Obama picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS slot
posted at 9:24 am on May 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Sometimes, the heavy favorites win the horse race. According to the AP, Barack Obama will announce that he has chosen Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. That allows Obama to appoint another woman and the first Hispanic to the nation’s highest court, giving him another little slice of history:
Officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama intends to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.
Karl Rove says that Sotomayor could be even more liberal than Souter, and that conservatives might feel compelled to push to block her based on her rulings from the appellate court (via Mitch Berg, from earlier this month):
Wendy Long at Bench Memos sums up in brief the case against Sotomayor as a liberal activist, the kind which Sen. Ben Nelson said he’d oppose, including this tidbit:
She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.
I’d like to see some data on this. If true, it could hand the Republicans a pretty damning bit of evidence, assuming that they’ll even go on the warpath over Sotomayor. I rather doubt they will, for a couple of reasons. First, they’ll likely get intimidated by the Hispanic pressure groups anxious to get a seat on the Supreme Court for the first time ever (unless one counts Benjamin Cardozo, of Portuguese ancestry, as a Hispanic).
Second, and more to the point, Sotomayor has been on the public short list the entire time, and the GOP has trained its guns elsewhere. They’ve been warning more about Elaine Kagan and Diane Wood, barely giving Sotomayor any notice at all. Republicans have also focused on the executive-branch appointments of Dawn Johnsen and Harold Koh, two radical activists, during this period. That public campaign may have made Sotomayor look less radical and activist in comparison, which makes a big public push less likely to succeed.
We shall soon see. Keep an eye on reactions from red-state Democrats, especially Ben Nelson, to see if the GOP can hope to cobble a coalition large enough to keep Sotomayor off the court — and whether Obama might pick someone worse if they do.
And, again … elections have consequences. This is one of them.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Again, folks…keep perspective. No matter how liberal she is, she’s replacing a liberal. With a liberal on the court, they found in favor of Heller. We still have an edge with Kennedy.
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Really? That, I don’t recall… ;p
starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Or anyone from the ninth circuit.
Vashta.Nerada on May 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM
When has Kennedy ever been a conservative?
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Granholm would certainly have been worse.
myrenovations on May 26, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Great. The hispanic Janeane Garafolo.
LibTired on May 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Yeah, because Lincoln was a Democrat and Robert Byrd was a Republican.
Wait…
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Oh man, don’t even get me started!
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Jackass … I hereby solicit a vote for you to be banned for repeating lies and slandering everyone here.
Do some reading you insolent twerp.
Anyone else want this jerk banned?
darwin on May 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM
So she’s an anti-white racist. Just shows that the teachings of Rev. Wright, Obama’s mentor, were not wasted.
MaiDee on May 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM
No one is allowed to say anything unless they have read all of her cases. We can’t take the word of legal experts. In fact we have to hire our own attorneys before we can utter a word of criticism or concern. And we should not consider anything she has said, only her cases are relevant, that’s all.
Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 10:02 AM
It doesn’t matter. The Republicans in the Senate won’t stop her. They know that the next in line will be just as bad, if not worse. It’s a lose-lose. If they fight her, the media paints Rs as racist naysayers again. If they let her through, the base excoriates them for not going after her like the left goes after every one of our nominees. It’s not like if the Republicans blow their wad on an all-out effort to stop Sotomayor and succeed, that Obama is going to suddenly nominate a constitutionalist instead. The best we can hope for is that she embarrasses Obama somehow.
The bottom line is that Souter’s replacement is not going to tip they court, even if she’s 100X more liberal than Souter. Whoever pointed it out above is right — we don’t need to wet our pants until and if Obama gets to replace Thomas or Scalia, who are getting on in years. Please stay healthy, boys!!!
aero on May 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Dogs and cats living together…
faol on May 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Ummm no. I say fight for every inch. Make a gain or lessen the lose. Never give up. Never surrender.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM
How about not all of us are ass sucking leaches whom obey the “word” of the “O”.
So STFU and maybe research yourself before you tell everyone else to not say anything.
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Kennedy has ridden the moderate line many times. DC vs. Heller was one such instance where he crossed over.
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Hey, money2, aren’t you nice343? I thought AP banned you last week.
I hope Congress asks the right questions so we can find out where she stands on everything.
kingsjester on May 26, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Hispanic pressure groups will be the least of the GOPs worries. Don’t think that Obama doesn’t know how to play identity politics with the Hispanic demographic, or that Sotomayor won’t have a story to tell that resonates with Hispanic voters. I don’t expect much more than token opposition on her confirmation.
starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
In which I will never see him as anything but a fence sitting liberal.
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I’m not saying don’t fight, but I’m saying it’s not a time to panic. If we lose, we’re back where we started. If we knock her down, so much the better.
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
The Hispanic name to be referenced here is Migel Estrada, he was borked and eventually had to withdraw his name from consideration. I think that Judge Sotomayor knows full well how poorly Estrada was treated. Republicans would be wise to support her and reference the Democrats treatment of Estrada.
Angry Dumbo on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Wow, the ubiquitous “hispanics” sure are easy to alienate. It’s like they identify 100% with any old person who might be hispanic!
Do all liberals assume “hispanics” are ignorant tribalists?
Lehosh on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I believe Geo is a stealth/sarc.
Limerick on May 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM
So she has this “gem” in her background.
And this:
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM
He tends to be the swing vote. He can be persuaded, and sometimes he swings our way. Without him, we would lose almost every important case. Four solid conservatives, four solid liberals, and a squish in the middle. If Obama gets to replace any of our guys or Kennedy, we’re sunk.
aero on May 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Can we see her LSAT score?
mr1216 on May 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Well if white males are the problem…Republicans on the judiciary committee should ask her, “do you mean white males like Patrick Leahy?” “or is he so far left his white maleness doesn’t show?” I think it is time to stop this racism forced on us from the top down. Purge some of the “white male” problems in our government.
Washington is very sick and it will take radical surgery to cut out the cancer.
wepeople on May 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Anyone else want this jerk banned?
darwin on May 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Naw, strangleit may be pesky but he is good to keep around as a reminder of the vacuity of liberal logic.
Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Credit where credit is due. Would you rather the decision have gone the other way?
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM
She’s a anti-white racist? Aren’t most liberals in that category, especially the white libs? She wants to legislate from the bench. Now thats empathy for sure.
volsense on May 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Hope she’s not a diva like Cindy Mckinney..arggh.
faol on May 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Dude, I was joking. You really thought I wanted people to hire their own attorney’s before they could say anything or even criticize this lefty on a blog posting?
Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Gothcha.
- The Cat
Yes.
MirCat on May 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM
This is far from the only area in which white males are inferior to the other races. For the good of society as a whole, they ought to be removed from positions of authority before they hurt more people and put us further in danger.
But I also wonder if an Asian woman, whose richness of experience obviously exceeds even that of a Latina, isn’t the obvious choice? We want better conclusions after all. For the sake of humanity, Sotomayor ought to withdraw, in favor of the more aggrieved, and therefore superior candidate.
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM
He was making a joke.
Blake on May 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM
yogi41 on May 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I meant Scalia, not Alito.
yogi41 on May 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM
When the GOP helped confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg overwhelmingly, they offered the President the freedom to choose an ideologically opposed appointee, as long as that appointee was a well-qualified judge.
Ginsburg was and is, but Sotomayor would seem not to be.
But it really doesn’t matter. This won’t change anything on the court, other than to magnify the already obvious difference in talent and intelligence between the left and right sides of the court.
When Ginsburg retires and Obama appoints another talentless leftist, they will lose the only truly capable liberal on the court and gain another nitwit opinionist, and the contrast will be even greater.
Bright side.
Jaibones on May 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Kennedy likes to rely on non US law. Don’t like that.
Blake on May 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM
This is the worst of the possibles. What a disappointment. The man simply cannot judge character. Or his criteria are opposite of the best interest of law and country.
Hurry find some her skeletons… not that Republicans are any good at that sort of thing. Drudge?
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Most latinas are hot as hell. Why couldn’t he pick one of those? Obama’s gay.
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Precisely! And that’s why Barry should have picked someone from the Hooters beauty contest that was on TV last night. What the hell do we get with this sotomayor???
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM
If that’s the “bright side”, that we are governed by idiots… ummm the bad side is bad indeed.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Kimberly Guilfoyle (50% Puerto Rican) for SCOTUS!!!
Outlander on May 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM
I would make a comment to the proof positive, but alas, I’d get banned. :(
- The Cat
MirCat on May 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM
woogs on May 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM
But does she pay her taxes? Oh, right, she’s an Obama nominee. Never mind.
Wethal on May 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I called it. This thing was over before it started. All that’s left is the positioning play. Remember Estrada.
Kid from Brooklyn on May 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Debate: Sonia Sotomayor vs. Julie Banderas
I claim the rights to ticket sales!
MadisonConservative on May 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Yes, but wouldn’t a blind, transgender, Asian woman have even more richness of experience?
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
I certainly expect her to reveal how many abortions she’s had and how many children out of wedlock. If her qualification is being down for the struggle, she better prove it. Walk the walk lady, don’t just talk the talk.
Hey, didn’t she go to law school? How the hell is that being down for the struggle?
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Akzed on May 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Too bad about Gonzales getting the appointment to begin with.
Along with Powell, Gonzales remains another example of Bush’s poor appointment choices. Gonzales did the wrong thing too many times with too much fall out.
It NEVER matters to minorities in the Democrat Party how many prominent positions are awarded to minorities by Republican presidents. Heart and soul, the Hispanics and Blacks have sold themselves down the river to the Democrats AS Democrats, having already determined that the Democrat Party is their racial party. In the Democrat Party, there are no holds barred as to corruption and abusive tactics.
The DNC stages the Padrone and the Pimp show for all the masses stuck on indifference to rule of law. Illustrating THAT is stage one, disillusioning the disillusioned from their persecution complex. Target the abuser rather than accept the guilt of others as your own.
maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
This is probably the best we can hope for…however, she should receive the same treatment as Bork, Thomas, Estrada, and many other conservative appointments.
No more, no less.
She needs to stand up to the tough questioning, the inquisition that the dems have used against conservative nominations.
We should treat her the same…
Who would argue against that?
The dems set the standard with Bork…we just apply that standard to her.
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Sotomayor was nominated to her New York Circuit Court judgeship by Bush 41. Clinton later got her promoted.
She was an affirmative action pick then and now. The issue of her having her decisions overturned rather frequently is something I consider to be quite important.
BigD on May 26, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Ah, Bangkok–brings back wonderful memories :)
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 10:16 AM
The dems set the standard with Bork…we just apply that standard to her.
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM
To do otherwise would be to endorse the abuse heaped upon Bork as justifiable/excusable/forgettable.
maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM
At the News Conference She’s being blocked by . . . . . . THE TELEPROMPTER!!!!
- The Cat
MirCat on May 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Drool….
Daggett on May 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Behold! The fall of The United States.
TheSitRep on May 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM
nice343 got banned last week on the Michelle Malkin thread.
I think the Republicans should bring all of their concerns out during the hearings but I don’t think this is a hill to die on since it will basically be an even swap. Bring out all of her craziness and vote against her but no filibuster.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Ah, I think we have it now. The perfect candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court: a blind, transgender, Asian woman who worked her way through law school as a prostitute!
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I’m thinking BO went with the most radical person he could find because, as it stands now, it’ll be a piece of cake to get her confirmed. If there are no more openings until after the midterms, when the Republicans take back Congress, there’s no way he’ll get another pinko on the court. He’s gotta make hay while the sun shines.
Special K on May 26, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I find it funny that Obama, during his campaign, said that JUDGEMENT is more important EXPERIENCE, since he had no experience. Now he is saying the OPPOSITE. Its her experience that matters, not her judgement.
Doublespeak at its finest.
Oh wait, my bad, she saved BASEBALL. Never mind.
Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 10:21 AM
So far his annoucement is not very serious, considering the importance of the decision.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Kimberly Guilfoyle (50% Puerto Rican) for SCOTUS!!!
Outlander on May 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM
She’s married to Gavin Newsome which means she’s either dumb as a brick or she’s dumb as a brick.
Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM
When she was nominated by Bush, things were different, and more of her opinions have been published.
So here is the “litmus” test the dems hate to own up to, but use against conservatives.
Is she an advocate of abortion
Is she an advocate of open borders
Does she feel she is there to interpret or make law
Can the government “for good cause” confiscate private property
Does she feel the U.S. align itself to international law
Is there such thing as “illegal aliens”
Should there be parental consent laws for abortion
When can a child, or what circumstances can a child make their own decisions
Does the gov. have the right to circumvent laws to impose their will on the people, if that “will” is for the common good
How much control should the gov. have over private enterprise
Do illegal immigrants have the same rights as citizens, the same rights to services
What are the “states” rights
Are worker rights protected by the union
What interrogation techniques are acceptable
Does she support racial based gerrymandering
What are “anti-discrimination” laws…
So many questions for her to specifically respond to…so many more…
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM
The Democrats treatment of Estrada was shameful. A brief historical background is presented here. There is much, much more on the shameful treatment of Migel Estrada if you do the research. You will recall Democrats portrayal of Bush 43 nominees as judges “out of the mainstream” therefore unqualified to sit on the federal bench.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/11/122038.shtml
This is the summary of the Estrada story, post withdrawal
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-09-05
p.s. Senator’s Shumer’s treatment of Estrada and the rest of the Bush 41 nominees in his first term has made me a life long anti-Democrat, a voter incapable of voting for a member of any organization that would choose have Chuck Schumer as part of their membership.
Judge Sotomayor is the best that Republicans could expect, a gift and another unforced error by the Obama administration. The Sotomayor nomination is a sign that David Axelrod must now recognize that President Obama is not as popular as the media portrays him. He is working to expand his base by naming Sotomayor, not feed red meat to the base by naming a true credentialed liberal like Kagan.
Angry Dumbo on May 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM
They’re divorced. She has since re-married and had a baby, IIRC.
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM
You may think this is all some kind of a joke, but not I. For real, all the women on the court are, let’s say, challenged in the beauty dep’t. Obviously, so is Sotomayor. So how can she identify with beautiful woman with large breasts who come before here as parties to cases? There is absolutely no reason I can think of why beauty and cup size ought not be used when assessing candidates. So again, I say, the Hooters beauty pageant has something to offer us all. I think transgendered might be a bit out there, but I’m willing to try anything, once.
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Was married. She divorced him and is married to someone else.
Blake on May 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM
They’re divorced. She has since re-married and had a baby, IIRC.
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Yay, my drooling can recommence.
Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Sonya is going to make those “stupid white males” toe the line. Beware Alito Beware Roberts. She is obviously qualified since she comes from Puerto Rico and has the richness of the latino experience and after all, she saved baseball by issueing an injunction forcing the players back the field. Oh wait that goes against the union knows best philosophy. It matters what gender you are and what ethnic mix you have. She has the right skin color too. She has EMPATHY and has the looks that could scare the warts off a toad. Good G_d. Help us.
Kuffar on May 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM
GAVIN NEWSOME IS HETEROSEXUAL?!!
Special K on May 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Judging from the outcome in the Anna Nicole Smith (aka Vicky Marshall) case, I don’t think you have to worry about the Supremes not being sympathetic enough to beautiful women with large breasts!
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Well, guess I was wrong. Thought for sure it was Granholm. I’d bet she’s still sitting on the bench as one of the shortlisters for the next opening, but we’ll see.
Oh, and I think the GOP should comb her record, do all they can to highlight her high number of reversals etc. but not say anything they can’t back up with solid legal reasoning.
Wonder what her ABA rating will be?
cs89 on May 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Apparently. He was also reputed to have a wandering d***, hence, the separation and divorce. Screwed his best friend’s wife who was also his campaign manager. That guy had balls and immediately quit when he found out.
Blake on May 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I said this ~exactly~ to my husband at breakfast this morning!
tru2tx on May 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Never give up, never surrender? Yes, I agree. But it’s also important to pick your battles and save your dry powder for ones you can win. I don’t see the profit in fighting this one too hard.
There were worse choices out there (e.g. Wood and Kagan), and perhaps we already got our best deal since neither of them was nominated.
If we succeeded in Borking Sontamayor, what would we get in her place? Plus, I don’t see us winning that battle anyway. We would just marginalize ourselves, and lose more support that we gain for the next battle.
I think we should point out our reservations about her, but then also point out her admirable lifetime achievement in rising from poverty to stature. And lastly, challenge her to earn the respect of all as a protector of the law.
Then pray.
connertown on May 26, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Lordy you are a moron.
Democrats/liberals provide social services to minorities which once hooked on, they expect the government to take care of them in perpetuity. The result is that they are enslaved just as the blacks were.
Conservatives want everyone, irrespective of color or creed, to have the opportunity to succeed and take care of themselves. The result is that they enjoy freedom.
Your view exposes you as just another liberal who is suffering from a psychological disorder where up is down, down is up, and the world must be in complete chaos for you to be happy.
Do us a favor you vile freak. Don’t ever leave your granny’s basement.
csdeven on May 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Remember, to the leftist sexism and racism are bad.
Also remember that the leftist Obama used sexism and racism to make his choice.
Of course he would chose an activist. Of course he would go for the race and gender angle. Obama has never been anything than what he has always shown everyone he is. We are going to have to deal with this and swallow another bitter pill.
As Ed said, election do indeed have consequences.]
Choke on this one, America.
catmman on May 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM
So he puts this judge forward she gets knocked down, and he puts up his next candidate, and this person isn’t as inflaming a choice, and everyone accepts his real pick. These are lawyers manipulating public opinion.
Dr Evil on May 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Bleh, yes…they do…
Aronne on May 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Only some scandal will derail her.
HOPE.
profitsbeard on May 26, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Her decision on the New Haven Firefighters Test case was ridiculous.
BierManVA on May 26, 2009 at 10:46 AM
DAMN! On second look, I thought the headliner said Obama picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS slut.
44Magnum on May 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM
She is Puerto rican.
She isn’t Mexican at all.
Puerto Rico immigrants are not illegal.
Wonder if the left will attack her for being female like they did Gov Palin.
seven on May 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM
LOL!! Good one.
Daggett on May 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM
I just can’t get past how her last name’s pronounced. Why her also! What has she done in Obama’s eyes that makes her qualified for a position in the SC? Shes a latina?
FontanaConservative on May 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Wonder if the left will attack her for being female like they did Gov Palin.
seven on May 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM
bwahahahahahahaha
+10
FontanaConservative on May 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I’ve always found the ‘Hispanics won’t vote for you if you don’t approve Sotomayer’ argument to be a bit tin-eared.
Why all Hispanics? Do they all think alike? I thought that was a racist thing to imply…
And if you are doing it by factions then the same argument is able to be used to all women… or all hispanic women… or all liberal hispanic women… or all liberal hispanic women who have views of legislating from the bench… hmmmm… seems to get pretty tight out there in faction-land.
As to conservatives being racist: MLK was a Republican because the Democrats were the party supporting Jim Crow and the party receiving influence from the KKK, as later scandals would point out. Strange that it was a Republican judge that struck down the prohibition for the Selma march that was put in place by a Democratic Governor. You know this whole ‘all conservatives are X’ sort of deal smacks just as bad as the ‘all hispanics will do X’ thing: it is an extreme and horrific oversimplification of the diversity of the American population and the people of the US, especially when trying to put group labels on them and then imply things about the label that are ahistorical and meant to demonize a group or class of people based on some affinity that is not directly named.
I find that attitude to be horrific no matter who sponsors it from anywhere in the political spectrum as it shows lack of appreciation for fellow citizens who are never easily categorized, even when they hold a similar set of positions. Of course the activity of doing that, of utilizing group castigation based on ill-founded rationalized views so as to divide up society and corrode culture is an aim of Transnational Progressivists. There it is their actions that define them, not their stated political beliefs. Do the action, get the identification. I have a hard time finding racist conservatives, but divisiveness is a defining outlook of Transnational Progressivists… thus not all racists are conservatives nor all conservatives racist, but all Transnational Progressivists are divisive because that is part of the definition of Transnational Progressivism. And they exist on the Right and the Left.
ajacksonian on May 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Hasn’t that been Republican’s problem lately? Instead of standing for something on a mature and reasoned stance, they are trying too hard not to piss off everyone except those they are suppossed to represent.
Hog Wild on May 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I hope that case gets lots of publicity. Talk about affirmative action/entitlement mentality run amok. The City of New Haven pays through the nose to purchase a test (for firefighter promotions) that has been crafted specifically by an independent testing firm so as not to have any bias against or in favor or any racial/ethnic group. The City announces, well in advance, that it is going to give the test, and advises interested candidates where they can purchase study materials. Some of the white candidates make big sacrifices to prepare for the test: one quit his second job to have more study time; others spent hundreds of dollars (or more) on the study materials and devoted hours a day for months to studying; one guy paid to have the written materials read onto tape because he had some dyslexia and learned better through audio materials. End result: the highest test scores went to the white (and one hispanic) candidates; none of the black applicants passed. But instead of promoting the white candidates who had earned the best scores, the City decides to promote no one — after a local black minister starts a grievance campaign. The white firefighters sue, the case goes up to the Second Circuit, and Sotomayor sides with the City and against the white firefighters.
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Miguel Estrada… Miguel Estrada… Miguel Estrada.
James on May 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Janice Rogers Brown… Janice Rogers Brown… Janice Rogers Brown!
Media.. try spinning the GOP as racist. try spinning the party of Lincoln and the CRA as racist.
Tell half truths and omit the Democrats dirty deeds in your reporting.
Got your talking points from KOSbama yet.. Media?
James on May 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Yeah, SCOTUS will hopefully reverse her on this case. It was a terrible ruling. I hope she’ll be able to respond to questions on it during her confirmation and not be able to defer due to the current appeal.
dedalus on May 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Shouldn’t he have waited a little bit into the week so he could take full advantage of his buddy Gen. Powell’s appearance this weekend? Maybe the nuclear explosion required a bigger news story for cover.
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM
GOP should confirm her with little resistance. If the claims against her are true, she’ll marginalize herself in short order. To wit, the Repubs can use her failures to rail against the next liberal SCOTUS replacement.
Wyznowski on May 26, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Now Ruth Ginsburg will have someone to exchange radical leftist blame with.
THE CHOSEN ONE on May 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Well that doesn’t sound so bad. Let us all reason together.
David Duke: ‘Hope that a wise Anglo-Saxon man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a non-white female”.
Discuss.
MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »