush retorted. 'I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.' 'Mr. President,' one aide in the meeting said. 'There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.' 'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. 'It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!'"

There are more than 59,000 hits on the internet that directly quote this. YOU deny it, as do some 8% it being reported everywhere that he DID say it. As for gonzo, well, I thought you knowing full well him saying, "The Constitution does not say that every citizen has the right to habeas corpus" would be enough. Guess denial is easy.

"I can't deny what I didn't say."

Gosh memories get faulty when comments are deleted, don't they? You went off on some very bizarre tangent about how this nomination is tantamount to Democrats wanting blacks back in plantations and what not. Not surprising it got deleted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, good on Obama for choosing someone based on qualifications, and adding a little mix to the others on the Supreme Court. Despite teleprompter saying for three days that a certain Hispanic Civil Right's Group is a group of racists, we all know he made a good choice, and we know it's a choice the GOP or the very, very small group that would fight her simply to stand up against Obama cannot win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Anyway, this one is indeed a blog like some you have quoted from in the past, but the YouTube video is an interesting one (can't find it on actual YouTube)."

Forgot the link:

http://whitehouser.com/politics/bush-constitution-just-a-piece-of-paper/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, watch the YouTube video...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ouch!

Associated Press: “Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale. And Sotomayor’s life and lifestyle after law school largely resemble the background of many lawyers who rise to powerful positions in Washington.” But there’s also this: “Her ethnic consciousness was apparent in the earliest days of her career, in the New York City prosecutor’s office.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project...

LOL! No. Only MOST of it. And the neighborhood she moved to for Catholic high school was blue collar, lower middle class.

She's a real American success story, and an inspiration.

As for "her ethnic consciousness" being apparent, what doesn this mean outside of the fact that she spent a lot of time as a volunteer to help members of the Puerto Rican community? I guess that's something only a Republican could hate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is very interesting about the AP story on Sotomayor that teleprompter quoted is this tidbit:

"Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren't Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired."

Anyone want to guess about the ethnic background of this "parter?"

When Sotomayor, who graduated from Princeton with highest honors, talks about white men who "haven't lived the life," you can bet she's referring to incidents like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When Sotomayor, who graduated from Princeton with highest honors, talks about white men who "haven't lived the life," you can bet she's referring to incidents like this.

She's one quarter "Puerto Rican." She looks "white" to me. I couldn't care less.

The idea that her skin pigmentation and gender make her somehow more qualified to interpret the Constitution is ludicrous.

It's particularly galling coming from the Left, still patting themselves on the back because Obama has cleared funding for a single line of stem cell research, legislation which supposedly proves "liberals" are champions of rational, scientific thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter at 10:48 AM JST - 30th May Ouch! Associated Press: “Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale.

Oh my god, no! A Hispanic family going from the projects to a middle class neighborhood! What would the neighbor think?

I do not know about anyone else but I think her story is a success story. More positive is she did not forget her families roots....

BRAVO ZULU to her and her family for living the American dream. Too bad not all Americans see it that way...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It's particularly galling coming from the Left, still patting themselves on the back because Obama has cleared funding for a single line of stem cell research, legislation which supposedly proves "liberals" are champions of rational, scientific thought."

Hey, talk to your Republican ex-president if you want to ask who are more the champions of scientific thought. Granted, even 90% of bush fans were against his stance on stem-cell research and science, but since you brought in that off-topic little tidbit to show your utter disdain for bush, just thought I'd counter.

As to the person in question on the thread, it doesn't matter whether your Republican or Democrat, or not American altogether, Obama made a good choice for all Americans, including you. Good choices for the US often reflect on other nations in a positive manner. If countries as supposedly great as the US are willing to reflect the multi-ethnicity of their society, others cannot ignore their own. It's even better that she's as qualified as anyone else, and therefore the idea that it's preferential treatment based on race/gender (and don't forget when bush chose Rice you guys were jumping up and down about how far advance the bush White House is) is sheer and utter foolishness -- THAT's why the Republicans can't win in an attempt to filibuster, and would only come off looking more like morons.

Good job, Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A Hispanic family going from the projects to a middle class neighborhood! What would the neighbor think?

Funny, I don't recall Clarence Thomas' rise out of truly abject poverty to SCOTUS nomination - and by the sort of patriotic old "white" Republican that race hustlers like Sotomayor insist don't appreciate life's hardships - making the liberal media reach for their little hankies to dab their tear-filled eyes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter at 04:47 PM JST - 30th May A Hispanic family going from the projects to a middle class neighborhood! What would the neighbor think? Funny, I don't recall Clarence Thomas' rise out of truly abject poverty to SCOTUS nomination - and by the sort of patriotic old "white" Republican that race hustlers like Sotomayor insist don't appreciate life's hardships - making the liberal media reach for their little hankies to dab their tear-filled eyes.

"What you talking about Willis?", We went from talking about a nominee to now talking about a Supreme Court justice.......

OK since you asked, Justice Thomas had it rough and he too is a shining example of America. He was very poor and his family had nothing and he rose to the highest office in the land. His story is truly American.

Teleprompter you do bring some very confusing things to the table......

Now can you get back to talking about your points, or should I say talking points about the present nominee......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When she goes on to add that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," the key words are "wise" are "experiences" not "Latina woman" or "white male".

No, the key word here is "better", that was her mistake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, the key word here is "better", that was her mistake.

Not so. Substitute "white male" for "Latina woman" and it's very clear what she is talking about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[The New Republic] published their reservations about Sotomayor weeks before Obama nominated her.

Here is what Jeffery Rosen has updated, regarding Sotomayor: "In my view the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is not her inspiring life story: Clarence Thomas overcame similar personal obstacles, but far from giving him a sense of empathy, his background has created a sense of anger and ideological rigidity. Instead, the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is the idea that the range of her experience--as a trial judge, appellate judge, and commercial litigator--might give her the humility to recognize that courts participate in a dialogue with the political branches when it comes to defining constitutional rights, rather than having the last word. This hope, however, flies in the face of the idea that she will be a liberal counterpart to Antonin Scalia--a fierce and eloquent advocate for liberal views. And she does not have the range of political experience of the politicians Obama considered--Janet Napolitano and Jennifer Granholm. For these reasons, the role she will, in fact, play on the Court is difficult to discern from her record.

"Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. My concern was that she might not make the most effective liberal voice on the Court--not that she didn't have the potential to be a fine justice. Questions of temperament are often overlooked, but history suggests that they are the most relevant in predicting judicial success. (Justice Scalia may be a brilliant bomb-thrower, but has failed in his attempts to build coalitions and bipartisan majorities.) Now is the time to think more broadly about the role Justice Sotomayor is likely to play on the Supreme Court, and I look forward to doing that in the weeks ahead.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/the-sotomayor-nomination.aspx

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites