Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on May 26, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The Republicans have got to take a stand on this one,” said Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a proponent of a filibuster. “If they don’t, they can kiss their chances of ever getting back into power away,” he added…

“Do GOP leaders have the courage and integrity to filibuster an activist, pro-Roe[v. Wade] judge?” asked Terry, who argued that Democrats — including then-Sen. Obama — opened the door to such action after threatening to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination in 2005.

***
Justice Stevens of the current court came in for a fair share of criticism (all justified in my view) for his expansive reading in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) of the “public use language.” Of course, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is as complex as it is short: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But he was surely done one better in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion–one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

***
Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. There is little doubt about it. So, going into weeks or months of paroxysms and hysterics about alleged “judicial activism” is just going to make the party look bitter, mean, tone deaf, and out of touch…

So, for the good of the party, after applying reasonable due diligence, we ought to be prepared to wave a white flag on Sotomayor, give Colin Powell a big bear hug and sincere thanks for sticking it out, and move on.

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Is there anyone at the Daily Beast with gonads? Anyone at all?

The Daily Beast’s idea of the ideal Republican is a compliant servant to his betters in the Democrat party; bowing and genuflecting before them while trying to emulate and be like them to the best of his ability.

/pathetic

AZfederalist on May 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Why is there a picture of Rosanne Barr at the beginning of this post?

GoodBoy on May 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM

careful or the GOP politics police will hang you out to dry…

sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Just because it’s likely she’ll get confirmed doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. Firemen still put water on fires that have destroyed buildings.

SouthernGent on May 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM

I don’t believe in being “better” than the opfor I believe in being so much worse they learn to fear you….

sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for my guns art with me and I am the meanest sidewinder in the valley.

Tuco on May 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM

So, for the good of the party, after applying reasonable due diligence, we ought to be prepared to wave a white flag on Sotomayor, give Colin Powell a big bear hug and sincere thanks for sticking it out, and move on.

Really?

This is what I did when McCain won the nomination.

Will. Never. Ever. Do. It. Again.

Hey McKinnon…

kiss my rosy red ass.

Saltysam on May 27, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. There is little doubt about it. So, going into weeks or months of paroxysms and hysterics about alleged “judicial activism” is just going to make the party look bitter, mean, tone deaf, and out of touch…

Or it could educate the public about judicial activism and the type of person Obama sees as a “responsible jurist”. Much the same way Cheney’s public statements lately have educated the public about Guantanamo among other things. We should’ve just taken the sanctimonious Truth Commission bunk and just moved on. Right?

ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 12:22 AM

I’ll take the party back thanks.

sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Make sure when you draw yourself taking the party back, you mount yourself on a gleaming white unicorn while piercing McCain’s chest with the mighty dragonlance and a scantily-clad Palin grasping your waist.

TMK on May 26, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Think i’ll go with sven10077 on this one.

heshtesh on May 27, 2009 at 12:22 AM

So, for the good of the party, after applying reasonable due diligence, we ought to be prepared to wave a white flag on Sotomayor, give Colin Powell a big bear hug and sincere thanks for sticking it out, and move on.

Really?
This is what I did when McCain won the nomination.
Will. Never. Ever. Do. It. Again.
Hey McKinnon…
kiss my rosy red ass.

Saltysam on May 27, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Yep, The Daily Beast, not a single pair of stones among the whole lot of ‘em

AZfederalist on May 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM

So according to the GOP leadership, we should bend over AGAIN and get sodomized politically speaking.

How about we fight this pick tooth and nail via the filibuster and we submit a list with picture and profiles of 5 of the most qualified moderate to conservative latino justices in the court systems?

Then we are anti-leftist, BUT 100% pro-latino. Duh? Come on GOP, this isn’t rocket science.

Sapwolf on May 27, 2009 at 12:24 AM

give Colin Powell a big bear hug and sincere thanks for sticking it out

He really means, “sticking it to us”. What a dope this guy is.

We should be on our knees praising Colin Powell for declaring that he has not, despite the desire of some narrow and vocal forces within the GOP, left the party. Because if he does, we might as well turn the lights out.

ROFL…

ddrintn on May 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM

Hey, I have an original idea (okay, it’s 230 or so years old, but apparently it would be new information to many of our fellow citizens)! Why not suggest that all men and women are created equal, and that anyone who doesn’t hold to and understand and isn’t able to explain that view should be disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court?

Or would that be too revolutionary?

CK MacLeod on May 27, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Why not suggest that all men and women are created equal

CK MacLeod on May 27, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Racist!

MB4 on May 27, 2009 at 12:36 AM

BTW – never forget that Mark McKinnon was the guy who, despite having been close to McCain for years, was just so darn into Obama he had to leave the campaign. It was just too emotionally difficult for him to think of criticizing and working against Obama.

CK MacLeod on May 27, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Fight her all the way.

jukin on May 27, 2009 at 12:46 AM

Um, didn’t TMK commit a hate crime? He called us all gay as if thats a bad thing. Thats banworthy on most lib websites.

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 12:52 AM

Memo to my party: Blasting targets like Sonia Sotomayor and Colin Powell is a surefire strategy to guarantee our extinction.

Memo to Mark McKinnon: Listening to pussies like you is what brought the party to the brink of extinction in the first place.

infidel4life on May 27, 2009 at 12:55 AM

Um, didn’t TMK commit a hate crime?

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 12:52 AM

I sure did. I hate political parties that pretend to represent conservatives.

TMK on May 27, 2009 at 1:00 AM

I’m really glad I trust in a sovereign God.

shick on May 27, 2009 at 1:10 AM

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 12:52 AM

And BTW, just out of curiosity, how much more of this RINO garbage will it take before you give up on the GOP? How many more milquetoast Republicans will you vote for before you stop being “shocked and disappointed” they lied about being socially and fiscally responsible? Will it always “the lesser of two evils” for you?

TMK on May 27, 2009 at 1:13 AM

Why is there a picture of Rosanne Barr at the beginning of this post?

GoodBoy on May 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Ugly is one thing. Lifetime appointment to SCOTUS ugly-to-the-bone is truly depressing.

infidel4life on May 27, 2009 at 1:22 AM

Don’t filibuster, but definitely get tough with her during the hearings, and then vote against.

WisCon on May 27, 2009 at 1:24 AM

TMK on May 27, 2009 at 1:13 AM

McCain would have been much more fiscally conservative than either Bush and more socially conservative than Bush Sr. Certainly more than Obama in both cases. I’d rather not vote for a Bob Barr spoiler.

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 1:25 AM

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 1:25 AM

“Will it always ‘the lesser of two evils’ for you?”

Speedwagon82: Yes.

TMK on May 27, 2009 at 1:30 AM

She has gotten where she has through viva la raza affirmative action and she doesn’t really understand how the, non campus, world works. Academia and elitism make up her world view and she is proud of it. Dangerous and should be challenged to defend her policy is made through court “wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more” decision beliefs.

2Tru2Tru on May 27, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Do we KNOW that she is pro-Roe v. Wade?

Could it be that no one asked?

Someone posted a link to a organization she is supposed to be on the board of and it sounds very pro-life to me. It posts the development of the baby and gives advice on proper prenatal care… if that is true. We should hold our fire a bit there could be something else going on here.

Even if she is only about a really through education of expectant mothers. That is pro-life. Studies are out there about how knowing the development of the baby keeps abortions from happening.

As information comes out it could be the left that filibusters this nomination. Maybe that site was a head fake but maybe it wasn’t.

I’m too tired to find it tonight but the link was in the comments on the article in Headlines…

petunia on May 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

TMK on May 27, 2009 at 1:30 AM

So what is your point? That if McCain had lost 45 states instead of less than 30, we would only nominate Ron Paul clones from now on?

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 1:36 AM

Fight Damn it! Fight!

Tim Burton on May 27, 2009 at 1:39 AM

I have not read through any of the comments, but I am pretty sure someone else must have noticed that Rosanne Barr is vying for the SCOTUS!

carbon_footprint on May 27, 2009 at 1:39 AM

I have not read through any of the comments, but I am pretty sure someone else must have noticed that Rosanne Barr is vying for the SCOTUS!

carbon_footprint on May 27, 2009 at 1:39 AM

To me SotoSmooto looks like a cross between Rosanne Barr and Bert Lahr, who played the cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz, when he was much older.

MB4 on May 27, 2009 at 1:51 AM

Speedwagon82 on May 27, 2009 at 1:36 AM

Your pitiful “Ron Paul” strawman aside, the point is that your precious GOP will someday be just slightly to the left of the UK’s Conservative and Unionist Party, the UK’s “lesser of two evils.”

TMK on May 27, 2009 at 2:05 AM

I may be taking my life in my hands here but how do we know she is pro Roe? The WSJ article gives strong evidence that she may not be. I have an odd feeling she could be surprising on this issue.

msmveritas on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Take some PeptoBismal for your “odd” feeling. She is pro choice. Following precedent is what judges are supposed to do. And in all the cases cited by the WJS that is exactly what she did. All of the California Supreme Court judges are pro gay marriage. However, the issue with prop 8 was whether it was an amendment and there for legal? Or, a revision and therefore illegal. It clearly was not a revision so they upheld Prop 8.

I think what is more interesting is that a gang like the WSJ who should know better is trying to sell her as a moderate on abortion. They just got to push that RINO agenda every chance they get. puke.

Blake on May 27, 2009 at 2:30 AM

petunia on May 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

It’s called Childbirth Connection. The site’s not outwardly pro-life, but it beats NARAL. I find it hard to believe that Obama would nominate anyone who isn’t far left on abortion, but then again, why would a divorced woman with no children be so concerned with pre-natal care? The potential schadenfreude of replacing Souter with Bizarro Souter is too much for me to handle. She’s an uncompromised leftist on issues she has done opinions on, so I’m not holding out hope.

Colin Harris on May 27, 2009 at 2:36 AM

“…not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Congratulations,0bama. You and your minions, hatchetmen and mindless followers have killed Dr. King’s Dream.

May God have mercy on your souls…

SuperCool on May 27, 2009 at 3:25 AM

MB4 on May 27, 2009 at 1:51 AM

lol

carbon_footprint on May 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM

I suddenly have a hankering for Taco Bell

Kini on May 27, 2009 at 4:05 AM

So, for the good of the party, after applying reasonable due diligence, we ought to be prepared to wave a white flag on Sotomayor, give Colin Powell a big bear hug and sincere thanks for sticking it out, and move on.

Bullshit!

Whether Messiah gets her approved or not, she must be opposed. She must be bitterly opposed, in point of fact. If she does get approved, and sits on the court, she must be disgraced in the public’s mind. Her recorded claim that the appellate court is where policy is made makes her unfit to serve as a judge.

And should the Democrats approve her despite massive Republican opposition, THAT should be used as major ammunition to defeat Democrats in the Senate in 2010 and Messiah in 2012.

georgej on May 27, 2009 at 4:08 AM

“For the good of the party”?Screw the party,what’s good for the country?In this case what is good for the country is for the Conservatives(rep and Dem)to fight tooth and nail to defeat this travesty.Win or lose,show some intestinal fortitude.Just because we probably going down,doesn’t mean we have to go down easy.

DDT on May 27, 2009 at 4:12 AM

Principle before personality. Her story is compelling. Even more so since she seems determined to gut the social contract that nurtured her. She needs to be confronted in a friendly fair and firm manner. Let the Dems appoint her, but not until she has been taken to the woodshed for being an ungrateful racialist, liberal activist, and a shallow jurist.
Randy

williars on May 27, 2009 at 4:16 AM

No sense in even attempting a filibuster – it’ll simply turn into another RINO outing party and food fight within the party itself. We would need every single Republican vote to sustain a filibuster and at least one or two from the Democrats.

Better to stand on principle and concentrate on this …

1. GIVE HER A HARD Confirmation hearing. Ask her the tough questions – about her record – and her racist statements. Make her publicly eat those words – or ratify them.

2. Republicans vote her down – RINOs vote for her – we get the real team players on paper so we can support those guys in the future – and cut loose the RINOs.

There is a possibility that she will flunk her questioning so badly – even moderate Democrats abandon her – in that case, by all means filibuster – it’ll be a bipartisan one.

HondaV65 on May 27, 2009 at 6:00 AM

HondaV65 on May 27, 2009 at 6:00 AM

I agree and if she is indeed weak on property rights (I just woke up, haven’t read everything) I would hit hard on that. The abortion issue will be with us forever but I think almost universally people want their property protected. I sure don’t think it needs to be the vote the Republicans gave Justice Ginsberg.

Cindy Munford on May 27, 2009 at 6:22 AM

Yeah, let’s send a message to BO that he can just throw anyone up for the SCOTUS and we’ll just roll over.

Geeze.

stenwin77 on May 27, 2009 at 6:52 AM

The Anchoress had an interesting post up on this nomination at First Things:

Howard Kurtz just annoyed me on twitter by passing on the news that the Mainstream Media will be pressing forward on Sotomayer’s “compelling life story,” and he suggests the press will be wondering if the GOP (given that several Republican senators voted for Sotomayer in the lower court) would dare to oppose this “First Puerto Rican” SCOTUS nominee. Specifically Puerto Rican, mind you, not simply “Latina.”

I wasn’t annoyed at Kurtz personally, but at the press’ immediate willingness to play a race card on behalf of the Democrats. When President Bush nominated Miquel Estrada to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, I don’t recall the press wondering if the Dems should dare commence with their successful filibuster because of race.

Moreover I find the posy-bearing “compelling life story” idea to be gag-inducing. Aside from making news reporters sound like they’re narrating programming for the LifeStyle network (“…in a moment, a very special story…”) it seems manipulative and dishonest, to me. Good heavens, if anyone on the Supreme Court has a “compelling life story” it is Clarence Thomas, but the press didn’t feel the need to gush over his rise from dirt-poverty. And if a “compelling life story” is all it takes to be a Justice, then let’s just haul Susan Boyle over here and be done with it!

With Sotomayor’s nomination we’ll see both race and gender card be played. If you don’t like her, you’re a racist misogynist.

If seated, Sonya Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court, but it is very doubtful that you will see the press or Democrats wring their hands about “imbalance” or “too many Catholics” should she be seated. In the upside-down world of misnamed liberalism, “bad” Catholics like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas are harmful to the world and little children, while Catholics in the mold of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are “the good ones.” And if that reminds you of Archie Bunker suggesting that the black guy at work was “you know, one of the good ones,” well, there you go. The liberalism of my youth has morphed into all that it hated. I somehow doubt the left would be amused to know that St. Paul could identify with them, as he wrote “all that I hate, I am become…”

Terrye on May 27, 2009 at 6:53 AM

No, AP, we fight to stop a racist pig from getting on the SCOTUS.

Her racism and willingness to ignore the constitution is so overt that a CLINTON APPOINTED SUPERIOR chastised her in writing for it. A liberal reporter did also.

“Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters’ crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion ‘contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case’ and its ‘perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.’ To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, ‘Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.’

I have a fundamental objection to having a racist in this position, or the white house.

dogsoldier on May 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM

Dear goopers, by all means fight tooth and nail to defeat this qualified candidate. Your already known as the party of NO, and your losing the Hispanic vote anyway, so go ahead, dig your own grave, why stop now. And those remarks on her looks, you go guy, that’ll get you back into power. Because you need to win the shallow callous voter group. I pray you neanderthals fight this nomination, you’ll look like the losers you already are.Obama plays your side like a fiddle and your oblivious too it. You know why? He’s so much smarter than anyone on your side. Rush has already said he hopes Sonia fails, and he repeated he hopes Obama fails, nice. Maybe you can send Cheney out to fight this nomination, or Cheney and Rush together, like a concert tour. Stay classy neocons.

athensboy on May 27, 2009 at 7:18 AM

OT: “The Goode Family” debuts tonight. I personally think it warrants an open thread tonight.

DethMetalCookieMonst on May 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM

Memo to my party: Blasting targets like Sonia Sotomayor and Colin Powell is a surefire strategy to guarantee our extinction.

So, for the good of the party, after applying reasonable due diligence, we ought to be prepared to wave a white flag on Sotomayor, give Colin Powell a big bear hug and sincere thanks for sticking it out, and move on.

Translation: If we want to keep calling ourselves Republicans we better start supporting Democrat causes. Then when the next election comes around we can say that we are different and people will believe us.

Isn’t that the very definition of RINO?

With friends like that…who needs enemies?

Onus on May 27, 2009 at 7:29 AM

athensboy on May 27, 2009 at 7:18 AM

You are like one of those little “My Friend Nancy” dolls, that repeat the same tired garbage over and over.

Here’s Lil’ AthensBoy! With over 21 original phrases, Lil’ AthensBoy is sure to be a great time!!!

Hey goopers, good luck!

Hey cons, stay classy!

By all means, goopers, keep it up!

AND SO MUCH MORE!!! BUY YOUR OWN LIL’ ATHENSBOY TODAY!

blatantblue on May 27, 2009 at 7:29 AM

O/T

For people who thought this was all just an overreaction

FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE USED TO TERRORIZE PATRIOT

TheBigOldDog on May 27, 2009 at 7:32 AM

Sotomayor says that a minority judge is better due to life experience. Since religion teaches us that God is the only perfect judge, does that mean God is a gay, blind, deaf, Arab-American midget quadruple-amputee with AIDS and a peanut allergy?

fusionaddict on May 27, 2009 at 7:37 AM

Terrye on May 27, 2009 at 6:53 AM

What is most insidious about the MSM is NOT the political hacks that on a 24/7 basis spew their biased venom; most rational people (not Obamatrons) accept James Carville and Paul Begala have an agenda to push.

But what is INSIDIOUS is how the the puppet-masters at the various media outlets decide on the narrative or template that is going to be presented to its audience, in this case the emphasis on the Sotoayor life story over her judicial philosophy or rulings, and to exclude anything that does not enhance or legitimize the narrative or template and to include any tidbit that convinces the audience to accept its version of the truth.

What these media outlets have become is similar to the system that old-time movie studios employed before 1955. Scripts need to be approved by the studio(puppet-masters). Directors (floor directors) have a certain creative latitude but must not change the fundamentals of the theme of the script. And the actors (journalists) who work for the studio on contract are expected to do their jobs and execute the script as written and not suggest any other template.

technopeasant on May 27, 2009 at 7:41 AM

The current set of Republicans in congress are wetting themselves by the prospects of getting their stupid mugs on TV over this one. They can look “Presidential” while at the same time swapping spit with Colin Powell (figuratively, of course)!

There isn’t one rock solid conservative on this committee and not one with enough stones to take this woman on! The deed is done! Live with it and enjoy, you silly Republicans! Be proud of your party because this is what “moderation” is all about…

sabbott on May 27, 2009 at 7:44 AM

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Judge Sotomayor makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

This concerns me more than anything else in Sonya’s judicial history. This and gun-rights.

stenwin77 on May 27, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Just because it’s likely she’ll get confirmed doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. Firemen still put water on fires that have destroyed buildings.

SouthernGent on May 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM

Exactly. The GOP needs to at least make the point about judicial activism, the case that’s worse than Kelo, identity politics, racism etc. When bad decisions come down, instead of people saying you never warned us, they can say, well we told you so.

aikidoka on May 27, 2009 at 7:53 AM

Get ready Hot Air readers, because the good ole’ Republican Party is about to prove its worthlessness once again. It is going to allow the party big-brains to come out and tell you why it is in the best interest of the party to allow this racist onto the court and that conservative objections are not good for the party.

It certainly should not come as a surprise to anyone. The worthless Republican Party should be abandoned just like it has abandoned conservatives and lovers of liberty. I still do not understand why people insist on clinging to this party after it repeatedly bends you over and tells you it is for the good of the party. There will never be a viable third party alternative until people lose the battered spouse syndrome. What more does the Republican Party have to do or fail to do in order for people to finally tell it to piss off?

King of the Britons on May 27, 2009 at 7:55 AM

Kelo is one of the 15-20 worst decisions the SCOTUS ever rendered. Raich is up there, too. But after Kelo, wouldn’t any other decision in Didden have been activist?

Note I’m not holding up the majority’s reasoning in Didden, since there doesn’t appear to have been any.

DrSteve on May 27, 2009 at 7:58 AM

Soto needs to be destroyed.

The GOP needs to start taking the gloves off.

bluelightbrigade on May 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Well why not a German Justice? Why Latino? Too many illegal aliens will get rights now, plus if we’re gonna play games lets get other heritages in there.

johnnyU on May 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM

What!!!

North Korea Threatens Armed Strike, End to Armistice

N. Korea Warns of Military Strike on S. Korea

MB4 on May 27, 2009 at 2:34 AM

I think North Korea needs close close monitoring. Its almost time to shut Jong Jongs mouth.

johnnyU on May 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM

So, we’re trading a nominal moderate with leftist tendencies for a nominal leftist with spittle-flecked Marxist tendencies.

Good times.

spmat on May 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM

The Republicans in congress need to do whatever it takes to stop this nomination. Start with hard questions, and end with a filibuster.

darktood on May 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Sotomayor says that a minority judge is better due to life experience. Since religion teaches us that God is the only perfect judge, does that mean God is a gay, blind, deaf, Arab-American midget quadruple-amputee with AIDS and a peanut allergy?

fusionaddict on May 27, 2009 at 7:37 AM

Heck, why not nominate Roy Batty. He’s seen things we wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion (that’s something Obama should appreciate, provided he’s learned how to pronounce Orion by now!) and C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate.

I hate all this “racial mysticism” higher knowledge crap.

venividivici on May 27, 2009 at 9:18 AM

My mother-in-law has a far more compelling personal story than this doughy legal hack, but I wouldn’t want her in the supreme court either. On second thought, a tough-as-nails Polish Catholic that the Nazi’s couldn’t kill just might be an improvement in some respects. She probably knows the constitution better than half the current court and she certainly knows what freedom means.

SKYFOX on May 27, 2009 at 9:25 AM

What more does the Republican Party have to do or fail to do in order for people to finally tell it to piss off?

King of the Britons on May 27, 2009 at 7:55 AM

When something is true, it is always true. It’s the same mystifying scenario that plays out time and time again between the Democrat party and minorities. “Just keep voting for us and we’ll keep taking a dump squarely on your heads.”

Onus on May 27, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Wow, from that picture it looks like Rosanne Barr is up for SCOTUS.

Alden Pyle on May 27, 2009 at 9:51 AM

It’s called Childbirth Connection. The site’s not outwardly pro-life, but it beats NARAL. I find it hard to believe that Obama would nominate anyone who isn’t far left on abortion, but then again, why would a divorced woman with no children be so concerned with pre-natal care? The potential schadenfreude of replacing Souter with Bizarro Souter is too much for me to handle. She’s an uncompromised leftist on issues she has done opinions on, so I’m not holding out hope.

Colin Harris on May 27, 2009 at 2:36 AM

THIS is the question that should be asked by some Republican:

“Judge Sotomayor, if you believe that one’s life experiences must play a role in their judging, please tell us how you, as a divorced woman with no children, can fairly judge cases involving married couples and parental rights?”

rockmom on May 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

My dad grew up in near-poverty (the dollar goes a lot farther in the south) in a single-income home with 7 siblings (1 of whom was a foster child) and with a hard-working father who never made it past the third grade, was illiterate, and was hospitalized with suspected tuberculosis for a long period, leaving the family with no money to speak of. He enlisted in the Air Force and served honorably, achieving the rank of Staff Sergeant before having an 800 lb. bomb accidentally dropped on him, resulting in the amputation of half his clavicle, the near-amputation of his arm, and his eventual honorable discharge. He graduated from technical school with welding certification and worked in the private industrial sector (with a short stint as an officer with the GA Department of Corrections) for 25 years before deciding to take early retirement and take up civilian work with the United States Marine Corps. He raised three children who all grew up to be well-adjusted, productive members of society.

Clearly, he has no idea what real life and hardship are all about.

fusionaddict on May 27, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Suck it up and wave the white flag? I don’t think so. For inspiration I recommend this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7-iFDyVb2c

http://www.mytpn.com

tnmama on May 27, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Wikipedia is (for the swift and crafty) a useful image creator when political needs arise. Sotomayor’s Wikipedia profile is well pruned, leaving out her ‘white male’ comments, and listing enough conservative decisions to make her look like a moderate. No mention of La Raza. The Wikipedia profile comes as number 1 searching ‘sotomayor’ on yahoo

From Sotomayor’s complete speech delivered 2001, as published 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, reprinted by NYT

Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life Sotomayor 2001

.
….

I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering Sotomayor 2001

in particular note this comment:

“there can never be a universal definition of wise”

I assume this is the justification for racial representation

and this comment:

“There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but”

But …

entagor on May 27, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2